TLS Working Group M. Badra Internet-Draft DU Intended status: Standards Track November 18, 2011 Expires: May 21, 2012 SCSV for TLS Client Credential Protection draft-badra-tls-identity-protection-01.txt Abstract This document defines a special Signaling Cipher Suite Value (SCSV) "TLS_IDENTITY_PROTECTION_SCSV" to add client credential protection to the TLS protocol. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on May 21, 2012. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Badra Expires May 21, 2012 [Page 1] Internet-Draft SCSV for TLS Client Credential Protection November 2011 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. The cipher suite TLS_IDENTITY_PROTECTION_SCSV . . . . . . . . . 4 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Contributor's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.2. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Badra Expires May 21, 2012 [Page 2] Internet-Draft SCSV for TLS Client Credential Protection November 2011 1. Introduction The TLS [RFC5246] authentication is usually based on either preshared keys or public key certificates. If a public key certificate is used to authenticate the TLS client, the TLS client credentials are sent in clear text over the wire. Thus, any observer can determine the credentials used by the client; learn who is reaching the network, when, and from where, and hence correlate the client credentials to the connection location. Credentials protection and privacy are the right to informational self-determination, i.e., individuals must be able to determine for themselves when, how, to what extent and for what purpose information about them is communicated to others. TLS client credential protection may also be done through a DHE exchange before establishing an ordinary handshake with identity information. This wouldn't however be secure enough against active attackers, which will be able to disclose the client's credentials. Moreover, it wouldn't be favorable for some environments (e.g., performance-constrained environments with limited CPU power), due to the additional cryptographic computations and round trips. TLS client credential protection may also be possible, assuming that the client permits renegotiation after the first server authentication [RFC5246]: The client and the server establish a TLS session with only server-side authentication and then perform a new full TLS Handshake with mutual authentication; the client credentials transferred in this stage thus are protected by the secure channel established in the first TLS Handshake. This solution doesn't require a change to TLS. However, this solution requires more asymmetric cryptographic computations, which in many environments (in particular for less powerful mobile nodes) are the rate limiting step in TLS, and therefore, the renegotiation has negative performance consequences. In fact, renegotiation requires another round of an asymmetric encryption/decryption, which means the double number of asymmetric en-/decryption operations (e.g., with an RSA key) for TLS Handshake message processing, for both server and client. Moreover, renegotiation requires twice the number of messages and roundtrips than a single TLS handshake, thus significantly increasing the overall delay in the session setup. Additionally, the server is forced to complete a full first TLS handshake before it becomes able to confirm whether the client has a valid certificate or not. This increased misbalance in processing load in the failure case might open an opportunity for misbehaving clients to perform resource exhaustion attacks against such servers. TLS client credential protection may as well be done by allowing the Badra Expires May 21, 2012 [Page 3] Internet-Draft SCSV for TLS Client Credential Protection November 2011 client and the server to add a TLS extension to their Hello messages in order to negotiate specific crypto algorithms, and use these to protect the client certificate [EAPIP]. However, both the SSLv3 and TLS 1.0/TLS 1.1 specifications require implementations to ignore data following the ClientHello (i.e., extensions) if they do not understand it. However, some SSLv3 and TLS 1.0 implementations incorrectly fail the handshake in such a case. This means that clients that offer extensions may encounter handshake failures. TLS client credential protection may be done by a signalling mechanism based on a set of cipher suites [Hajjeh]. This document defines a special Signaling Cipher Suite Value (SCSV) "TLS_IDENTITY_PROTECTION_SCSV", with code point {0xXX, 0xXX}, to add client credential protection to the TLS protocol. If a client offers the SCSV and the server replies with the ServerHello, the client MUST send the ChangeCipherSpec message before the Certificate and the CertificateVerify messages and after the ClientKeyExchange message. Current TLS specifications note that if the client certificate already contains a suitable DH or ECDH public key, then Yc is implicit and does not need to be sent again and consequently, the client key exchange message will be sent, but it MUST be empty. Even if the client key exchange message is used to carry the Yc, using the same Yc will allow traceability. Consequently, static Diffie-Hellman SHOULD NOT be used with this document. 2. The cipher suite TLS_IDENTITY_PROTECTION_SCSV The TLS_IDENTITY_PROTECTION_SCSV is not a true cipher suite (it does not correspond to any valid set of algorithms) and cannot be negotiated. By including this cipher suite in the ClientHello message, the TLS clients will be able to determine for themselves when, how, to what extent and for what purpose information about them is communicated to others. When a ClientHello is received, the server MUST check if it includes the TLS_IDENTITY_PROTECTION_SCSV. If it does, the server MUST request a certificate from the client. If the server does not receive a client certificate in response to the subsequent certificate request, then it MUST abort the session by sending a fatal handshake failure alert. When a ClientHello is received, the client MUST send the ChangeCipherSpec message before the Certificate and the CertificateVerify messages and after the ClientKeyExchange message. The ChangeCipherSpec message is sent to notify the receiving party Badra Expires May 21, 2012 [Page 4] Internet-Draft SCSV for TLS Client Credential Protection November 2011 that subsequent messages will be protected under the cipher suite and keys negotiated during the TLS Handshake. 3. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to add the TLS cipher suite number 0xXX,0xXX with name TLS_IDENTITY_PROTECTION_SCSV to the TLS Cipher Suite registry. 4. Security Considerations The security considerations described throughout [RFC5246] apply here as well. In order for the client to be protected against man-in-the-middle attacks, the client SHOULD verify that the server provided a valid certificate and that the received public key belongs to the server. Because the question of whether this is the correct certificate is outside of TLS, applications that do implement credential protection cipher suites SHOULD enable the client to carefully examine the certificate presented by the server to determine if it meets its expectations. Particularly, the client MUST check its understanding of the server hostname against the server's identity as presented in the server Certificate message. In the absence of an application profile specifying otherwise, the matching is performed according to the following rules: o The client MUST use the server hostname it used to open the connection (or the hostname specified in the TLS "server_name" extension [RFC6066]) as the value to compare against the server name as expressed in the server certificate. The client MUST NOT use any form of the server hostname derived from an insecure remote source (e.g., insecure DNS lookup). CNAME canonicalization is not done. o If a subjectAltName extension of type dNSName is present in the certificate, it MUST be used as the source of the server's identity. o Matching is case-insensitive. o A "*" wildcard character MAY be used as the left-most name component in the certificate. For example, *.example.com would match a.example.com, foo.example.com, etc., but would not match example.com. Badra Expires May 21, 2012 [Page 5] Internet-Draft SCSV for TLS Client Credential Protection November 2011 o If the certificate contains multiple names (e.g., more than one dNSName field), then a match with any one of the fields is considered acceptable. If the match fails, the client MUST either ask for explicit user confirmation or terminate the connection and indicate the server's identity is suspect. Additionally, the client MUST verify the binding between the identity of the server to which it connects and the public key presented by this server. The client SHOULD implement the algorithm in Section 6 of [RFC5280] for general certificate validation, but MAY supplement that algorithm with other validation methods that achieve equivalent levels of verification (such as comparing the server certificate against a local store of already-verified certificates and identity bindings). If the client has external information as to the expected identity of the server, the hostname check MAY be omitted. It will depend on the application whether or not the server will have external knowledge of what the client's identity ought to be and what degree of assurance it needs to obtain of it. In any case, the server typically will have to check that the client has a valid certificate chained to an application-specific trust anchor it is configured with, following the rules of [RFC5280], before it successfully finishes the TLS handshake. One widely accepted layering principle is to decouple service authorization from client authentication on access. We therefore recommend that authorization decisions be performed and communicated at the application layer after the TLS handshake has been completed. 5. Acknowledgements In August 2000, Francisco Corella proposed adding identity protection to TLS by changing the order of TLS messages. This document borrows text from RFC5746 and from [Hajjeh] as well. 6. Contributor's Address Ibrahim Hajjeh Ineovation France Badra Expires May 21, 2012 [Page 6] Internet-Draft SCSV for TLS Client Credential Protection November 2011 EMail: ibrahim.hajjeh@ineovation.fr 7. References 7.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008. [RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008. [RFC6066] Eastlake, D., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions: Extension Definitions", RFC 6066, January 2011. 7.2. Normative References [I-D.hajjeh-tls-identity-protection] Hajjeh, I. and M. Badra, "Credential Protection Ciphersuites for Transport Layer Security (TLS)", draft-hajjeh-tls-identity-protection-09 (work in progress), November 2009. [I-D.urien-badra-eap-tls-identity-protection] Urien, P. and M. Badra, "Identity Protection within EAP- TLS", draft-urien-badra-eap-tls-identity-protection-01 (work in progress), October 2006. Author's Address Mohamad Badra DU Email: mbadra@gmail.com Badra Expires May 21, 2012 [Page 7]