< draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-00.txt   draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-01.txt >
INTERNET-DRAFT R. Housley Network Working Group R. Housley
Intended Status: Proposed Standard Vigil Security Internet-Draft Vigil Security
Expires: 15 July 2019 15 January 2019 Intended status: Standards Track March 06, 2019
Expires: September 7, 2019
Use of the Hash-based Signature Algorithm with Use of the Hash-based Signature Algorithm with CBOR Object Signing and
CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) Encryption (COSE)
<draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-00> draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-01
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies the conventions for using the Leighton-Micali This document specifies the conventions for using the HSS/LMS hash-
Signature (LMS) algorithm for digital signatures with the CBOR Object based signature algorithm with the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption
Signing and Encryption (COSE) syntax. (COSE) syntax. The HSS/LMS algorithm is one form of hash-based
digital signature; it is described in [HASHSIG].
Status of this Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at This Internet-Draft will expire on September 7, 2019.
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright and License Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Algorithm Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. LMS Digital Signature Algorithm Overview . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Hierarchical Signature System (HSS) . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. LMS Digital Signature Algorithm Overview . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Leighton-Micali Signature (LMS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Hierarchical Signature System (HSS) . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Leighton-Micali One-time Signature Algorithm (LM-OTS) . . 6 2.2. Leighton-Micali Signature (LMS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Hash-based Signature Algorithm Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3. Leighton-Micali One-time Signature Algorithm (LM-OTS) . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Hash-based Signature Algorithm Identifiers . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Implementation Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Algorithm Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. Implementation Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. COSE Algorithms Registry Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. COSE Algorithms Registry Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. COSE Key Types Registry Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2. COSE Key Types Registry Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Today, RSA is often used to digitally sign software updates. In This document specifies the conventions for using the HSS/LMS hash-
preparation for a day when RSA, DSA, and ECDSA cannot be depended based signature algorithm with the CBOR Object Signing and Encryption
upon, a digital signature algorithm is needed that will remain secure (COSE) [RFC8152] syntax. The Leighton-Micali Signature (LMS) system
even if there are significant cryptoanalytic advances or a large- provides a one-time digital signature that is a variant of Merkle
scale quantum computer is invented. The hash-based digital signature Tree Signatures (MTS). The Hierarchical Signature System (HSS) is
algorithm specified in [HASHSIG] is one such algorithm. The use of built on top of the LMS system to efficiently scale for a larger
hash-based signatures to protect software update distribution will numbers of signatures. The HSS/LMS algorithm is one form of hash-
allow the deployment of software that implements new cryptosystems based digital signature, and it is described in [HASHSIG]. The HSS/
even if such advances break current digital signature mechanisms. LMS signature algorithm can only be used for a fixed number of
signing operations. The number of signing operations depends upon
the size of the tree. The HSS/LMS signature algorithm uses small
public keys, and it has low computational cost; however, the
signatures are quite large. The HSS/LMS private key can be very
small when the signer is willing to perform additional computation at
signing time; alternatively, the private key can consume additional
memory and provide a faster signing time.
This document specifies the conventions for using the Leighton-Micali 1.1. Algorithm Security Considerations
Signature (LMS) algorithm [HASHSIG] for digital signatures with the
CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) [RFC8152] syntax. The LMS
algorithm is one form of hash-based digital signature; it can only be
used for a fixed number of signatures. The LMS algorithm uses small
private and public keys, and it has low computational cost; however,
the signatures are quite large.
2. Terminology At Black Hat USA 2013, some researchers gave a presentation on the
current sate of public key cryptography. They said: "Current
cryptosystems depend on discrete logarithm and factoring which has
seen some major new developments in the past 6 months" [BH2013].
They encouraged preparation for a day when RSA and DSA cannot be
depended upon.
A post-quantum cryptosystem [PQC] is a system that is secure against
quantum computers that have more than a trivial number of quantum
bits. It is open to conjecture when it will be feasible to build
such a machine. RSA, DSA, and ECDSA are not post-quantum secure.
The HSS/LMS signature algorithm does not depend on discrete logarithm
or factoring, as a result these algorithms are considered to be post-
quantum secure.
Today, the RSA digital signature algorithm is often used to sign
software updates. In preparation for a day when RSA, DSA, and ECDSA
cannot be depended upon, a digital signature algorithm is needed that
will remain secure even if there are significant cryptoanalytic
advances or a large-scale quantum computer is invented. The HSS/LMS
hash-based digital signature algorithm specified in [HASHSIG] is one
such algorithm. The use of hash-based signatures to protect software
update distribution will allow the deployment of software that
implements new cryptosystems even if such advances break current
digital signature mechanisms.
1.2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
3. LMS Digital Signature Algorithm Overview 2. LMS Digital Signature Algorithm Overview
This specification makes use of the hash-based signature algorithm This specification makes use of the hash-based signature algorithm
specified in [HASHSIG], which is the Leighton and Micali adaptation specified in [HASHSIG], which is the Leighton and Micali adaptation
[LM] of the original Lamport-Diffie-Winternitz-Merkle one-time [LM] of the original Lamport-Diffie-Winternitz-Merkle one-time
signature system [M1979][M1987][M1989a][M1989b]. signature system [M1979][M1987][M1989a][M1989b].
The hash-based signature algorithm has three major components: The hash-based signature algorithm has three major components:
o Hierarchical Signature System (HSS) -- see Section 3.1; o Hierarchical Signature System (HSS) -- see Section 2.1;
o Leighton-Micali Signature (LMS) -- see Section 3.2; and o Leighton-Micali Signature (LMS) -- see Section 2.2; and
o Leighton-Micali One-time Signature Algorithm (LM-OTS) -- see o Leighton-Micali One-time Signature Algorithm (LM-OTS) -- see
Section 3.3. Section 2.3.
As implied by the name, the hash-based signature algorithm depends on As implied by the name, the hash-based signature algorithm depends on
a collision-resistant hash function. The the hash-based signature a collision-resistant hash function. The the hash-based signature
algorithm specified in [HASHSIG] currently makes use of the SHA-256 algorithm specified in [HASHSIG] currently makes use of the SHA-256
one-way hash function [SHS], but it also establishes an IANA registry one-way hash function [SHS], but it also establishes an IANA registry
to permit the registration of additional one-way hash functions in to permit the registration of additional one-way hash functions in
the future. the future.
3.1. Hierarchical Signature System (HSS) 2.1. Hierarchical Signature System (HSS)
The hash-based signature algorithm specified in [HASHSIG] uses a The hash-based signature algorithm specified in [HASHSIG] uses a
hierarchy of trees. The Hierarchical Signature System (HSS) allows hierarchy of trees. The Hierarchical Signature System (HSS) allows
subordinate trees to be generated when needed by the signer. By subordinate trees to be generated when needed by the signer. By
using trees-of-trees, a very large number of nodes can be using trees-of-trees, a very large number of nodes can be
accommodated, where each node enables a single digital signature. accommodated, where each node enables a single digital signature.
Without the HSS, the generation of such a large tree might take weeks Without the HSS, the generation of such a large tree might take weeks
or longer. or longer.
An HSS signature as specified in [HASHSIG] carries the number of An HSS signature as specified in [HASHSIG] carries the number of
signed public keys (Nspk), followed by that number of signed public signed public keys (Nspk), followed by that number of signed public
keys, followed by the LMS signature as described in Section 3.2. keys, followed by the LMS signature as described in Section 2.2.
Each signed public key is represented by the hash value at the root Each signed public key is represented by the hash value at the root
of the tree, and it also contains information about the tree of the tree, and it also contains information about the tree
structure. The signature over the public key is an LMS signature as structure. The signature over the public key is an LMS signature as
described in Section 3.2. described in Section 2.2.
The elements of the HSS signature value for a stand-alone tree can be The elements of the HSS signature value for a stand-alone tree can be
summarized as: summarized as:
u32str(0) || u32str(0) ||
lms_signature /* signature of message */ lms_signature /* signature of message */
The elements of the HSS signature value for a tree with Nspk levels The elements of the HSS signature value for a tree with Nspk levels
can be summarized as: can be summarized as:
skipping to change at page 5, line 5 skipping to change at page 5, line 5
... ...
signed_public_key[Nspk-2] || signed_public_key[Nspk-2] ||
signed_public_key[Nspk-1] || signed_public_key[Nspk-1] ||
lms_signature /* signature of message */ lms_signature /* signature of message */
where, as defined in Section 3.3 of [HASHSIG], a signed_public_key is where, as defined in Section 3.3 of [HASHSIG], a signed_public_key is
the lms_signature over the public key followed by the public key the lms_signature over the public key followed by the public key
itself. Note that Nspk is the number of levels in the hierarchy of itself. Note that Nspk is the number of levels in the hierarchy of
trees minus 1. trees minus 1.
3.2. Leighton-Micali Signature (LMS) 2.2. Leighton-Micali Signature (LMS)
Each tree in the hash-based signature algorithm specified in Each tree in the hash-based signature algorithm specified in
[HASHSIG] uses the Leighton-Micali Signature (LMS) system. LMS [HASHSIG] uses the Leighton-Micali Signature (LMS) system. LMS
systems have two parameters. The first parameter is the height of systems have two parameters. The first parameter is the height of
the tree, h, which is the number of levels in the tree minus one. the tree, h, which is the number of levels in the tree minus one.
The hash-based signature algorithm supports five values for this The [HASHSIG] includes support for five values of this parameter:
parameter: h=5; h=10; h=15; h=20; and h=25. Note that there are 2^h h=5; h=10; h=15; h=20; and h=25. Note that there are 2^h leaves in
leaves in the tree. The second parameter is the number of bytes the tree. The second parameter is the number of bytes output by the
output by the hash function, m, which is the amount of data hash function, m, which is the amount of data associated with each
associated with each node in the tree. This specification supports node in the tree. This specification supports only SHA-256, with
only SHA-256, with m=32. m=32. An IANA registry is defined so that other hash functions could
be used in the future.
Currently, the hash-based signature algorithm supports five tree Currently, the hash-based signature algorithm supports five tree
sizes: sizes:
LMS_SHA256_M32_H5; LMS_SHA256_M32_H5;
LMS_SHA256_M32_H10; LMS_SHA256_M32_H10;
LMS_SHA256_M32_H15; LMS_SHA256_M32_H15;
LMS_SHA256_M32_H20; and LMS_SHA256_M32_H20; and
LMS_SHA256_M32_H25. LMS_SHA256_M32_H25.
The [HASHSIG] specification establishes an IANA registry to permit The [HASHSIG] specification establishes an IANA registry to permit
the registration of additional tree sizes in the future. the registration of additional tree sizes in the future.
An LMS signature consists of four elements: the number of the leaf An LMS signature consists of four elements: the number of the leaf
associated with the LM-OTS signature, an LM-OTS signature as associated with the LM-OTS signature, an LM-OTS signature as
described in Section 3.3, a typecode indicating the particular LMS described in Section 2.3, a typecode indicating the particular LMS
algorithm, and an array of values that is associated with the path algorithm, and an array of values that is associated with the path
through the tree from the leaf associated with the LM-OTS signature through the tree from the leaf associated with the LM-OTS signature
to the root. The array of values contains the siblings of the nodes to the root. The array of values contains the siblings of the nodes
on the path from the leaf to the root but does not contain the nodes on the path from the leaf to the root but does not contain the nodes
on the path itself. The array for a tree with height h will have h on the path itself. The array for a tree with height h will have h
values. The first value is the sibling of the leaf, the next value values. The first value is the sibling of the leaf, the next value
is the sibling of the parent of the leaf, and so on up the path to is the sibling of the parent of the leaf, and so on up the path to
the root. the root.
The four elements of the LMS signature value can be summarized as: The four elements of the LMS signature value can be summarized as:
u32str(q) || u32str(q) ||
ots_signature || ots_signature ||
u32str(type) || u32str(type) ||
path[0] || path[1] || ... || path[h-1] path[0] || path[1] || ... || path[h-1]
3.3. Leighton-Micali One-time Signature Algorithm (LM-OTS) 2.3. Leighton-Micali One-time Signature Algorithm (LM-OTS)
The hash-based signature algorithm depends on a one-time signature The hash-based signature algorithm depends on a one-time signature
method. This specification makes use of the Leighton-Micali One-time method. This specification makes use of the Leighton-Micali One-time
Signature Algorithm (LM-OTS) [HASHSIG]. An LM-OTS has five Signature Algorithm (LM-OTS) [HASHSIG]. An LM-OTS has five
parameters: parameters:
n - The number of bytes output by the hash function. This n - The number of bytes output by the hash function. This
specification supports only SHA-256 [SHS], with n=32. specification supports only SHA-256 {{SHS}}, with n=32.
H - A preimage-resistant hash function that accepts byte strings H - A preimage-resistant hash function that accepts byte strings
of any length, and returns an n-byte string. This of any length, and returns an n-byte string. This
specification supports only SHA-256 [SHS]. specification supports only SHA-256 [SHS].
w - The width in bits of the Winternitz coefficients. [HASHSIG] w - The width in bits of the Winternitz coefficients. [HASHSIG]
supports four values for this parameter: w=1; w=2; w=4; and supports four values for this parameter: w=1; w=2; w=4; and
w=8. w=8.
p - The number of n-byte string elements that make up the LM-OTS p - The number of n-byte string elements that make up the LM-OTS
skipping to change at page 6, line 40 skipping to change at page 6, line 40
n and w, as described in Appendix A of [HASHSIG]. n and w, as described in Appendix A of [HASHSIG].
Currently, the hash-based signature algorithm supports four LM-OTS Currently, the hash-based signature algorithm supports four LM-OTS
variants: variants:
LMOTS_SHA256_N32_W1; LMOTS_SHA256_N32_W1;
LMOTS_SHA256_N32_W2; LMOTS_SHA256_N32_W2;
LMOTS_SHA256_N32_W4; and LMOTS_SHA256_N32_W4; and
LMOTS_SHA256_N32_W8. LMOTS_SHA256_N32_W8.
The [HASHSIG] specification establishes an IANA registry to permit The [HASHSIG] specification establishes an IANA registry to permit
the registration of additional variants in the future. the registration of additional variants in the future.
Signing involves the generation of C, which is an n-byte random Signing involves the generation of C, which is an n-byte random
value. value.
The LM-OTS signature value can be summarized as: The LM-OTS signature value can be summarized as:
u32str(otstype) || C || y[0] || ... || y[p-1] u32str(otstype) || C || y[0] || ... || y[p-1]
4. Hash-based Signature Algorithm Identifiers 3. Hash-based Signature Algorithm Identifiers
The CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) [RFC8152] supports two The CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) [RFC8152] supports two
signature algorithm schemes. This specification makes use of the signature algorithm schemes. This specification makes use of the
signature with appendix scheme for hash-based signatures. signature with appendix scheme for hash-based signatures.
The signature value is a large byte string. The byte string is The signature value is a large byte string. The byte string is
designed for easy parsing, and it includes a counter and type codes designed for easy parsing, and it includes a counter and type codes
that indirectly provide all of the information that is needed to that indirectly provide all of the information that is needed to
parse the byte string during signature validation. parse the byte string during signature validation.
skipping to change at page 7, line 34 skipping to change at page 7, line 34
creating a hash-based signature. creating a hash-based signature.
o If the 'key_ops' field is present, it MUST include 'verify' o If the 'key_ops' field is present, it MUST include 'verify'
when verifying a hash-based signature. when verifying a hash-based signature.
o If the 'kid' field is present, it MAY be used to identify the o If the 'kid' field is present, it MAY be used to identify the
top of the HSS tree. In [HASHSIG], this identifier is called top of the HSS tree. In [HASHSIG], this identifier is called
'I', and it is the 16-byte identifier of the LMS public key 'I', and it is the 16-byte identifier of the LMS public key
for the tree. for the tree.
5. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
5.1. Implementation Security Considerations 4.1. Implementation Security Considerations
Implementations must protect the private keys. Use of a hardware Implementations must protect the private keys. Use of a hardware
security module (HSM) is one way to protect the private keys. security module (HSM) is one way to protect the private keys.
Compromise of the private keys may result in the ability to forge Compromise of the private keys may result in the ability to forge
signatures. Along with the private key, the implementation must keep signatures. Along with the private key, the implementation must keep
track of which leaf nodes in the tree have been used. Loss of track of which leaf nodes in the tree have been used. Loss of
integrity of this tracking data can cause a one-time key to be used integrity of this tracking data can cause a one-time key to be used
more than once. As a result, when a private key and the tracking more than once. As a result, when a private key and the tracking
data are stored on non-volatile media or stored in a virtual machine data are stored on non-volatile media or stored in a virtual machine
environment, care must be taken to preserve confidentiality and environment, care must be taken to preserve confidentiality and
skipping to change at page 8, line 24 skipping to change at page 8, line 24
force searching the whole key space. The generation of quality force searching the whole key space. The generation of quality
random numbers is difficult. [RFC4086] offers important guidance in random numbers is difficult. [RFC4086] offers important guidance in
this area. this area.
The generation of hash-based signatures also depends on random The generation of hash-based signatures also depends on random
numbers. While the consequences of an inadequate pseudo-random numbers. While the consequences of an inadequate pseudo-random
number generator (PRNGs) to generate these values is much less severe number generator (PRNGs) to generate these values is much less severe
than the generation of private keys, the guidance in [RFC4086] than the generation of private keys, the guidance in [RFC4086]
remains important. remains important.
5.2. Algorithm Security Considerations 5. Operational Considerations
At Black Hat USA 2013, some researchers gave a presentation on the
current sate of public key cryptography. They said: "Current
cryptosystems depend on discrete logarithm and factoring which has
seen some major new developments in the past 6 months" [BH2013].
They encouraged preparation for a day when RSA and DSA cannot be
depended upon.
A post-quantum cryptosystem is a system that is secure against
quantum computers that have more than a trivial number of quantum
bits. It is open to conjecture when it will be feasible to build
such a machine. RSA, DSA, and ECDSA are not post-quantum secure.
The LM-OTP one-time signature, LMS, and HSS do not depend on discrete
logarithm or factoring, as a result these algorithms are considered
to be post-quantum secure.
Today, RSA is often used to digitally sign software updates. This
means that the distribution of software updates could be compromised
if a significant advance is made in factoring or a quantum computer
is invented. The use of hash-based signatures to protect software
update distribution will allow the deployment of software that
implements new cryptosystems.
6. Operational Considerations
The public key for the hash-based signature is the key at the root of The public key for the hash-based signature is the key at the root of
Hierarchical Signature System (HSS). In the absence of a public key Hierarchical Signature System (HSS). In the absence of a public key
infrastructure [RFC5280], this public key is a trust anchor, and the infrastructure [RFC5280], this public key is a trust anchor, and the
number of signatures that can be generated is bounded by the size of number of signatures that can be generated is bounded by the size of
the overall HSS set of trees. When all of the LM-OTS signatures have the overall HSS set of trees. When all of the LM-OTS signatures have
been used to produce a signature, then the establishment of a new been used to produce a signature, then the establishment of a new
trust anchor is required. trust anchor is required.
To ensure that none of tree nodes are used to generate more than one To ensure that none of tree nodes are used to generate more than one
signature, the signer maintains state across different invocations of signature, the signer maintains state across different invocations of
the signing algorithm. Section 12.2 of [HASHSIG] offers some the signing algorithm. Section 12.2 of [HASHSIG] offers some
practical implementation approaches around this statefulness. In practical implementation approaches around this statefulness. In
some of these approaches, nodes are sacrificed to ensure that none some of these approaches, nodes are sacrificed to ensure that none
are used more than once. As a result, the total number of signatures are used more than once. As a result, the total number of signatures
that can be generated might be less than the overall HSS set of that can be generated might be less than the overall HSS set of
trees. trees.
7. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to add entries for hash-based signatures in the IANA is requested to add entries for hash-based signatures in the
"COSE Algorithms" registry and hash-based public keys in the "COSE "COSE Algorithms" registry and hash-based public keys in the "COSE
Key Types" registry. Key Types" registry.
7.1. COSE Algorithms Registry Entry 6.1. COSE Algorithms Registry Entry
The new entry in the "COSE Algorithms" registry has the following The new entry in the "COSE Algorithms" registry has the following
columns: columns:
Name: HASHSIG-HSS-LMS Name: HSS-LMS
Value: TBD (Value to be assigned by IANA) Value: TBD (Value to be assigned by IANA)
Description: Hash-based digital signatures using HSS/LMS Description: HSS/LMS hash-based digital signature
Reference: This document (Number to be assigned by RFC Editor) Reference: This document (Number to be assigned by RFC Editor)
Recommended: Yes Recommended: Yes
7.2. COSE Key Types Registry Entry 6.2. COSE Key Types Registry Entry
The new entry in the "COSE Key Types" registry has the following The new entry in the "COSE Key Types" registry has the following
columns: columns:
Name: HASHSIG-HSS-LMS Name: HSS-LMS
Value: TBD (Value to be assigned by IANA) Value: TBD (Value to be assigned by IANA)
Description: Public key for hash-based digital signature using HSS/LMS Description: Public key for HSS/LMS hash-based digital signature
Reference: This document (Number to be assigned by RFC Editor) Reference: This document (Number to be assigned by RFC Editor)
8. References 7. References
8.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[HASHSIG] McGrew, D., M. Curcio, and S. Fluhrer, "Hash-Based [HASHSIG] McGrew, D., Curcio, M., and S. Fluhrer, "Hash-Based
Signatures", Work in progress. <draft-mcgrew-hash- Signatures", draft-mcgrew-hash-sigs-15 (work in progress),
sigs-14> January 2019.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8152] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)", [RFC8152] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",
RFC 8152, DOI 10.17487/RFC8152, July 2017, RFC 8152, DOI 10.17487/RFC8152, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8152>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8152>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc- May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[SHS] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), [SHS] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
FIPS Publication 180-3: Secure Hash Standard, October "Secure Hash Standard", FIPS Publication 180-3, 2008.
2008.
8.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[BH2013] Ptacek, T., T. Ritter, J. Samuel, and A. Stamos, "The [BH2013] Ptacek, T., Ritter, T., Samuel, J., and A. Stamos, "The
Factoring Dead: Preparing for the Cryptopocalypse", August Factoring Dead: Preparing for the Cryptopocalypse", August
2013. <https://media.blackhat.com/us-13/us-13-Stamos-The- 2013, <https://media.blackhat.com/us-13/
Factoring-Dead.pdf> us-13-Stamos-The-Factoring-Dead.pdf>.
[LM] Leighton, T. and S. Micali, "Large provably fast and [LM] Leighton, F. and S. Micali, "Large provably fast and
secure digital signature schemes from secure hash secure digital signature schemes from secure hash
functions", U.S. Patent 5,432,852, July 1995. functions", U.S. Patent 5,432,852, July 1995.
[M1979] Merkle, R., "Secrecy, Authentication, and Public Key [M1979] Merkle, R., "Secrecy, Authentication, and Public Key
Systems", Stanford University Information Systems Systems", Stanford University Information Systems
Laboratory Technical Report 1979-1, 1979. Laboratory Technical Report 1979-1, 1979.
[M1987] Merkle, R., "A Digital Signature Based on a Conventional [M1987] Merkle, R., "A Digital Signature Based on a Conventional
Encryption Function", Lecture Notes in Computer Science Encryption Function", Lecture Notes in Computer
crypto87, 1988. Science crypto87, 1988.
[M1989a] Merkle, R., "A Certified Digital Signature", Lecture Notes [M1989a] Merkle, R., "A Certified Digital Signature", Lecture Notes
in Computer Science crypto89, 1990. in Computer Science crypto89, 1990.
[M1989b] Merkle, R., "One Way Hash Functions and DES", Lecture Notes [M1989b] Merkle, R., "One Way Hash Functions and DES", Lecture
in Computer Science crypto89, 1990. Notes in Computer Science crypto89, 1990.
[PQC] Bernstein, D., "Introduction to post-quantum [PQC] Bernstein, D., "Introduction to post-quantum
cryptography", 2009. cryptography", 2009,
<http://www.pqcrypto.org/www.springer.com/cda/content/ <http://www.pqcrypto.org/www.springer.com/cda/content/
document/cda_downloaddocument/9783540887010-c1.pdf> document/cda_downloaddocument/9783540887010-c1.pdf>.
[RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, [RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
"Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005, <http://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
editor.org/info/rfc4086>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>.
[RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., [RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008, (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.
Acknowledgements Appendix A. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Jim Schaad and Tony Putman for their valuable review and Many hanks to Jim Schaad and Tony Putman for their valuable review
insights. and insights.
Author's Address Author's Address
Russ Housley Russ Housley
Vigil Security, LLC Vigil Security, LLC
516 Dranesville Road 516 Dranesville Road
Herndon, VA 20170 Herndon, VA 20170
USA US
EMail: housley@vigilsec.com Email: housley@vigilsec.com
 End of changes. 59 change blocks. 
148 lines changed or deleted 149 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/