Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Phillip Hallam-Baker Internet-Draft Comodo Group Inc. Intended Status: Standards Track October 27, 2014 Expires: April 30, 2015 PRISM_Proof Email Key Generation and Publication draft-hallambaker-prismproof-key-01 Abstract This document describes previous efforts and their deployment legacy and the requirements for a successful email security infrastructure. A gap analysis is performed and the tasks divided into problems that are generally considered solved albeit possibly requiring improved execution and problems that may be regarded as research. This division of the problem space into 'execution' and 'research' portions allows different groups of developers to address each independently and avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. A testbed for development and early adopter deployment that achieves this separation is described. 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." Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 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. April 30, 2015 [Page 1] Internet-Draft PPE: Key Generation & Publication October 2014 Table of Contents 1. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Legacy Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Key Generation and Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Strong Key Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1.1. Strong Email Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Private Key Backup and Controlled Recovery . . . . . . . 6 2.2.1. Encrypted Private Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2.2. Key Splitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3. Private Key Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3.1. Key Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3.2. Private Key Backup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Public Key Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1. Certificate Signing Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2. Self-Signed Certificate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3. Peer Endorsement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. Publication Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.1. Initial Key Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5. Registration Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.1. Enabling a new Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6. Recovery Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.1. Revocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. Revocation Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7.1. Key Endorsement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8. Endorsement Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9. OmniAssertBroker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.1. OmniAssertBroker Transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.1.1. Assert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.1.2. Recover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.1.3. Revoke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.2. OmniAssertBroker Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.2.1. Message: AssertRequest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.2.2. Message: AssertResponse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.2.3. Message: RecoverRequest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.2.4. Message: RecoverResponse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9.2.5. Message: RevokeRequest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9.2.6. Message: RevokeResponse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9.3. OmniAssertBroker Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9.3.1. Structure: Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9.3.2. Structure: EncryptedKey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 April 30, 2015 [Page 2] Internet-Draft PPE: Key Generation & Publication October 2014 1. Problem Statement Generating a public keypair and registering it for use should be the only occasion on which a user is required to think about their cryptographic security. Nor should the user be required to think too much in this circumstance either. To enable others to send encrypted email to them, a user must at minimum generate at least one public keypair and make the public key portion available to the intended communit of potential senders. The precise means by which this is achieved may be considered a hard research problem. Accordingly this specification anticipates such processing being performed 'in the cloud' (i.e. by magic) and describes a Web Service interface that may be used to 1.1. Legacy Infrastructure Twenty years of effort attempting to deploy secure email has left a considerable legacy of deployed code. While this deployed code base is not ideally suited to the task (or the problem would be solved already) it is generally better to support use of such deployed resources where they exist rather than attempt to build everything from scratch. One significant design consequence that flows from this approach is to adopt ASN.1 encoding for cryptagraphic data objects, including the Key Endorsement object described in this document. While there are many better choices of data encoding and remarkably few that are worse, most cryptographic toolkits provide support for parsing X.509v3 certificates and generating Certificate Signing Requests and many provide comprehensive support for a wide range of ASN.1 encoded objects. 2. Key Generation and Identification 2.1. Strong Key Identifier A Strong Key Identifier is an identifier that identifies a unique public key formed using a strong Message digest function over the public key parameter values. This definition of Key Identifiers is considerably more restrictive than the PKIX definition which allows an issuer to use any unique string for the subjectKeyIdentifier and authorityKeyIdentifier extensions. Compliant certificate issuers SHOULD use Strong Key Identifiers as specified in this document for PKIX Key Identifiers. April 30, 2015 [Page 3] Internet-Draft PPE: Key Generation & Publication October 2014 A strong Key Identifier takes one of the two following forms: If the length of the Key Identifier is exactly 20 octets. The Key Identifier is an OpenPGP v4 Key fingerprint calculated as specified in [!RFC4880] Otherwise The first byte specifies the digest algorithm and the following bytes the digest value calculated over the DER encoded SubjectPublicKeyInfo. The following algorithm values are assigned in this document: 0 SHA-2-512 truncated to 128 bits. 1 SHA-2-512 truncated to 224 bits. 2 SHA-2-512 truncated to 256 bits. 3 SHA-2-512 without truncation 128-255 Reserved for use in a future multi-byte algorithm identifier scheme. To prevent a downgrade attack in which an attacker truncates a longer Key Identifier, the input to the message digest function is prepared as follows: Let V be the algorithm identifier value and D be the DER encoded SubjectPublicKeyInfo and + stand for simple concatenation. Key Identifier = H (V + D) If it is necessary to present a Key Identifier to an end user, Base32 encoding is used. Additional dash (-) characters MAY be added to improve readability and MUST be ignored by compliant applications. 2.1.1. Strong Email Addresses To establish encrypted communications it is necessary to know a public key for the recipient and the recipient's security policy. The fact that a recipient is capable of receiving encrypted email does not mean that they are capable of receiving encrypted email on every device they use or that they are willing to accept encrypted email from every sender. April 30, 2015 [Page 4] Internet-Draft PPE: Key Generation & Publication October 2014 A similar problem was faced when using Transport Layer Security [RFC5246] with HTTP [RFC2616]. By default, Web requests are sent without use of security. To force use of TLS, the URI method https is used in place of http. The security policy is encoded in the URI. Strong email addresses allow an email sender to encode the security policy in an RFC822 [RFC2822] compliant email address. RFC822 defines the 'user name' portion of an email address as follows: addr-spec = local-part "@" domain local-part = dot-atom / quoted-string / obs-local-part atext = ALPHA / DIGIT / "!" / "#" / "$" / "%" / "&" / "'" / "*" / "+" / "-" / "/" / "=" / "?" / "^" / "_" / "`" / "{" / "|" / "}" / "~" atom = [CFWS] 1*atext [CFWS] dot-atom = [CFWS] dot-atom-text [CFWS] In a Strong Email Address, the character '?' is reserved. Although this is a legitimate account name in some operating systems, use is prohibited in current editions of Windows and most UNIX based operating systems. The address syntax is modified as follows: addr-spec = local-part "@" domain local-part = dot-atom / quoted-string / obs-local-part / strong-local atext = ALPHA / DIGIT / "!" / "#" / "$" / "%" / "&" / "'" / "*" / "+" / "-" / "/" / "=" / "^" / "_" / "`" / "{" / "|" / "}" / "~" strong-local = indirect-key / direct-key / nokey ktext = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" key-identifier = 1*ktext April 30, 2015 [Page 5] Internet-Draft PPE: Key Generation & Publication October 2014 indirect-key = key-identifier "??" dot-atom direct-key = key-identifier "?" dot-atom nokey = "?" dot-atom Addresses of the form indirect-key, direct-key and nokey are interpreted as follows: nokey Messages sent to the address MUST be encrypted under an encryption key that the sender determines to be trustworthy. direct-key If the public key specified by the Key Identifier is an encryption key, messages sent to the address MUST be encrypted under the specified key. Otherwise messages sent to the address MUST be encrypted under an encryption key that has a direct key endorsement under the specified key. indirect-key Messages sent to the address MUST be encrypted under an encryption key that has a key endorsement under the specified key. 2.2. Private Key Backup and Controlled Recovery A frequently overlooked hazzard of using encryption is the risk of data loss should the private key be lost or otherwise become unavailable. Another practical difficulty that must be faced is the need to enable encrypted email to be read on more than one device. Once published, a strong email identifier effectively becomes a personal root of trust, the value of which may increase over time. Each of these use cases requires some form of private key backup and recovery mechanism. While such mechanisms have traditionally been considered to be an implementation choice that is outside the scope of a protocol specification, to do so incurs a substantial risk of a large number of bad implementation choices. In particular the need to enable receipt of email on multiple devices requires a standards based approach or else applications provided by different vendors will not be able to exchange keys. While a Key Escrow capability provides a Key Backup capability, the reverse is not true. A Key Escrow system is generally understood to support recovery of the private key without notice to the private key holder while a Key Backup system need not meet this requirement. A publication service MAY support Key Backup and Recovery. A user MAY choose to use the Key Backup and Recovery function supported by a Publication service. April 30, 2015 [Page 6] Internet-Draft PPE: Key Generation & Publication October 2014 If Key Backup is used, the key management client encrypts the private key under a strong symmetric key and sends the encrypted data to the publication service. The information necessary to recover the private key is presented to the user in a compact form that MAY be written down and stored without risk of hardware failure rendering the key inaccessible. 2.2.1. Encrypted Private Key Private Keys are encrypted using the PKCS#8 format as specified in [RFC5208]. This specification is prefered to the PKCS#12 [I-D.moriarty-pkcs12v1- 1] format as the latter is essentially a wrapper for multiple PKCS#8 keys and associated certificates that can be generated by a publication service if necessary. Key management tools MUST support the use of AES-256 to encrypt private keys. AES is prefered over AES-128 for the greater number of encryption cycles rather than the increased brute force work factor. Applications MAY use encryption keys with lengths less than 256 bits provided that the keys have a length of at least 128 bits. If the key size used is shorter than the key size required by the encryption algorithm, the HKDF-Expand function described in [RFC5869] is used to expand the truncated key to provide the necessary number of bits. Keys are presented in BASE32 encoding [RFC4648] with optional separators '-' to improve readability. Applications MUST ignore separators when decoding the keys. 2.2.2. Key Splitting Key Management tools MAY support the use of a key splitting scheme to allow greater control over key recovery. For example, the user might split their key into three parts with a requirement that two parts are necessary to reconstruct the key. At this point the author has a paper by Rober Blakely Snr on an out- of-patent key splitting scheme but insufficient time to read the paper let alone write and implement the specification. If anyone is looking for something to do, that would be useful. 2.3. Private Key Example Alice uses a key generation tool to generate a public keypair. The public parameters in hexadecimal are: April 30, 2015 [Page 7] Internet-Draft PPE: Key Generation & Publication October 2014 Modulus : cc 4e de a4 1d d4 66 fd 04 93 14 63 79 91 96 62 35 77 81 47 85 45 85 ca 11 fd 00 f1 12 c6 6a 87 0f 5c 31 84 7b d5 26 43 67 fe 21 df 1b c1 5a bb 71 bb 3b fd 9e 11 e6 54 08 74 44 16 94 d9 b3 eb d8 92 8e 74 0a 54 4a 49 28 fc 08 ca a0 53 16 93 08 56 7a 3d 1e cb 9c 1a 59 74 e7 00 5b e6 35 c9 27 98 cc d0 45 29 30 48 c7 18 dd fe 7b 7f 71 68 81 26 ff 97 dc 5c ae 54 41 a2 b4 14 77 04 fd 7f Exponent : 01 00 01 2.3.1. Key Identifier KeyIdentifier: ABAHEA-BI4AAJ-6ACOXQA-A7AHPD-KAHDAES-NZACVA-HGWMAJ-DAA alice@example.com Send email to Alice using encryption if and only if an encryption key for Alice can be found and Alice has published the email encryption policy 'encryption preferred' or stronger. ?alice@example.com Send email to Alice using encryption if and only if an encryption key for Alice can be found, otherwise report an error. ABAHEA-BI4AAJ-6ACOXQA-A7AHPD-KAHDAES-NZACVA-HGWMAJ- DAA?alice@example.com Send email to Alice using encryption if and only if an encryption key for Alice can be found that is directly endorsed under the specified key, otherwise report an error. ABAHEA-BI4AAJ-6ACOXQA-A7AHPD-KAHDAES-NZACVA-HGWMAJ- DAA??alice@example.com Send email to Alice using encryption if and only if an encryption key for Alice can be found that is (directly or indierectly) endorsed under the specified key, otherwise report an error. April 30, 2015 [Page 8] Internet-Draft PPE: Key Generation & Publication October 2014 2.3.2. Private Key Backup The private key component of Alice's key is as follows: P : f1 a7 6b 9e 81 00 1b 72 ad c3 b9 e1 1e ec c0 8e 50 35 80 f2 bb e4 36 88 a3 e1 d1 9e 3f 1f 38 25 60 5b 45 dd 45 a2 58 23 6c 8c d0 f7 0f 77 37 55 89 a1 05 80 9e 75 d5 8e ad 79 19 e7 91 f7 90 67 Q : d8 6f e0 d8 58 ce ed c7 84 e9 9d b0 b9 0f 31 b7 b0 05 70 81 b2 e5 fa 0d da f6 b2 33 1c 1c b0 08 39 0d e1 a4 47 d0 9a 17 80 d2 cf 9e 15 2d ce 37 12 08 64 7e 3d 76 b1 a0 f9 09 66 76 8e 3c 1b 29 DP : 0a cd c3 5f f8 c0 7a 79 ac 0f 1e 16 54 7d 9d 36 3f 9b c4 c2 15 68 64 8f c3 53 eb 3d 39 f1 39 5f 62 69 72 3c 2c 4a cf c9 f5 a6 6e 09 3d a5 c4 d1 8c 2f a8 c1 51 54 4f 51 eb ab 88 5e f4 05 af 6d DQ : 40 d3 39 87 f3 09 7f 64 6b e5 c0 ca 46 93 4b 73 d5 ef bb 23 cd 9e 5e 07 ba 56 7b 47 1d 9b 66 0a 00 74 ac e9 94 6c e1 4a 3a d6 69 42 d2 db 16 51 9e 40 0f 41 54 4d 71 a4 62 12 b3 b2 bc a5 3a 09 InverseQ : ea 27 5d ec 2e 35 d7 77 84 4d 0e e7 4b cb 35 59 70 64 ac 59 61 38 e9 d9 ee 3a 07 d0 91 b2 6d 9b 88 50 0d 08 b5 71 d8 f0 8e 90 08 9c a8 1c f7 09 18 bc 0b 61 94 b1 cc cf 2e 88 3d 96 b0 6a c9 81 The private key is encrypted under a randomly assigned symmetric key using PKCS8 encoding. 30 82 02 78 30 02 05 00 04 82 02 70 9d d7 00 85 3d e1 fb a5 6e b1 53 92 c4 cb ac e6 a3 89 25 43 fc 7b 07 3c 7c 33 13 56 e3 42 84 4a d5 27 f7 fc 47 f2 df 12 10 4a f0 83 0f 28 21 ee 77 84 4c 30 61 27 f6 db f9 1a a5 ca bc 49 57 42 51 53 fb ee f4 77 6e d4 49 c3 a5 6f 6f 02 8b 3e 4c 01 e6 7e 54 1a 24 18 e9 db 0c f4 3f be 21 46 86 9a bf 33 1e df 5e 93 ec 64 63 82 d8 a0 b1 30 bf 4c 6b 5a aa 80 3c 77 e2 98 eb 00 07 6b e5 27 52 d8 ac b4 c7 9a 18 00 52 40 da 13 8f 3a d6 4d f5 c8 04 90 2f 0d 76 3a 4b 3f 9b 0e cb fb 33 55 b5 52 78 18 e1 f6 a2 fb ee 99 29 26 f9 aa 00 e3 33 f2 d8 d2 5d 06 b0 db d9 75 eb 40 9c bc b6 3e 4d 7b 30 00 88 85 9d 8f ac 35 fd eb a2 98 10 b9 d5 ea 25 f3 44 75 78 d6 3c ff 79 16 6b 37 6c 26 cd 63 04 77 d9 5e 74 68 9b de f1 fe 79 be 57 8d a1 50 3a 1b April 30, 2015 [Page 9] Internet-Draft PPE: Key Generation & Publication October 2014 5d 48 33 c3 07 64 17 b7 83 31 d0 cb 49 dc ad f3 33 44 5f 4d 97 96 b2 c3 c2 ba 0b a9 85 d1 26 38 3f f0 f1 53 cf 12 ad 33 c1 9d e1 75 b0 04 56 46 02 0e 35 94 43 eb ec fa 4e e2 4b 0f 61 f7 3e a8 5e 70 a2 97 a5 5d 8d 94 79 eb 47 dd ee d0 d2 c7 5b 8f de 01 a9 ab c6 9f 53 71 f1 c6 0d d9 2d 71 b6 1b 6b 93 f7 42 7c 1f 69 1f d7 52 08 3f ca 87 db 23 c7 62 32 68 16 d7 ba 45 9e 38 32 3b 80 b5 e0 75 65 af ea 5d 4f 31 d6 17 43 0e 7c ad 66 3f 9b 43 c4 b7 88 75 da 08 27 93 28 eb 0d dc 10 aa 91 4c 22 ae 12 ae fd 58 a7 48 c4 51 16 32 e2 a7 3b ee 5d 62 da 56 d0 b8 c5 e2 fb 53 22 6f eb 76 fe 47 0d ec 86 39 c3 7a 83 2a 37 18 b0 7c 19 ad b0 50 2c 25 3b eb 7c 49 9e 4b 7e a6 ea 94 86 45 ac 5e e6 80 36 04 11 e1 09 a1 d0 16 ff 82 b3 9d 2e 04 01 df 57 e2 eb 90 fa c3 23 76 9f da 97 fe 68 f0 8e 39 8d 71 67 18 7d 8a 8c c9 8c 92 2b 48 18 9a f7 60 f3 7b 94 07 ff f3 b5 e4 c7 0f 24 b5 89 f3 44 60 a6 54 87 d8 fc 25 3f 00 01 6c 8b 11 e7 05 8c 84 fe 77 fd 53 b1 e9 ea 4a a2 7a d8 12 a8 5b 38 10 38 81 57 18 0c 26 1b 8b 7e cc 33 53 dc 2d 95 6e 94 56 d0 d8 25 fb 67 dc d2 63 af 2c 70 50 ce a6 af bf 8f 1b ce a2 aa e6 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 The cipher (specified in the PKCS8 object) is AES-256. The password value in Base-32 encoding is: Passcode: 25ANVA-EAKZAD-HACPVJA-FXADTYC; 1/3: OOAPUA-AXBBAJ-2AEQ6KA-FQAFBTB 2/3: 7NAIPA-GRRCAG-RAHW6HA-FSAB5SD 3/3: VJAENA-BYO6AH-UAAGD6A-LIABUOD 3. Public Key Infrastructure The precise means by which a public key is validated by a relying party is outside the scope of this specification. Keys MAY be validated by a traditional Certificate Authority or through peer to peer endorsement or any combination of the two. In order to maximize the flexibility for the trust infrastructre designers, two syntaxes for presenting public keys for use are supported. Key Management tools SHOULD support both: A Certificate Signing Request May be presented to a CA or other signer. April 30, 2015 [Page 10] Internet-Draft PPE: Key Generation & Publication October 2014 A self signed certificate Presents the public key in a form that many Internet applications accept directly. 3.1. Certificate Signing Request. Certificate Signing Requests SHOULD conform to the following profile: * The Key Identifier MUST be specified and MUST be a strong key identifier * [[Prohibit various PKIX lunacies] 3.2. Self-Signed Certificate. Self Signed Certificates SHOULD conform to the following profile: * The Key Identifier MUST be specified and MUST be a strong key identifier * [[Prohibit various PKIX lunacies] 3.3. Peer Endorsement Traditionally PKIX only permits use of Certification Authority provided trust assertions while OpenPGP only permits use of peer endorsement through key signing. PPE supports the use of a combination of both approaches for reasons described in [I- D.hallambaker-prismproof-trust] To perform peer endorsement, the following data structure is used: Class Endorsement TBSEndorsement TBSEndorsement SignatureAlgorithm AlgorithmIdentifier Signature Bits Class TBSEndorsement Version Integer Issued Time IssuerKeyIdentifier Octets SubjectKeyIdentifier Octets Subject List Name SubjectAltName List SubjectAltName Extensions List Extension Class AlgorithmIdentifier Algorithm OIDRef Parameters Any Class Name April 30, 2015 [Page 11] Internet-Draft PPE: Key Generation & Publication October 2014 Member Set AttributeTypeValue Class AttributeTypeValue Type OIDRef Value AnyString Object SubjectAltName id_ce_subjectAltName Names List GeneralName Class GeneralName Value Choice RFC822Name IA5String Code 1 Implicit DNSName IA5String Code 2 Implicit Class Extension ObjectIdentifier OIDRef Critical Boolean Default "false" Optional Data Octets [[Note that although my tool generates ASN.1 encoding this is for purely pragmatic reasons of providing consistency. It is not meant to in any shape or fashion stand for an endorsement of this crackpot technology.] A new structure is introduced to support Key Endorsement rather than attempting to re-use the X.509v3 Certificate format in recognition of key endorsement having distinctly different semantics from issue of PKIX certificates. PKIX certificates are either end entity certificates or certificate signing certificates. A PKIX certificate is expressly prohibited from being used for both purposes. In the PKIX model, finding a certificate chain to a trusted anchor is necessary and sufficient to establish the trustworthiness of an end entity certificate. In the Key Endorsement model the reliance on a single key endorsement MAY be qualified by the age of the endorsement, the circumstances of issue, the number of independent trust paths from the relying party to the subject and the lengths of each path. Most of the fields in the TBSEndorsement structure have the same semantics as in PKIX with the exception of the Validity interval which is replaced by the time of issue. The precise mechanism by which endorsement is used requires further development. At minimum, the endorsement mechanism should allow the following forms of endorsement to be differentiated: April 30, 2015 [Page 12] Internet-Draft PPE: Key Generation & Publication October 2014 Direct Endorsement A endorsement of a user's key identifier by another key held by the same user. This form of endorsement allows a user to establish a personal master key that is only used for the purpose of endorsing keys for specific uses (email encryption, email signature, endorsement, etc.) Peer Endorsement A user endorses the key identifier of another user (the subject) and possibly other aspects of the subject's identity such as their name, likeness etc. Such an endorsement SHOULD specify the basis for the endorsement (in person, remote, recent acquaintance, verification of government documents, childhood friend, etc.) Group Endorsement One of the use practices that has emerged from attempts to employ PGP is the 'key party' in which groups of users perform mutual keysigning. Withdrawing an Endorsement In certain circumstances, it MAY be necessary to withdraw an endorsement. The reason for withdrawing the endorsement SHOULD be specified in the UnEndorsement notice and MAY include, notification of the loss of the private key, the subject is deceased, etc.) 4. Publication Service The Publication Service is a JSON/REST Web Service layered over HTTP transport. Although the publication service performs an important service, it is not a service trusted by the user since the publication service has no access to the user's private key (except in encrypted form) and does not sign any data that is read by the user. The Publication Service is one of the two interfaces between the part of the email message security problem that is well understood and the part that is widely regarded to be 'research'. Selection of the publication service MAY be left to individual user choice or a domain name holder MAY specify that publication requests be directed to a specific publication service. Users of a public email service are likely to want to insist on their own choice of publication service while a bank or government enterprise that has deployed its own security infrastructure is likely to want to insist that only credentials they approve are accepted for their site. April 30, 2015 [Page 13] Internet-Draft PPE: Key Generation & Publication October 2014 To allow researchers the widest possible lattitude in developing new trust infrastructures, publication of three trust assertion formats are supported together with support for key backup and recovery. These assertion formats are: Self Signed Certificate A PKIX self signed certificate which MAY be used in conjunction with an existing application that accepts public key information in self signed certificate form. Certificate Signing Request A PKCS#10 Certificate Signing Request conforming to [!RFC2986]. A publication interface MAY forward the Certificate Signing request to a Certificate Authority for issue of a PKIX end entity certificate. Key Endorsement A Key Endorsement in the format described in this document. 4.1. Initial Key Publication The first time that the Publication Service is used is after the user generates a new keypair. For example, Alice registers the keypair generated in the previous example with her chosen Publication Service. Her key management tool makes an Assert request to the service with the following information: * The Strong Key Identifier * The Encrypted Private Key * A Self-Signed Certificate * A Signed Certificate Signing Request * Service information describing the email service parameters to be used when sending messages using the corresponding email account. [[Which really should be encrypted, shouldn't they?] April 30, 2015 [Page 14] Internet-Draft PPE: Key Generation & Publication October 2014 5. Registration Example Request { "AssertRequest": { "KeyIdentifier": " AERyCSjgNp85TrwVD5TvGrtx7ZJuVyrG5rM6keU", "EncryptedKey": { "EncryptedPrivateKey": " MIICeDACBQAEggJwndcAhT3h-6VusVOSxMus5qOJJUP8ewc8fDMTVuNChErVJ_f8 R_LfEhBK8IMPKCHud4RMMGEn9tv5GqXKvElXQlFT--70d27UScOlb28Ciz5MAeZ- VBokGOnbDPQ_viFGhpq_Mx7fXpPsZGOC2KCxML9Ma1qqgDx34pjrAAdr5SdS2Ky0 x5oYAFJA2hOPOtZN9cgEkC8NdjpLP5sOy_szVbVSeBjh9qL77pkpJvmqAOMz8tjS XQaw29l160CcvLY-TXswAIiFnY-sNf3ropgQudXqJfNEdXjWPP95Fms3bCbNYwR3 2V50aJve8f55vleNoVA6G11IM8MHZBe3gzHQy0ncrfMzRF9Nl5ayw8K6C6mF0SY4 P_DxU88SrTPBneF1sARWRgIONZRD6-z6TuJLD2H3PqhecKKXpV2NlHnrR93u0NLH W4_eAamrxp9TcfHGDdktcbYba5P3QnwfaR_XUgg_yofbI8diMmgW17pFnjgyO4C1 4HVlr-pdTzHWF0MOfK1mP5tDxLeIddoIJ5Mo6w3cEKqRTCKuEq79WKdIxFEWMuKn O-5dYtpW0LjF4vtTIm_rdv5HDeyGOcN6gyo3GLB8Ga2wUCwlO-t8SZ5LfqbqlIZF rF7mgDYEEeEJodAW_4KznS4EAd9X4uuQ-sMjdp_al_5o8I45jXFnGH2KjMmMkitI GJr3YPN7lAf_87Xkxw8ktYnzRGCmVIfY_CU_AAFsixHnBYyE_nf9U7Hp6kqietgS qFs4EDiBVxgMJhuLfswzU9wtlW6UVtDYJftn3NJjryxwUM6mr7-PG86iquYAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"}, "Certificate": [" MIICMDCCAaQAAQICEC9SGLG5FJwVSb5qRQGMdGAwAgUAMAQwAjEAMB4XDTEzMTEw MTEyMDAwMVoXDTMzMTExNjA1MDA0NFowBDACMQAwgZQwAgUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDM Tt6kHdRm_QSTFGN5kZZiNXeBR4VFhcoR_QDxEsZqhw9cMYR71SZDZ_4h3xvBWrtx uzv9nhHmVAh0RBaU2bPr2JKOdApUSkko_AjKoFMWkwhWej0ey5waWXTnAFvmNckn mMzQRSkwSMcY3f57f3FogSb_l9xcrlRBorQUdwT9fwIDAQABAQACACOBwTApBgMO HVUCAQAEHwQdAERyCSjgNp85TrwVD5TvGrtx7ZJuVyrG5rM6keUwMAYDIx1VAgEA BCYwJAAdAERyCSjgNp85TrwVD5TvGrtx7ZJuVyrG5rM6keUBAAIBADAlBgMRHVUC AQAEGzAZMBcwFQUAFhFhbGljZUBleGFtcGxlLmNvbTAQBgMPHVUCAf8EBgMEAAcA gDAYBgMlHVUCAQAEDjAMMAoGCAQDBwUFAQYrMA8GAxMdVQIBAAQFMAMCAQAwAgUA A4GBAApColS86hwM0t2ehZyH1-sXS6kL95WBRquKpdjspok_Bts4Y1sXjgiiu6AY S9o_Y5vu4-mftgEwiTfhqrh_AJ_FcdD7Mohglo2O8b1lvfLXqoiRjLsAEF79M9A5 UWHf6t-WyaYvu6QBfEvESbvDpzndn3pFGmgjETrAPwZwY4AG"], "CertificateRequest": [" MIIBLTCBogIBADAEMAIxADCBlDACBQADgY0AMIGJAoGBAMxO3qQd1Gb9BJMUY3mR lmI1d4FHhUWFyhH9APESxmqHD1wxhHvVJkNn_iHfG8Fau3G7O_2eEeZUCHREFpTZ s-vYko50ClRKSSj8CMqgUxaTCFZ6PR7LnBpZdOcAW-Y1ySeYzNBFKTBIxxjd_nt_ cWiBJv-X3FyuVEGitBR3BP1_AgMBAAEAADACBQADgYEApg6BVGJsxnjRAiYTGMp9 QZX00qSOszIy19u0lWbrVaXl7I4Pz7vfDr3i3ZZNYiWOy70iuY6l-FjLlnkEN_ou ZIjDicxP5lVqJPfmNckDqIm8KcJ9QPCYNZiSSWYQFPk_4PrEn9wYCTMVn2E2kmZV YfOBXlmrR6shpwmgf32sJyU"], "Service": [{ "Email": "alice@example.com", "Name": "smtp.example.com", "Protocol": "_smtp._tls", "Port": 587, April 30, 2015 [Page 15] Internet-Draft PPE: Key Generation & Publication October 2014 "TLS": true}, { "Email": "alice@example.com", "Name": "imap.example.com", "Protocol": "_smtp._tls", "Port": 993, "TLS": true}]}} Response { "AssertResponse": {}} 5.1. Enabling a new Device Alice uses several different devices to read her email and she would like to be able to read encrypted emails on all of them. This requires that the private key be installed on each of the devices that she might want to use. Alice provides either the Key Recovery Passcode or a sufficient number of Key Shares to reconstruct the passcode to the key management tool running on each device. The device then requests recovery of the private key and associated service information: 6. Recovery Example Request { "RecoverRequest": { "KeyIdentifier": " AERyCSjgNp85TrwVD5TvGrtx7ZJuVyrG5rM6keU"}} Response { "RecoverResponse": {}} Providing the service information with the private key allows the key recovery tool to automate configuration of the user's email account on the device if this has not been done already. Using the key recovery mechanism to support key transport between devices simplifies the initial coding task at the cost of a sub- optimal user experience for the user with a large number of devices in use and/or frequent key updates. April 30, 2015 [Page 16] Internet-Draft PPE: Key Generation & Publication October 2014 Future versions of the specification may adopt a different approach to key recovery in which each device in which keys are to be installed establishes a device specific keypair which is in turn used to automate the key transport. A key concern in the design of such a scheme being to prevent a weak random number generator on one device causing the private key to be compromised. 6.1. Revocation Should the private key be lost, the subject be deceased or some other event occur that renders the key no longer servicable, a revocation statement is generated and issued. Such revocation statements use the Revoke request and the key endorsement message format: 7. Revocation Example Request { "RevokeRequest": {}} Response { "RevokeResponse": {}} 7.1. Key Endorsement From time to time, Alice meets other PPE users and they endorse each other's keys. The AssertRequest is used to submit one or more signed key endorsements: 8. Endorsement Example Request { "AssertRequest": { "Endorsement": [" MIH5MG8CAQAXDTEzMTEwMTA1MDA0NFoEHQBEcgko4DafOU68FQ-U7xq7ce2Sblcq xuazOpHlBB0A6_lnsF7kAUEy_oGLvM-BbXuYjLjVJQ5YPMWHHQUAMBkwFzAVMBMF ABYPYm9iQGV4YW1wbGUuY29tBQAwAgUAA4GBAIrZK5W4Vi9dAk0LPlEMkP5JQxBC XHUJ5I9gEMithdJvyE0uZTwedhUlG30YEvRJXkizkJUriAIhNdTQU2YpANyICZHF 27CO-I09d2TGOkmbuuadi-QmH9dgdEmRpBWIOmVcF6mXnRRyG8M4cVbetK9TRqwX NnlHucuKDA_VIAx9"]}} April 30, 2015 [Page 17] Internet-Draft PPE: Key Generation & Publication October 2014 Response { "AssertResponse": {}} A key endorsement MAY be submitted to the Publication Interface by any party including the signer or the subject. 9. OmniAssertBroker 9.1. OmniAssertBroker Transactions 9.1.1. Assert * Request: AssertRequest * Response: AssertResponse Register an assertion set. The Assert transaction is used when a keypair is first created to register the new Key Identifier, Self Signed Certificate and Certificate Signing Request and to request revision of embedded attributes such as the email security policy. The Assert transaction is also used to request registration of Key Endorsements. 9.1.2. Recover * Request: RecoverRequest * Response: RecoverResponse Recover a previously registered encrypted private key file from the service If the Key Identifier cannot be found or there is no release code associated with the encrypted private key, the transaction is complete after the first response. Otherwise the service returns the status code 'ChallengeResponse' in response to the initial request and the client MUST make a second request in which it establishes proof of knowledge of the release code to complete the transaction. 9.1.3. Revoke * Request: RevokeRequest * Response: RevokeResponse April 30, 2015 [Page 18] Internet-Draft PPE: Key Generation & Publication October 2014 Publish a revocation meta-assertion 9.2. OmniAssertBroker Messages 9.2.1. Message: AssertRequest Register an assertion set At present only a single Key Identifier may be registered per request and no provision is made to link related requests. This is likely to become necessary when different keys are being used for key endorsement, signature, encryption and master purposes. KeyIdentifier : Binary [1..1] Strong Key Identifier formed using a message digest function over the DER encoded Public Key Info block. EncryptedKey : EncryptedKey [0..1] Encrypted Private Key and associated attributes. Certificate : Binary [0..Many] PKIX Certificates to be registered, comply with [!RFC5280] and additional profile constraints specified here. CertificateRequest : Binary [0..Many] Certificate Request in [!RFC2986] format. Endorsement : Binary [0..Many] Key Endorsements as specified in this document. Service : Service [0..Many] Service connection information for associated services. For example, email IMAP [!RFC3501], POP3 [!RFC5034] and SUBMIT [!RFC4409] accounts. 9.2.2. Message: AssertResponse Response to an assertion registration request. It may be useful to expand the response to allow the gateway to provide information such as certificates issued in response to the certification request but these will typically require some form of validation and thus be returned asynchronously. April 30, 2015 [Page 19] Internet-Draft PPE: Key Generation & Publication October 2014 9.2.3. Message: RecoverRequest Request recovery of a previously registered encrypted private key. KeyIdentifier : Binary [1..1] Key Identifier of key pair for which recovery of the private key is being requested. Challenge : Binary [0..1] Client challenge value for proof of knowledge of the release code. Answer : Binary [0..1] Answer value for proof of knowledge of the release code. 9.2.4. Message: RecoverResponse Respond to a recovery request. If the encrypted private key associated with the specified Key Identifier has an associated EncryptedPrivateKey : Binary [0..1] PKCS#8 Encrypted Private Key as specified in [!RFC5208]. Challenge : Binary [0..1] Server challenge value for proof of knowledge of the release code. Algorithm : String [0..1] Digest algorithm for proof of knowledge of the release code. 9.2.5. Message: RevokeRequest Regquest revocation of a previously registered key and all related certificates and endorsements. Note that whil key revocation necessarily entails revocation of all the certificates and endorsement associated with the key, the reverse is not the case. A user may revoke a certificate granting use of a key for encrypted email without wishing to revoke a certificate for the same key granting use for signed email. KeyIdentifier : Binary [1..1] Key Identifier of Key to be revoked. April 30, 2015 [Page 20] Internet-Draft PPE: Key Generation & Publication October 2014 Notice : Binary [0..1] Signed Key Endorsement object with the 'revoke' attribute specified. 9.2.6. Message: RevokeResponse Response to revocation request. 9.3. OmniAssertBroker Structures 9.3.1. Structure: Service Email : String [0..1] Principal Email address associated with the account OtherEmail : String [0..Many] Additional Email addresses associated with the account. Name : String [0..1] DNS Address of Service Protocol : String [0..1] SRV format protocol identification prefix. Port : Integer [0..1] IP Port number TLS : Boolean [0..1] If true, use of TLS is required Security : String [0..1] Security policy description 9.3.2. Structure: EncryptedKey EncryptedPrivateKey : Binary [1..1] PKCS#8 Encrypted Private Key as specified in [!RFC5208]. PFX : Binary [0..1] PKCS#12 Encrypted Private Key as specified in [!~I-D.moriarty-pkcs12v1-1]. ReleaseCode : Binary [0..1] Release Code value for authorizing private key recovery requests. If specified the service MUST NOT release the encrypted private key unless the requestor satisfies a challenge-response request that establishes knowledge of the Release Code. April 30, 2015 [Page 21] Internet-Draft PPE: Key Generation & Publication October 2014 10. Security Considerations I am sure there are some. 11. Acknowledgments Thanks to the many people who have encouraged me in this work and in particular the members of the IETF PERPASS list and the Cryptography mailing list. Future versions of the draft will have a more complete list. 12. References 12.1. Normative References [RFC3501] Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION 4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003. [RFC5280] Cooper, D.,Santesson, S.,Farrell, S.,Boeyen, S.,Housley, R.,Polk, W., "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008. [RFC2986] Nystrom, M.,Kaliski, B., "PKCS #10: Certification Request Syntax Specification Version 1.7", RFC 2986, November 2000. [~I-D.moriarty-pkcs12v1-1] , "[Reference Not Found!]". [RFC4409] ,Gellens, R.,Klensin, J., "Message Submission for Mail", RFC 4409, April 2006. [RFC5034] Siemborski, R.,Menon-Sen, A., "The Post Office Protocol (POP3) Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) Authentication Mechanism", RFC 5034, July 2007. [RFC5208] Kaliski, B., "Public-Key Cryptography Standards (PKCS) #8: Private-Key Information Syntax Specification Version 1.2", RFC 5208, May 2008. [RFC2822] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, April 2001. [RFC4880] Callas, J.,Donnerhacke, L.,Finney, H.,Shaw, D.,Thayer, R., "OpenPGP Message Format", RFC 4880, November 2007. [I-D.hallambaker-prismproof-trust] Hallam-Baker, P, "PRISM Proof Trust Model", Internet-Draft draft-hallambaker-prismproof- trust-00, 16 October 2013. April 30, 2015 [Page 22] Internet-Draft PPE: Key Generation & Publication October 2014 [RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings", RFC 4648, October 2006. [RFC5869] Krawczyk, H.,Eronen, P., "HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand Key Derivation Function (HKDF)", RFC 5869, May 2010. 12.2. Informative References [I-D.moriarty-pkcs12v1-1] Moriarty, K,Nystrom, M,Parkinson, S,Rusch, A,Scott, M, "PKCS 12 v1: Personal Information Exchange Syntax", Internet-Draft draft-moriarty-pkcs12v1-1-01, 25 March 2013. [RFC2616] Fielding, R.,Gettys, J.,Mogul, J.,Frystyk, H.,Masinter, L.,Leach, P.,Berners-Lee, T., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. [RFC5246] Dierks, T.,Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008. Author's Address Phillip Hallam-Baker Comodo Group Inc. philliph@comodo.com April 30, 2015 [Page 23]