idnits 2.17.1 draft-melnikov-scram-sha3-512-00.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 lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- The document date (July 13, 2020) is 1384 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) == Unused Reference: 'RFC5226' is defined on line 219, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5246' is defined on line 229, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group A. Melnikov, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Isode Ltd 4 Intended status: Standards Track July 13, 2020 5 Expires: January 14, 2021 7 SCRAM-SHA3-512 and SCRAM-SHA3-512-PLUS Simple Authentication and 8 Security Layer (SASL) Mechanisms 9 draft-melnikov-scram-sha3-512-00 11 Abstract 13 This document registers the Simple Authentication and Security Layer 14 (SASL) mechanisms SCRAM-SHA3-512 and SCRAM-SHA3-512-PLUS. 16 Status of This Memo 18 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 19 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 22 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 23 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 24 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 14, 2021. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 36 document authors. All rights reserved. 38 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 39 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 40 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 41 publication of this document. Please review these documents 42 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 43 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 44 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 45 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 46 described in the Simplified BSD License. 48 Table of Contents 50 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 51 2. Key Word Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 3. SCRAM-SHA3-512 and SCRAM-SHA3-512-PLUS . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 59 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 1. Introduction 63 This document registers the SASL [RFC4422] mechanisms SCRAM-SHA3-512 64 and SCRAM-SHA3-512-PLUS. SHA3-512 has stronger security properties 65 than SHA-1, and it is expected that SCRAM mechanisms based on it will 66 have greater predicted longevity than the SCRAM mechanisms based on 67 SHA-1. SHA3-512 works differently from SHA-2 family of hash 68 functions, so it is also expected that vulnerabilities in SHA-2 hash 69 functions are not going to necessarily affect SHA-3 family of hash 70 functions. 72 2. Key Word Definitions 74 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 75 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 76 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 77 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 79 3. SCRAM-SHA3-512 and SCRAM-SHA3-512-PLUS 81 The SCRAM-SHA3-512 and SCRAM-SHA3-512-PLUS SASL mechanisms are 82 defined in the same way that SCRAM-SHA-1 and SCRAM-SHA-1-PLUS are 83 defined in [RFC5802], except that the hash function for HMAC() and 84 H() uses SHA3-512 [NIST.FIPS.202] instead of SHA-1. 86 For the SCRAM-SHA3-512 and SCRAM-SHA3-512-PLUS SASL mechanisms, the 87 hash iteration-count announced by a server SHOULD be at least 4096. 89 The GSS-API mechanism OID for SCRAM-SHA3-512 is 1.3.6.1.5.5. 90 (see Section 5). 92 This is a simple example of a SCRAM-SHA3-512 authentication exchange 93 when the client doesn't support channel bindings. The username 94 'user' and password 'pencil' are being used. 96 4. Security Considerations 98 The security considerations from [RFC5802] still apply. 100 To be secure, either SCRAM-SHA3-512-PLUS and SCRAM-SHA-1-PLUS MUST be 101 used over a TLS channel that has had the session hash extension 102 [RFC7627] negotiated, or session resumption MUST NOT have been used. 104 See [RFC4270] and [RFC6194] for reasons to move from SHA-1 to a 105 strong security mechanism like SHA3-512. 107 The strength of this mechanism is dependent in part on the hash 108 iteration-count, as denoted by "i" in [RFC5802]. As a rule of thumb, 109 the hash iteration-count should be such that a modern machine will 110 take 0.1 seconds to perform the complete algorithm; however, this is 111 unlikely to be practical on mobile devices and other relatively low- 112 performance systems. At the time this was written, the rule of thumb 113 gives around 15,000 iterations required; however, a hash iteration- 114 count of 4096 takes around 0.5 seconds on current mobile handsets. 115 This computational cost can be avoided by caching the ClientKey 116 (assuming the Salt and hash iteration-count is stable). Therefore, 117 the recommendation of this specification is that the hash iteration- 118 count SHOULD be at least 4096, but careful consideration ought to be 119 given to using a significantly higher value, particularly where 120 mobile use is less important. 122 5. IANA Considerations 124 IANA is requested to add the following new SASL SCRAM mechanisms to 125 the "SASL SCRAM Family Mechanisms" registry: 127 To: iana@iana.org 129 Subject: Registration of a new SASL SCRAM Family mechanism SCRAM- 130 SHA3-512 132 SASL mechanism name (or prefix for the family): SCRAM-SHA3-512 134 Security considerations: Section 4 of RFC XXXX 136 Published specification (optional, recommended): RFC XXXX 138 Minimum iteration-count: 4096 140 OID: 1.3.6.1.5.5. 141 Person & email address to contact for further information: IETF 142 KITTEN WG 144 Intended usage: COMMON 146 Owner/Change controller: IESG 148 Note: 150 To: iana@iana.org 152 Subject: Registration of a new SASL SCRAM Family mechanism SCRAM- 153 SHA3-512-PLUS 155 SASL mechanism name (or prefix for the family): SCRAM- 156 SHA3-512-PLUS 158 Security considerations: Section 4 of RFC XXXX 160 Published specification (optional, recommended): RFC XXXX 162 Minimum iteration-count: 4096 164 OID: 1.3.6.1.5.5. 166 Person & email address to contact for further information: IETF 167 KITTEN WG 169 Intended usage: COMMON 171 Owner/Change controller: IESG 173 Note: 175 6. References 177 6.1. Normative References 179 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 180 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 181 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 182 . 184 [RFC4422] Melnikov, A., Ed. and K. Zeilenga, Ed., "Simple 185 Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)", RFC 4422, 186 DOI 10.17487/RFC4422, June 2006, 187 . 189 [RFC5802] Newman, C., Menon-Sen, A., Melnikov, A., and N. Williams, 190 "Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism 191 (SCRAM) SASL and GSS-API Mechanisms", RFC 5802, 192 DOI 10.17487/RFC5802, July 2010, 193 . 195 [RFC7627] Bhargavan, K., Ed., Delignat-Lavaud, A., Pironti, A., 196 Langley, A., and M. Ray, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) 197 Session Hash and Extended Master Secret Extension", 198 RFC 7627, DOI 10.17487/RFC7627, September 2015, 199 . 201 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 202 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 203 May 2017, . 205 [NIST.FIPS.202] 206 Dworkin, M., "SHA-3 Standard: Permutation-Based Hash and 207 Extendable-Output Functions", FIPS PUB 202, 208 DOI 10.6028/nist.fips.202, August 2015, 209 . 212 6.2. Informative References 214 [RFC4270] Hoffman, P. and B. Schneier, "Attacks on Cryptographic 215 Hashes in Internet Protocols", RFC 4270, 216 DOI 10.17487/RFC4270, November 2005, 217 . 219 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 220 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, 221 DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, 222 . 224 [RFC6194] Polk, T., Chen, L., Turner, S., and P. Hoffman, "Security 225 Considerations for the SHA-0 and SHA-1 Message-Digest 226 Algorithms", RFC 6194, DOI 10.17487/RFC6194, March 2011, 227 . 229 [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security 230 (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, 231 DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, 232 . 234 Acknowledgements 236 This document is based on RFC 7677 by Tony Hansen. 238 Author's Address 240 Alexey Melnikov (editor) 241 Isode Ltd 242 14 Castle Mews 243 Hampton, Middlesex TW12 2NP 244 UK 246 EMail: alexey.melnikov@isode.com