idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to use 'NOT RECOMMENDED' as an RFC 2119 keyword, but does not include the phrase in its RFC 2119 key words list. -- The document date (May 9, 2018) is 2172 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-yeung-g-ikev2-13 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 IPSECME D. Migault 3 Internet-Draft Ericsson 4 Intended status: Standards Track T. Guggemos 5 Expires: November 10, 2018 LMU Munich 6 Y. Nir 7 Dell EMC 8 May 9, 2018 10 Implicit IV for Counter-based Ciphers in Encapsulating Security Payload 11 (ESP) 12 draft-ietf-ipsecme-implicit-iv-04 14 Abstract 16 Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) sends an initialization vector 17 (IV) or nonce in each packet. The size of IV depends on the applied 18 transform, being usually 8 or 16 octets for the transforms defined by 19 the time this document is written. Some algorithms such as AES-GCM, 20 AES-CCM, AES-CTR and ChaCha20-Poly1305 require a unique nonce but do 21 not require an unpredictable nonce. When using such algorithms the 22 packet counter value can be used to generate a nonce. This avoids 23 sending the nonce itself, and saves in the case of AES-GCM, AES-CCM, 24 AES-CTR and ChaCha20-Poly1305 8 octets per packet. This document 25 describes how to do this. 27 Status of This Memo 29 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 30 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 32 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 33 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 34 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 35 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 37 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 38 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 39 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 40 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 42 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 10, 2018. 44 Copyright Notice 46 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 47 document authors. All rights reserved. 49 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 50 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 51 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 52 publication of this document. Please review these documents 53 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 54 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 55 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 56 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 57 described in the Simplified BSD License. 59 Table of Contents 61 1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 62 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 63 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 4. Implicit IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 5. Initiator Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 6. Responder Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 7. Security Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 10.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 73 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 75 1. Requirements notation 77 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 78 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 79 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 81 2. Introduction 83 Counter-based AES modes of operation such as AES-CTR ([RFC3686]), 84 AES-CCM ([RFC4309]), and AES-GCM ([RFC4106]) require the 85 specification of an nonce for each ESP packet. The same applies for 86 ChaCha20-Poly1305 ([RFC7634]). Currently this nonce is sent in each 87 ESP packet ([RFC4303]). This practice is designated in this document 88 as "explicit nonce". 90 In some context, such as IoT, it may be preferable to avoid carrying 91 the extra bytes associated to the IV and instead generate it locally 92 on each peer. The local generation of the nonce is designated in 93 this document as "implicit IV". 95 The size of this nonce depends on the specific algorithm, but all of 96 the algorithms mentioned above take an 8-octet nonce. 98 This document defines how to compute the nonce locally when it is 99 implicit. It also specifies how peers agree with the Internet Key 100 Exchange version 2 (IKEv2 - [RFC7296]) on using an implicit IV versus 101 an explicit IV. 103 This document limits its scope to the algorithms mentioned above. 104 Other algorithms with similar properties may later be defined to use 105 this extension. 107 This document does not consider AES-CBC ([RFC3602]) as AES-CBC 108 requires the IV to be unpredictable. Deriving it directly from the 109 packet counter as described below is insecure as mentioned in 110 Security Consideration of [RFC3602] and has led to real world chosen 111 plain-text attack such as BEAST [BEAST]. 113 3. Terminology 115 o IoT: Internet of Things. 117 o IV: Initialization Vector. 119 o IIV: Implicit Initialization Vector. 121 o Nonce: a fixed-size octet string used only once. This is similar 122 to IV, except that in common usage there is no implication of non- 123 predictability. 125 4. Implicit IV 127 With the algorithms listed in Section 2, the 8 byte nonce MUST NOT 128 repeat. The binding between a ESP packet and its nonce is provided 129 using the Sequence Number or the Extended Sequence Number. Figure 1 130 and Figure 2 represent the IV with a regular 4-byte Sequence Number 131 and with an 8-byte Extended Sequence Number respectively. 133 0 1 2 3 134 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 135 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 136 | Zero | 137 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 138 | Sequence Number | 139 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 141 Figure 1: Implicit IV with a 4 byte Sequence Number 143 o Sequence Number: the 4 byte Sequence Number carried in the ESP 144 packet. 146 o Zero: a 4 byte array with all bits set to zero. 148 0 1 2 3 149 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 150 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 151 | Extended | 152 | Sequence Number | 153 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 155 Figure 2: Implicit IV with an 8 byte Extended Sequence Number 157 o Extended Sequence Number: the 8 byte Extended Sequence Number of 158 the Security Association. The 4 byte low order bytes are carried 159 in the ESP packet. 161 As the IV MUST NOT repeat for one SA when Counter-Mode ciphers are 162 used, Implicit IV as described in this document MUST NOT be used in 163 setups with the chance that the Sequence Number overlaps for one SA. 164 Multicast as described in [RFC5374], [RFC6407] and 165 [I-D.yeung-g-ikev2] is a prominent example, where many senders share 166 one secret and thus one SA. As such, it is NOT RECOMMENDED to use 167 Implicit IV with Multicast. 169 5. Initiator Behavior 171 An initiator supporting this feature SHOULD propose implicit IV 172 algorithms in the Transform Type 1 (Encryption Algorithm) 173 Substructure of the Proposal Substructure inside the SA Payload. To 174 facilitate backward compatibility with non-supporting peers the 175 initiator SHOULD also include those same algorithms without Implicit 176 IV (IIV) as separate transforms. 178 6. Responder Behavior 180 The rules of SA Payload processing require that responder picks its 181 algorithms from the proposal sent by the initiator, thus this will 182 ensure that the responder will never send an SA payload containing 183 the IIV transform to an initiator that did not propose it. 185 7. Security Consideration 187 Nonce generation for these algorithms has not been explicitly 188 defined. It has been left to the implementation as long as certain 189 security requirements are met. Typically, for AES-GCM, AES-CCM, AES- 190 CTR and ChaCha20-Poly1305, the IV is not allowed being repeated for 191 one particular key. This document provides an explicit and normative 192 way to generate IVs. The mechanism described in this document meets 193 the IV security requirements of all relevant algorithms. 195 8. IANA Considerations 197 This section assigns new code points to the recommended AEAD suites 198 provided in [RFC8221], thus the new Transform Type 1 - Encryption 199 Algorithm Transform IDs [IANA] are as defined below: 201 - ENCR_AES_CCM_8_IIV: 29 203 - ENCR_AES_GCM_16_IIV: 30 205 - ENCR_CHACHA20_POLY1305_IIV: 31 207 These algorithms should be added with this document as ESP Reference 208 and "Not Allowed" for IKEv2 Reference. 210 9. Acknowledgements 212 We would like to thanks people Valery Smyslov for their valuable 213 comments, David Schinazi for its implementation, as well as the 214 ipseceme chairs Tero Kivinen and David Waltermire for moving this 215 work forward. 217 10. References 219 10.1. Normative References 221 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 222 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 223 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 224 . 226 [RFC3602] Frankel, S., Glenn, R., and S. Kelly, "The AES-CBC Cipher 227 Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec", RFC 3602, 228 DOI 10.17487/RFC3602, September 2003, 229 . 231 [RFC3686] Housley, R., "Using Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) 232 Counter Mode With IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload 233 (ESP)", RFC 3686, DOI 10.17487/RFC3686, January 2004, 234 . 236 [RFC4106] Viega, J. and D. McGrew, "The Use of Galois/Counter Mode 237 (GCM) in IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", 238 RFC 4106, DOI 10.17487/RFC4106, June 2005, 239 . 241 [RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", 242 RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005, 243 . 245 [RFC4309] Housley, R., "Using Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) CCM 246 Mode with IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", 247 RFC 4309, DOI 10.17487/RFC4309, December 2005, 248 . 250 [RFC5374] Weis, B., Gross, G., and D. Ignjatic, "Multicast 251 Extensions to the Security Architecture for the Internet 252 Protocol", RFC 5374, DOI 10.17487/RFC5374, November 2008, 253 . 255 [RFC6407] Weis, B., Rowles, S., and T. Hardjono, "The Group Domain 256 of Interpretation", RFC 6407, DOI 10.17487/RFC6407, 257 October 2011, . 259 [RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T. 260 Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 261 (IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October 262 2014, . 264 [RFC7634] Nir, Y., "ChaCha20, Poly1305, and Their Use in the 265 Internet Key Exchange Protocol (IKE) and IPsec", RFC 7634, 266 DOI 10.17487/RFC7634, August 2015, 267 . 269 [RFC8221] Wouters, P., Migault, D., Mattsson, J., Nir, Y., and T. 270 Kivinen, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation 271 Requirements and Usage Guidance for Encapsulating Security 272 Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 8221, 273 DOI 10.17487/RFC8221, October 2017, 274 . 276 10.2. Informational References 278 [BEAST] Thai, T. and J. Juliano, "Here Come The xor Ninjas", , 279 May 2011, . 282 [I-D.yeung-g-ikev2] 283 Weis, B., Nir, Y., and V. Smyslov, "Group Key Management 284 using IKEv2", draft-yeung-g-ikev2-13 (work in progress), 285 March 2018. 287 [IANA] "IANA IKEv2 Parameter - Type 1 - Encryption Algorithm 288 Transform IDs", . 291 Authors' Addresses 293 Daniel Migault 294 Ericsson 295 8275 Trans Canada Route 296 Saint Laurent, QC H4S 0B6 297 Canada 299 Email: daniel.migault@ericsson.com 301 Tobias Guggemos 302 LMU Munich 303 Oettingenstr. 67 304 80538 Munich, Bavaria 305 Germany 307 Email: guggemos@mnm-team.org 308 URI: http://mnm-team.org/~guggemos 310 Yoav Nir 311 Dell EMC 312 9 Andrei Sakharov St 313 Haifa 3190500 314 Israel 316 Email: ynir.ietf@gmail.com