COSE Working Group J. Schaad Internet-Draft August Cellars Intended status: Informational July 5, 2015 Expires: January 6, 2016 CBOR Encoded Message Syntax draft-ietf-cose-msg-01 Abstract Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) is data format designed for small code size and small message size. There is a need for the ability to have the basic security services defined for this data format. This document specifies how to do signatures, message authentication codes and encryption using this data format. Contributing to this document The source for this draft is being maintained in GitHub. Suggested changes should be submitted as pull requests at [1]. Instructions are on that page as well. Editorial changes can be managed in GitHub, but any substantial issues need to be discussed on the COSE mailing list. 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 January 6, 2016. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 1] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 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. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Design changes from JOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Requirements Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.3. CBOR Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.4. CBOR Related Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.5. Mandatory to Implement Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. The COSE_MSG structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Header Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1. COSE Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. Signing Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. Encryption object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.1. Key Management Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.2. Encryption Algorithm for AEAD algorithms . . . . . . . . 17 5.3. Encryption algorithm for AE algorithms . . . . . . . . . 18 6. MAC objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7. Key Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7.1. COSE Key Map Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 8. CBOR Encoder Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 9.1. CBOR Tag assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 9.2. COSE Object Labels Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9.3. COSE Header Label Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 9.4. COSE Header Algorithm Label Table . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 9.5. COSE Algorithm Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 9.6. COSE Key Map Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 9.7. COSE Key Parameter Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 9.8. Media Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 9.8.1. COSE Security Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 9.8.2. COSE Key media type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Appendix A. AEAD and AE algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Appendix B. Three Levels of Recipient Information . . . . . . . 35 Appendix C. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 2] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 C.1. Examples of MAC messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 C.1.1. Shared Secret Direct MAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 C.1.2. ECDH Direct MAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 C.1.3. Wrapped MAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 C.1.4. Multi-recipient MAC message . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 C.2. Examples of Encrypted Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 C.2.1. Direct ECDH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 C.3. Examples of Signed Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 C.3.1. Single Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 C.3.2. Multiple Signers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Appendix D. COSE Header Algorithm Label Table . . . . . . . . . 44 Appendix E. Document Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 E.1. Version -00 to -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 1. Introduction There has been an increased focus on the small, constrained devices that make up the Internet of Things (IOT). One of the standards that has come of of this process is the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR). This standard extends the data model of the JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) by allowing for binary data among other changes. CBOR is being adopted by several of the IETF working groups dealing with the IOT world to do their encoding of data structures. CBOR was designed specifically to be both small in terms of messages transport and implementation size. A need exists to provide basic message security services for IOT and using CBOR as the message encoding format makes sense. The JOSE working group produced a set of documents [RFC7515][RFC7516][RFC7517][RFC7518] that defined how to perform encryption, signatures and message authentication (MAC) operations for JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) documents and then to encode the results using the JSON format [RFC7159]. This document does the same work for use with the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC7049] document format. While there is a strong attempt to keep the flavor of the original JOSE documents, two considerations are taken into account: o CBOR has capabilities that are not present in JSON and should be used. One example of this is the fact that CBOR has a method of encoding binary directly without first converting it into a base64 encoded string. o The author did not always agree with some of the decisions made by the JOSE working group. Many of these decisions have been re- examined, and where it seems to the author to be superior or simpler, replaced. Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 3] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 1.1. Design changes from JOSE o Define a top level message structure so that encrypted, signed and MACed messages can easily identified and still have a consistent view. o Signed messages separate the concept of protected and unprotected attributes that are for the content and the signature. o Key management has been made to be more uniform. All key management techniques are represented as a recipient rather than only have some of them be so. o MAC messages are separated from signed messages. o MAC messages have the ability to do key management on the MAC authentication key. o Use binary encodings for binary data rather than base64url encodings. o Combine the authentication tag for encryption algorithms with the ciphertext. o Remove the flattened mode of encoding. Forcing the use of an array of recipients at all times forces the message size to be two bytes larger, but one gets a corresponding decrease in the implementation size that should compensate for this. [CREF1] 1.2. Requirements Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. When the words appear in lower case, their natural language meaning is used. 1.3. CBOR Grammar There currently is no standard CBOR grammar available for use by specifications. In this document, we use the grammar defined in the CBOR data definition language (CDDL) [I-D.greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl]. CDDL productions that together define the grammar are interspersed in the document like this: Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 4] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 start = COSE_MSG The collected CDDL can be extracted from the XML version of this document via the following XPath expression below. (Depending on the XPath evaluator one is using, it may be necessary to deal with > as an entity.) //artwork[@type='CDDL']/text() NOTE: At some point we need to make some decisions about how we are using CDDL in this document. Since this draft has not been moving forward at a great rate, changing all references on it to informational is a good idea. On the other hand, having some type of syntax that can be examined by a machine to do syntax checking is a big win. The build system for this draft is currently using the latest version of CDDL to check that the syntax of the examples is correct. Doing this has found problems in both the syntax checker, the syntax and the examples. 1.4. CBOR Related Terminology In JSON, maps are called objects and only have one kind of map key: a string. In COSE, we use both strings and integers (both negative and non-negative integers) as map keys, as well as data items to identify specific choices. The integers (both positive and negative) are used for compactness of encoding and easy comparison. (Generally, in this document the value zero is going to be reserved and not used.) Since the work "key" is mainly used in its other meaning, as a cryptographic key, we use the term "label" for this usage of either an integer or a string to identify map keys and choice data items. label = int / tstr 1.5. Mandatory to Implement Algorithms One of the standard issues that is specified in IETF cryptographic algorithms is a requirement that a standard specify a set of minimal algorithms that are required to be implemented. This is done to promote interoperability as it provides a minimal set of algorithms that all devices can be sure will exist at both ends. However, we have elected not to specify a set of mandatory algorithms in this document. It is expected that COSE is going to be used in a wide variety of applications and on a wide variety of devices. Many of the constrained devices are going to be setup to used a small fixed set Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 5] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 of algorithms, and this set of algorithms may not match those available on a device. We therefore have deferred to the application protocols the decision of what to specify for mandatory algorithms. Since the set of algorithms in an environment of constrained devices may depend on what the set of devices are and how long they have been in operation, we want to highlight that application protocols will need to specify some type of discovery method of algorithm capabilities. The discovery method may be as simple as requiring preconfiguration of the set of algorithms to providing a discovery method built into the protocol. S/MIME provided a number of different ways to approach the problem: o Advertising in the message (S/MIME capabilities) o Advertising in the certificate (capabilities extension) o Minimum requirements for the S/MIME which have been updated over time 2. The COSE_MSG structure The COSE_MSG structure is a top level CBOR object that corresponds to the DataContent type in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) [RFC5652]. This structure allows for a top level message to be sent that could be any of the different security services. The security service is identified within the message. The COSE_Tagged_MSG CBOR type takes the COSE_MSG and prepends a CBOR tag of TBD1 to the encoding of COSE_MSG. By having both a tagged and untagged version of the COSE_MSG structure, it becomes easy to either use COSE_MSG as a top level object or embedded in another object. The tagged version allows for a method of placing the COSE_MSG structure into a choice, using a consistent tag value to determine that this is a COSE object. The existence of the COSE_MSG and COSE_Tagged_MSG CBOR data types are not intended to prevent protocols from using the individual security primitives directly. Where only a single service is required, that structure can be used directly. Each of the top-level security objects use a CBOR map as the base structure. Items in the map at the top level are identified by a label. This document defines a number of labels in the IANA "COSE Object Labels Registry" (defined in Section 9.2). The set of labels present in a security object is not restricted to those defined in this document. However, it is not recommended that Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 6] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 additional fields be added to a structure unless this is going to be done in a closed environment. When new fields need to be added, it is recommended that a new message type be created so that processing of the field can be ensured. Using an older structure with a new field means that any security properties of the new field will not be enforced. Before a new field is added at the outer level, strong consideration needs to be given to defining a new header field and placing it into the protected headers. Applications should make a determination if non-standardized fields are going to be permitted. It is suggested that libraries allow for an option to fail parsing if non-standardized fields exist, this is especially true if they do not allow for access to the fields in other ways. A field 'msg_type' is defined to distinguish between the different structures when they appear as part of a COSE_MSG object. [CREF2] [CREF3] This field is indexed by an integer value 1, the values defined in this document are: 0 - Reserved. 1 - Signed Message. 2 - Encrypted Message 3 - Authenticated Message (MACed message) Implementations MUST be prepared to find an integer under this label that does not correspond to the values 1 to 3. If this is found then the client MUST stop attempting to parse the structure and fail. The value of 0 is reserved and not to be used. If the value of 0 is found, then clients MUST fail processing the structure. Implementations need to recognize that the set of values might be extended at a later date, but they should not provide a security service based on guesses of what is there. NOTE: Is there any reason to allow for a marker of a COSE_Key structure and allow it to be a COSE_MSG? Doing so does allow for a security risk, but may simplify the code. [CREF4] The CDDL grammar that corresponds to the above is: Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 7] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 COSE_MSG = COSE_Sign / COSE_encrypt / COSE_mac COSE_Tagged_MSG = #6.999(COSE_MSG) ; Replace 999 with TBD1 ; msg_type values reserved=0 msg_type_signed=1 msg_type_encrypted=2 msg_type_mac=3 The top level of each of the COSE message structures are encoded as maps. We use an integer to distinguish between the different security message types. By searching for the integer under the label identified by msg_type (which is in turn an integer), one can determine which security message is being used and thus what syntax is for the rest of the elements in the map. +-------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+ | name | number | comments | +-------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+ | msg_type | 1 | Occurs only in top level messages | | | | | | protected | 2 | Occurs in all structures | | | | | | unprotected | 3 | Occurs in all structures | | | | | | payload | 4 | Contains the content of the structure | | | | | | signatures | 5 | For COSE_Sign - array of signatures | | | | | | signature | 6 | For COSE_signature only | | | | | | ciphertext | 4 | TODO: Should we reuse the same as payload | | | | or not? | | | | | | recipients | 9 | For COSE_encrypt and COSE_mac | | | | | | tag | 10 | For COSE_mac only | +-------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+ Table 1: COSE Map Labels The CDDL grammar that provides the label values is: Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 8] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 ; message_labels msg_type=1 protected=2 unprotected=3 payload=4 signatures=5 signature=6 ciphertext=4 recipients=9 tag=10 3. Header Parameters The structure of COSE has been designed to have two buckets of information that are not considered to be part of the payload itself, but are used for holding information about algorithms, keys, or evaluation hints for the processing of the layer. These two buckets are available for use in all of the structures in this document except for keys. While these buckets can be present, they may not all be usable in all instances. For example, while the protected bucket is present for recipient structures, most of the algorithms that are used for recipients do not provide the necessary functionality to provide the needed protection and thus the element is not used. Both buckets are implemented as CBOR maps. The map key is a 'label' (Section 1.4). The value portion is dependent on the definition for the label. Both maps use the same set of label/value pairs. The integer range for labels has been divided into several sections with a standard range, a private range, and a range that is dependent on the algorithm selected. The tables of labels can be found in Table 2. Two buckets are provided for each layer: [CREF5] protected contains attributes about the layer that are to be cryptographically protected. This bucket MUST NOT be used if it is not going to be included in a cryptographic computation. unprotected contains attributes about the layer that are not cryptographically protected. Both of the buckets are optional and are omitted if there are no items contained in the map. The CDDL fragment that describes the two buckets is: Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 9] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 header_map = {+ label => any } Headers = ( ? protected => bstr, ? unprotected => header_map ) 3.1. COSE Headers The set of header fields defined in this document are: alg This field is used to indicate the algorithm used for the security processing. This field MUST be present at each level of a signed, encrypted or authenticated message. This field using the integer '1' for the label. The value is taken from the 'COSE Algorithm Registry' (see Section 9.4). crit This field is used to ensure that applications will take appropriate action based on the values found. The field is used to indicate which protected header labels an application that is processing a message is required to understand. This field uses the integer '2' for the label. The value is an array of COSE Header Labels. When present, this MUST be placed in the protected header bucket. * Integer labels in the range of 0 to 10 SHOULD be omitted. * Integer labels in the range -1 to -255 can be omitted as they are algorithm dependent. If an application can correctly process an algorithm, it can be assumed that it will correctly process all of the parameters associated with that algorithm. The header values indicated by 'crit' can be processed by either the security library code or by an application using a security library, the only requirement is that the field is processed. cty This field is used to indicate the content type of the data in the payload or ciphertext fields. The field uses the integer of '3' for the label. The value can be either an integer or a string. [CREF6] Integers are from the XXXXX[CREF7] IANA registry table. Strings are from the IANA 'mime-content types' registry. Applications SHOULD provide this field if the content structure is potentially ambiguous. kid This field one of the ways that can be used to find the key to be used. This value can be matched against the 'kid' field in a COSE_Key structure. Applications MUST NOT assume that 'kid' values are unique. There may be more than one key with the same Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 10] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 'kid' value, it may be required that all of the keys need to be checked to find the correct one. This field uses the integer value of '4' for the label. The value of field is the CBOR 'bstr' type. The internal structure of 'kid' is not defined and generally cannot be relied on by applications. Key identifier values are hints about which key to use, they are not directly a security critical field, for this reason they can normally be placed in the unprotected headers bucket. nonce This field holds either a nonce or Initialization Vector value. This value can be used either as a counter value for a protocol or as an IV for an algorithm. TODO: Talk about zero extending the value in some cases. This table contains a list of all of the parameters for use in signature and encryption message types defined by the JOSE document set. In the table is the data value type to be used for CBOR as well as the integer value that can be used as a replacement for the name in order to further decrease the size of the sent item. Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 11] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 +----------+-------+----------+-------------+-----------------------+ | name | label | value | registry | description | +----------+-------+----------+-------------+-----------------------+ | alg | 1 | int / | COSE | Integers are taken | | | | tstr | Algorithm | from table --POINT TO | | | | | Registry | REGISTRY-- | | | | | | | | crit | 2 | [+ | COSE Header | integer values are | | | | label] | Label | from this table. | | | | | Registry | | | | | | | | | cty | 3 | tstr / | media-types | Value is either a | | | | int | registry | media-type or an | | | | | | integer from the | | | | | | media-type registry | | | | | | | | jku | * | tstr | | URL to COSE key | | | | | | object | | | | | | | | jwk | * | COSE_Key | | contains a COSE key | | | | | | not a JWK key | | | | | | | | kid | 4 | bstr | | key identifier | | | | | | | | x5c | * | bstr* | | X.509 Certificate | | | | | | Chain | | | | | | | | x5t | * | bstr | | SHA-1 thumbprint of | | | | | | key | | | | | | | | x5t#S256 | * | bstr | | SHA-256 thumbprint of | | | | | | key | | | | | | | | x5u | * | tstr | | URL for X.509 | | | | | | certificate | | | | | | | | zip | * | int / | | Integers are taken | | | | tstr | | from the table | | | | | | --POINT TO REGISTRY-- | | | | | | | | nonce | 5 | bstr | | Nonce or | | | | | | Initialization Vector | | | | | | (IV) | +----------+-------+----------+-------------+-----------------------+ Table 2: Header Labels OPEN ISSUES: Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 12] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 1. Which of the following items do we want to have standardized in this document: jku, jwk, x5c, x5t, x5t#S256, x5u, zip 2. I am currently torn on the question "Should epk and iv/nonce be algorithm specific or generic headers?" They are really specific to an algorithm and can potentially be defined in different ways for different algorithms. As an example, it would make sense to defined nonce for CCM and GCM modes that can have the leading zero bytes stripped, while for other algorithms this might be undesirable. 3. We might want to define some additional items. What are they? A possible example would be a sequence number as this might be common. On the other hand, this is the type of things that is frequently used as the nonce in some places and thus should not be used in the same way. Other items might be challenge/response fields for freshness as these are likely to be common. 4. Signing Structure The signature structure allows for one or more signatures to be applied to a message payload. There are provisions for attributes about the content and attributes about the signature to be carried along with the signature itself. These attributes may be authenticated by the signature, or just present. Examples of attributes about the content would be the type of content, when the content was created, and who created the content. Examples of attributes about the signature would be the algorithm and key used to create the signature, when the signature was created, and counter- signatures. When more than one signature is present, the successful validation of one signature associated with a given signer is usually treated as a successful signature by that signer. However, there are some application environments where other rules are needed. An application that employs a rule other than one valid signature for each signer must specify those rules. Also, where simple matching of the signer identifier is not sufficient to determine whether the signatures were generated by the same signer, the application specification must describe how to determine which signatures were generated by the same signer. Support of different communities of recipients is the primary reason that signers choose to include more than one signature. For example, the COSE_Sign structure might include signatures generated with the RSA signature algorithm and with the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) signature algorithm. This allows recipients to verify the signature associated with one algorithm or the other. (The original source of this text Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 13] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 is [RFC5652].) More detailed information on multiple signature evaluation can be found in [RFC5752]. The CDDL grammar for a signature message is: COSE_Sign = { msg_type => msg_type_signed, Headers, ? payload => bstr, signatures => [+ COSE_signature] } The fields is the structure have the following semantics: msg_type identifies this as providing the signed security service. The value MUST be msg_type_signed (1). protected contains attributes about the payload that are to be protected by the signature. An example of such an attribute would be the content type ('cty') attribute. The content is a CBOR map of attributes that is encoded to a byte stream. This field MUST NOT contain attributes about the signature, even if those attributes are common across multiple signatures. The labels in this map are typically taken from Table 2. unprotected contains attributes about the payload that are not protected by the signature. An example of such an attribute would be the content type ('cty') attribute. This field MUST NOT contain attributes about a signature, even if the attributes are common across multiple signatures. The labels in this map are typically taken from Table 2. payload contains the serialized content to be signed. If the payload is not present in the message, the application is required to supply the payload separately. The payload is wrapped in a bstr to ensure that it is transported without changes. If the payload is transported separately, it is the responsibility of the application to ensure that it will be transported without changes. signatures is an array of signature items. Each of these items uses the COSE_signature structure for its representation. We use the values in Table 1 as the labels in the COSE_Sign map. While other labels can be present in the map, it is not generally a recommended practice. The other labels can be either of integer or string type, use of other types SHOULD be treated as an error. The CDDL grammar structure for a signature is: Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 14] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 COSE_signature = { Headers, signature => bstr } The fields in the structure have the following semantics: protected contains additional information to be authenticated by the signature. The field holds data about the signature operation. The field MUST NOT hold attributes about the payload being signed. The content is a CBOR map of attributes that is encoded to a byte stream. At least one of protected and unprotected MUST be present. unprotected contains attributes about the signature that are not protected by the signature. This field MUST NOT contain attributes about the payload being signed. At least one of protected and unprotected MUST be present. signature contains the computed signature value. The COSE structure used to create the byte stream to be signed uses the following CDDL grammar structure: Sig_structure = [ body_protected: bstr, sign_protected: bstr, payload: bstr ] How to compute a signature: 1. Create a Sig_structure object and populate it with the appropriate fields. For body_protected and sign_protected, if the fields are not present in their corresponding maps, an bstr of length zero is used. 2. Create the value ToBeSigned by encoding the Sig_structure to a byte string. 3. Call the signature creation algorithm passing in K (the key to sign with), alg (the algorithm to sign with) and ToBeSigned (the value to sign). 4. Place the resulting signature value in the 'signature' field of the map. How to verify a signature: Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 15] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 1. Create a Sig_structure object and populate it with the appropriate fields. For body_protected and sign_protected, if the fields are not present in their corresponding maps, an bstr of length zero is used. 2. Create the value ToBeSigned by encoding the Sig_structure to a byte string. 3. Call the signature verification algorithm passing in K (the key to verify with), alg (the algorithm to sign with), ToBeSigned (the value to sign), and sig (the signature to be verified). In addition to performing the signature verification, one must also perform the appropriate checks to ensure that the key is correctly paired with the signing identity and that the appropriate authorization is done. 5. Encryption object In this section we describe the structure and methods to be used when doing an encryption in COSE. In COSE, we use the same techniques and structures for encrypting both the plain text and the keys used to protect the text. This is different from the approach used by both [RFC5652] and [RFC7516] where different structures are used for the plain text and for the different key management techniques. One of the byproducts of using the same technique for encrypting and encoding both the content and the keys using the various key management techniques, is a requirement that all of the key management techniques use an Authenticated Encryption (AE) algorithm. (For the purpose of this document we use a slightly loose definition of AE algorithms.) When encrypting the plain text, it is normal to use an Authenticated Encryption with Additional Data (AEAD) algorithm. For key management, either AE or AEAD algorithms can be used. See Appendix A for more details about the different types of algorithms. [CREF8] The CDDL grammar structure for encryption is: Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 16] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 COSE_encrypt = { msg_type=>msg_type_encrypted, COSE_encrypt_fields } COSE_encrypt_fields = ( Headers, ? ciphertext => bstr, ? recipients => [+{COSE_encrypt_fields}] ) Description of the fields: msg_type identifies this as providing the encrypted security service. The value MUST be msg_type_encrypted (2). protected contains the information about the plain text or encryption process that is to be integrity protected. The field is encoded in CBOR as a 'bstr'. The contents of the protected field is a CBOR map of the protected data names and values. The map is CBOR encoded before placing it into the bstr. Only values associated with the current cipher text are to be placed in this location even if the value would apply to multiple recipient structures. unprotected contains information about the plain text that is not integrity protected. Only values associated with the current cipher text are to be placed in this location even if the value would apply to multiple recipient structures. ciphertext contains the encrypted plain text. If the ciphertext is to be transported independently of the control information about the encryption process (i.e. detached content) then the field is omitted. recipients contains the recipient information. It is required that at least one recipient MUST be present for the content encryption layer. 5.1. Key Management Methods This section has moved. Still need to make some small comments here. 5.2. Encryption Algorithm for AEAD algorithms The encryption algorithm for AEAD algorithms is fairly simple. In order to get a consistent encoding of the data to be authenticated, the Enc_structure is used to have canonical form of the AAD. Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 17] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 Enc_structure = [ protected: bstr, external_aad: bstr ] 1. Copy the protected header field from the message to be sent. 2. If the application has supplied external additional authenticated data to be included in the computation, then it is placed in the 'external_aad' field. If no data was supplied, then a zero length binary value is used. 3. Encode the Enc_structure using a CBOR Canonical encoding Section 8 to get the AAD value. 4. Determine the encryption key. This step is dependent on the key management method being used: For: No Recipients: The key to be used is determined by the algorithm and key at the current level. Direct and Direct Key Agreement: The key is determined by the key and algorithm in the recipient structure. The encryption algorithm and size of the key to be used are inputs into the KDF used for the recipient. (For direct, the KDF can be thought of as the identity operation.) Other: The key is randomly generated. 5. Call the encryption algorithm with K (the encryption key to use), P (the plain text) and AAD (the additional authenticated data). Place the returned cipher text into the 'ciphertext' field of the structure. 6. For recipients of the message, recursively perform the encryption algorithm for that recipient using the encryption key as the plain text. 5.3. Encryption algorithm for AE algorithms 1. Verify that the 'protected' field is absent. 2. Verify that there was no external additional authenticated data supplied for this operation. 3. Determine the encryption key. This step is dependent on the key management method being used: For: Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 18] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 No Recipients: The key to be used is determined by the algorithm and key at the current level. Direct and Direct Key Agreement: The key is determined by the key and algorithm in the recipient structure. The encryption algorithm and size of the key to be used are inputs into the KDF used for the recipient. (For direct, the KDF can be thought of as the identity operation.) Other: The key is randomly generated. 4. Call the encryption algorithm with K (the encryption key to use) and the P (the plain text). Place the returned cipher text into the 'ciphertext' field of the structure. 5. For recipients of the message, recursively perform the encryption algorithm for that recipient using the encryption key as the plain text. 6. MAC objects In this section we describe the structure and methods to be used when doing MAC authentication in COSE. JOSE used a variant of the signature structure for doing MAC operations and it is restricted to using a single pre-shared secret to do the authentication. [CREF9] This document allows for the use of all of the same methods of key management as are allowed for encryption. When using MAC operations, there are two modes in which it can be used. The first is just a check that the content has not been changed since the MAC was computed. Any of the key management methods can be used for this purpose. The second mode is to both check that the content has not been changed since the MAC was computed, and to use key management to verify who sent it. The key management modes that support this are ones that either use a pre- shared secret, or do static-static key agreement. In both of these cases the entity MACing the message can be validated by a key binding. (The binding of identity assumes that there are only two parties involved and you did not send the message yourself.) COSE_mac = { msg_type=>msg_type_mac, Headers, ? payload => bstr, tag => bstr, recipients => [+{COSE_encrypt_fields}] } Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 19] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 Field descriptions: msg_type identifies this as providing the encrypted security service. The value MUST be msg_type_mac (3). protected contains attributes about the payload that are to be protected by the MAC. An example of such an attribute would be the content type ('cty') attribute. The content is a CBOR map of attributes that is encoded to a byte stream. This field MUST NOT contain attributes about the recipient, even if those attributes are common across multiple recipients. At least one of protected and unprotected MUST be present. unprotected contains attributes about the payload that are not protected by the MAC. An example of such an attribute would be the content type ('cty') attribute. This field MUST NOT contain attributes about a recipient, even if the attributes are common across multiple recipients. At least one of protected and unprotected MUST be present. payload contains the serialized content to be MACed. If the payload is not present in the message, the application is required to supply the payload separately. The payload is wrapped in a bstr to ensure that it is transported without changes, if the payload is transported separately it is the responsibility of the application to ensure that it will be transported without changes. tag contains the MAC value. recipients contains the recipient information. See the description under COSE_Encryption for more info. MAC_structure = [ protected: bstr, external_aad: bstr, payload: bstr ] How to compute a MAC: 1. Create a MAC_structure and copy the protected and payload elements from the COSE_mac structure. 2. If the application has supplied external authenticated data, encode it as a binary value and place in the MAC_structure. If there is no external authenticated data, then use a zero length 'bstr'. Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 20] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 3. Encode the MAC_structure using a canonical CBOR encoder. The resulting bytes is the value to compute the MAC on. 4. Compute the MAC and place the result in the 'tag' field of the COSE_mac structure. 5. Encrypt and encode the MAC key for each recipient of the message. 7. Key Structure There are only a few changes between JOSE and COSE for how keys are formatted. As with JOSE, COSE uses a map to contain the elements of a key. Those values, which in JOSE are base64url encoded because they are binary values, are encoded as bstr values in COSE. For COSE we use the same set of fields that were defined in [RFC7517]. [CREF10] [CREF11] COSE_Key = { kty => tstr / int, ? key_ops => [+ tstr / int ], ? alg => tstr / int, ? kid => bstr, * label => values } COSE_KeySet = [+COSE_Key] The element "kty" is a required element in a COSE_Key map. All other elements are optional and not all of the elements listed in [RFC7517] or [RFC7518] have been listed here even though they can all appear in a COSE_Key map. 7.1. COSE Key Map Labels This document defines a set of common map elements for a COSE Key object. Table 3 provides a summary of the elements defined in this section. There are also a set of map elements that are defined for a specific key type. Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 21] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 +----------+-------+-------------+------------+---------------------+ | name | label | CBOR type | registry | description | +----------+-------+-------------+------------+---------------------+ | kty | 1 | tstr / int | COSE | Identification of | | | | | General | the key type | | | | | Values | | | | | | | | | key_ops | 4 | [* | | Restrict set of | | | | (tstr/int)] | | permissible | | | | | | operations | | | | | | | | alg | 3 | tstr / int | COSE | Key usage | | | | | Algorithm | restriction to this | | | | | Values | algorithm | | | | | | | | kid | 2 | bstr | | Key Identification | | | | | | value - match to | | | | | | kid in message | | | | | | | | x5u | * | tstr | | | | | | | | | | x5c | * | bstr* | | | | | | | | | | x5t | * | bstr | | | | | | | | | | x5t#S256 | * | bstr | | | | | | | | | | use | * | tstr | | deprecated - don't | | | | | | use | +----------+-------+-------------+------------+---------------------+ Table 3: Key Map Labels kty: This field is used to identify the family of keys for this structure, and thus the set of fields to be found. alg: This field is used to restrict the algorithms that are to be used with this key. If this field is present in the key structure, the application MUST verify that this algorithm matches the algorithm for which the key is being used. If the algorthms do not match, then this key object MUST NOT be used to perform the cryptographic operation. Note that the same key can be in a different key structure with a different or no algorithm specified, however this is considered to be a poor security practice. kid: This field is used to give an identifier for a key. The identifier is not structured and can be anything from a user Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 22] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 provided string to a value computed on the public portion of the key. This field is intended for matching against a 'kid' field in a message in order to filter down the set of keys that need to be checked. key_ops: This field is defined to restrict the set of operations that a key is to be used for. The value of the field is an array of values from Table 4. Only the 'kty' field MUST be present in a key object. All other members may be omitted if their behavior is not needed. +---------+-------+-------------------------------------------------+ | name | value | description | +---------+-------+-------------------------------------------------+ | sign | 1 | The key is used to create signatures. Requires | | | | private key fields. | | | | | | verify | 2 | The key is used for verification of signatures. | | | | | | encrypt | 3 | The key is used for key transport encryption. | | | | | | decrypt | 4 | The key is used for key transport decryption. | | | | Requires private key fields. | | | | | | wrap | 5 | The key is used for key wrapping. | | key | | | | | | | | unwrap | 6 | The key is used for key unwrapping. Requires | | key | | private key fields. | | | | | | key | 7 | The key is used for key agreement. | | agree | | | +---------+-------+-------------------------------------------------+ Table 4: Key Operation Values The following provides a CDDL fragment which duplicates the assignment labels from Table 3 and Table 4. Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 23] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 ;key_labels key_kty=1 key_kid=2 key_alg=3 key_ops=4 ;key_ops values key_ops_sign=1 key_ops_verify=2 key_ops_encrypt=3 key_ops_decrypt=4 key_ops_wrap=5 key_ops_unwrap=6 key_ops_agree=7 8. CBOR Encoder Restrictions There as been an attempt to limit the number of places where the document needs to impose restrictions on how the CBOR Encoder needs to work. We have managed to narrow it down to the following restrictions: o The restriction applies to the encoding the Sig_structure, the Enc_structure, and the MAC_structure. o The rules for Canonical CBOR (Section 3.9 of RFC 7049) MUST be used in these locations. The main rule that needs to be enforced is that all lengths in these structures MUST be encoded such that they are encoded using definite lengths and the minimum length encoding is used. o All parsers used SHOULD fail on both parsing and generation if the same label is used twice as a key for the same map. 9. IANA Considerations 9.1. CBOR Tag assignment It is requested that IANA assign a new tag from the "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags" registry. It is requested that the tag be assigned in the 0 to 23 value range. Tag Value: TBD1 Data Item: COSE_Msg Semantics: COSE security message. Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 24] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 9.2. COSE Object Labels Registry It is requested that IANA create a new registry entitled "COSE Object Labels Registry". [CREF12] This table is initially populated by the table in Table 1. 9.3. COSE Header Label Table It is requested that IANA create a new registry entitled "COSE Header Labels". The columns of the registry are: name The name is present to make it easier to refer to and discuss the registration entry. The value is not used in the protocol. Names are to be unique in the table. label This is the value used for the label. The label can be either an integer or a string. Registration in the table is based on the value of the label requested. Integer values between 1 and 255 and strings of length 1 are designated as Standards Track Document required. Integer values from 256 to 65535 and strings of length 2 are designated as Specification Required. Integer values of greater than 65535 and strings of length greater than 2 are designated as first come first server. Integer values in the range -1 to -65536 are delegated to the "COSE Header Algorithm Label" registry. Integer values beyond -65536 are marked as private use. value This contains the CBOR type for the value portion of the label. value registry This contains a pointer to the registry used to contain values where the set is limited. description This contains a brief description of the header field. specification This contains a pointer to the specification defining the header field (where public). The initial contents of the registry can be found in Table 2. The specification column for all rows in that table should be this document. Additionally, the value of 0 is to be marked as 'Reserved'. Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 25] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 NOTE: Need to review the range assignments. It does not necessarily make sense as specification required uses 1 byte positive integers and 2 byte strings. 9.4. COSE Header Algorithm Label Table It is requested that IANA create a new registry entitled "COSE Header Algorithm Labels". The columns of the registry are: name The name is present to make it easier to refer to and discuss the registration entry. The value is not used in the protocol. algorithm The algorithm(s) that this registry entry is used for. This value is taken from the "COSE Algorithm Value" registry. Multiple algorithms can be specified in this entry. For the table, the algorithm, label pair MUST be unique. label This is the value used for the label. The label is an integer in the range of -1 to -65536. value This contains the CBOR type for the value portion of the label. value registry This contains a pointer to the registry used to contain values where the set is limited. description This contains a brief description of the header field. specification This contains a pointer to the specification defining the header field (where public). The initial contents of the registry can be found in Appendix D. The specification column for all rows in that table should be this document. 9.5. COSE Algorithm Registry It is requested that IANA create a new registry entitled "COSE Algorithm Registry". The columns of the registry are: value The value to be used to identify this algorithm. Algorithm values MUST be unique. The value can be a positive integer, a negative integer or a string. Integer values between 0 and 255 and strings of length 1 are designated as Standards Track Document Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 26] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 required. Integer values from 256 to 65535 and strings of length 2 are designated as Specification Required. Integer values of greater than 65535 and strings of length greater than 2 are designated as first come first server. Integer values in the range -1 to -65536 are delegated to the "COSE Header Algorithm Label" registry. Integer values beyond -65536 are marked as private use. description A short description of the algorithm. specification A document where the algorithm is defined (if publicly available). The initial contents of the registry can be found in the following: . The specification column for all rows in that table should be this document. 9.6. COSE Key Map Registry It is requested that IANA create a new registry entitled "COSE Key Map Registry". The columns of the registry are: name This is a descriptive name that enables easier reference to the item. It is not used in the encoding. label The value to be used to identify this algorithm. Key map labels MUST be unique. The label can be a positive integer, a negative integer or a string. Integer values between 0 and 255 and strings of length 1 are designated as Standards Track Document required. Integer values from 256 to 65535 and strings of length 2 are designated as Specification Required. Integer values of greater than 65535 and strings of length greater than 2 are designated as first come first server. Integer values in the range -1 to -65536 are used for key parameters specific to a single algorithm delegated to the "COSE Key Parameter Label" registry. Integer values beyond -65536 are marked as private use. CBOR Type This field contains the CBOR type for the field registry This field denotes the registry that values come from, if one exists. description This field contains a brief description for the field specification This contains a pointer to the public specification for the field if one exists Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 27] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 This registry will be initially populated by the values in Section 7.1. The specification column for all of these entries will be this document. 9.7. COSE Key Parameter Registry It is requested that IANA create a new registry "COSE Key Parameters". The columns of the table are: key type This field contains a descriptive string of a key type. This should be a value that is in the COSE General Values table and is placed in the 'kty' field of a COSE Key structure. name This is a descriptive name that enables easier reference to the item. It is not used in the encoding. label The label is to be unique for every value of key type. The range of values is from -256 to -1. Labels are expected to be reused for different keys. CBOR type This field contains the CBOR type for the field description This field contains a brief description for the field specification This contains a pointer to the public specification for the field if one exists This registry will be initially populated by the values in --Multiple Tables--. The specification column for all of these entries will be this document. 9.8. Media Type Registration 9.8.1. COSE Security Message This section registers the "application/cose" and "application/ cose+cbor" media types in the "Media Types" registry. [CREF13] These media types are used to indicate that the content is a COSE_MSG. Type name: application Subtype name: cose Required parameters: N/A Optional parameters: N/A Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 28] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 Encoding considerations: binary Security considerations: See the Security Considerations section of RFC TBD. Interoperability considerations: N/A Published specification: RFC TBD Applications that use this media type: To be identified Fragment identifier considerations: N/A Additional information: * Magic number(s): N/A * File extension(s): cbor * Macintosh file type code(s): N/A Person & email address to contact for further information: iesg@ietf.org Intended usage: COMMON Restrictions on usage: N/A Author: Jim Schaad, ietf@augustcellars.com Change Controller: IESG Provisional registration? No Type name: application Subtype name: cose+cbor Required parameters: N/A Optional parameters: N/A Encoding considerations: binary Security considerations: See the Security Considerations section of RFC TBD. Interoperability considerations: N/A Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 29] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 Published specification: RFC TBD Applications that use this media type: To be identified Fragment identifier considerations: N/A Additional information: * Magic number(s): N/A * File extension(s): cbor * Macintosh file type code(s): N/A Person & email address to contact for further information: iesg@ietf.org Intended usage: COMMON Restrictions on usage: N/A Author: Jim Schaad, ietf@augustcellars.com Change Controller: IESG Provisional registration? No 9.8.2. COSE Key media type This section registers the "application/cose+json" and "application/ cose-set+json" media types in the "Media Types" registry. These media types are used to indicate, respectively, that content is a COSE_Key or COSE_KeySet object. Type name: application Subtype name: cose-key+cbor Required parameters: N/A Optional parameters: N/A Encoding considerations: binary Security considerations: See the Security Considerations section of RFC TBD. Interoperability considerations: N/A Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 30] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 Published specification: RFC TBD Applications that use this media type: To be identified Fragment identifier considerations: N/A Additional information: * Magic number(s): N/A * File extension(s): cbor * Macintosh file type code(s): N/A Person & email address to contact for further information: iesg@ietf.org Intended usage: COMMON Restrictions on usage: N/A Author: Jim Schaad, ietf@augustcellars.com Change Controller: IESG Provisional registration? No Type name: application Subtype name: cose-key-set+cbor Required parameters: N/A Optional parameters: N/A Encoding considerations: binary Security considerations: See the Security Considerations section of RFC TBD. Interoperability considerations: N/A Published specification: RFC TBD Applications that use this media type: To be identified Fragment identifier considerations: N/A Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 31] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 Additional information: * Magic number(s): N/A * File extension(s): cbor * Macintosh file type code(s): N/A Person & email address to contact for further information: iesg@ietf.org Intended usage: COMMON Restrictions on usage: N/A Author: Jim Schaad, ietf@augustcellars.com Change Controller: IESG Provisional registration? No 10. Security Considerations There are security considerations: 1. Protect private keys 2. MAC messages with more than one recipient means one cannot figure out who sent the message 3. Use of direct key with other recipient structures hands the key to other recipients. 4. Use of direct ECDH direct encryption is easy for people to leak information on if there are other recipients in the message. 5. Considerations about protected vs unprotected header fields. 11. References 11.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, October 2013. Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 32] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 11.2. Informative References [AES-GCM] Dworkin, M., "NIST Special Publication 800-38D: Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of Operation: Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) and GMAC.", Nov 2007. [DSS] U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Digital Signature Standard (DSS)", July 2013. [I-D.greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl] Vigano, C., Birkholz, H., and R. Sun, "CBOR data definition language: a notational convention to express CBOR data structures.", draft-greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor- cddl-05 (work in progress), March 2015. [I-D.irtf-cfrg-curves] Langley, A. and R. Salz, "Elliptic Curves for Security", draft-irtf-cfrg-curves-02 (work in progress), March 2015. [I-D.mcgrew-aead-aes-cbc-hmac-sha2] McGrew, D., Foley, J., and K. Paterson, "Authenticated Encryption with AES-CBC and HMAC-SHA", draft-mcgrew-aead- aes-cbc-hmac-sha2-05 (work in progress), July 2014. [RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed- Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, February 1997. [RFC3394] Schaad, J. and R. Housley, "Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Key Wrap Algorithm", RFC 3394, September 2002. [RFC3447] Jonsson, J. and B. Kaliski, "Public-Key Cryptography Standards (PKCS) #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications Version 2.1", RFC 3447, February 2003. [RFC3610] Whiting, D., Housley, R., and N. Ferguson, "Counter with CBC-MAC (CCM)", RFC 3610, September 2003. [RFC4231] Nystrom, M., "Identifiers and Test Vectors for HMAC-SHA- 224, HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-384, and HMAC-SHA-512", RFC 4231, December 2005. [RFC5480] Turner, S., Brown, D., Yiu, K., Housley, R., and T. Polk, "Elliptic Curve Cryptography Subject Public Key Information", RFC 5480, March 2009. [RFC5652] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70, RFC 5652, September 2009. Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 33] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 [RFC5752] Turner, S. and J. Schaad, "Multiple Signatures in Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC 5752, January 2010. [RFC5869] Krawczyk, H. and P. Eronen, "HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand Key Derivation Function (HKDF)", RFC 5869, May 2010. [RFC5990] Randall, J., Kaliski, B., Brainard, J., and S. Turner, "Use of the RSA-KEM Key Transport Algorithm in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC 5990, September 2010. [RFC6090] McGrew, D., Igoe, K., and M. Salter, "Fundamental Elliptic Curve Cryptography Algorithms", RFC 6090, February 2011. [RFC6151] Turner, S. and L. Chen, "Updated Security Considerations for the MD5 Message-Digest and the HMAC-MD5 Algorithms", RFC 6151, March 2011. [RFC7159] Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", RFC 7159, March 2014. [RFC7515] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, May 2015. [RFC7516] Jones, M. and J. Hildebrand, "JSON Web Encryption (JWE)", RFC 7516, May 2015. [RFC7517] Jones, M., "JSON Web Key (JWK)", RFC 7517, May 2015. [RFC7518] Jones, M., "JSON Web Algorithms (JWA)", RFC 7518, May 2015. [SEC1] Standards for Efficient Cryptography Group, "SEC 1: Elliptic Curve Cryptography", May 2009. [SP800-56A] Barker, E., Chen, L., Roginsky, A., and M. Smid, "NIST Special Publication 800-56A: Recommendation for Pair-Wise Key Establishment Schemes Using Discrete Logarithm Cryptography", May 2013. Appendix A. AEAD and AE algorithms The set of encryption algorithms that can be used with this specification is restricted to authenticated encryption (AE) and authenticated encryption with additional data (AEAD) algorithms. This means that there is a strong check that the data decrypted by Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 34] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 the recipient is the same as what was encrypted by the sender. Encryption modes such as counter have no check on this at all. The CBC encryption mode had a weak check that the data is correct, given a random key and random data, the CBC padding check will pass one out of 256 times. There have been several times that a normal encryption mode has been combined with an integrity check to provide a content encryption mode that does provide the necessary authentication. AES- GCM [AES-GCM], AES-CCM [RFC3610], AES-CBC-HMAC [I-D.mcgrew-aead-aes-cbc-hmac-sha2] are examples of these composite modes. PKCS v1.5 RSA key transport does not qualify as an AE algorithm. There are only three bytes in the encoding that can be checked as having decrypted correctly, the rest of the content can only be probabilistically checked as having decrypted correctly. For this reason, PKCS v1.5 RSA key transport MUST NOT be used with this specification. RSA-OAEP was designed to have the necessary checks that that content correctly decrypted and does qualify as an AE algorithm. When dealing with authenticated encryption algorithms, there is always some type of value that needs to be checked to see if the authentication level has passed. This authentication value may be: o A separately generated tag computed by both the encrypter and decrypter and then compared by the decryptor. This tag value may be either placed at the end of the cipher text (the decision we made) or kept separately (the decision made by the JOSE working group). This is the approach followed by AES-GCM [AES-GCM] and AES-CCM [RFC3610]. o A fixed value that is part of the encoded plain text. This is the approach followed by the AES key wrap algorithm [RFC3394]. o A computed value is included as part of the encoded plain text. The computed value is then checked by the decryptor using the same computation path. This is the approach followed by RSAES-OAEP [RFC3447]. Appendix B. Three Levels of Recipient Information All of the currently defined Key Management methods only use two levels of the COSE_Encrypt structure. The first level is the message content and the second level is the content key encryption. However, if one uses a key management technique such as RSA-KEM (see Appendix A of RSA-KEM [RFC5990], then it make sense to have three levels of the COSE_Encrypt structure. Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 35] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 These levels would be: o Level 0: The content encryption level. This level contains the payload of the message. o Level 1: The encryption of the CEK by a KEK. o Level 2: The encryption of a long random secret using an RSA key and a key derivation function to convert that secret into the KEK. This is an example of what a triple layer message would look like. The message has the following layers: o Level 0: Has a content encrypted with AES-GCM using a 128-bit key. o Level 1: Uses the AES Key wrap algorithm with a 128-bit key. o Level 3: Uses ECDH Ephemeral-Static direct to generate the level 1 key. In effect this example is a decomposed version of using the ECDH- ES+A128KW algorithm. Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 36] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 { 1: 2, 2: h'a10101', 3: { -1: h'02d1f7e6f26c43d4868d87ce' }, 4: h'64f84d913ba60a76070a9a48f26e97e863e285295a44320878caceb076 3a334806857c67', 9: [ { 3: { 1: -3 }, 4: h'5a15dbf5b282ecb31a6074ee3815c252405dd7583e078188', 9: [ { 3: { 1: "ECDH-ES", 5: h'6d65726961646f632e6272616e64796275636b406275636b 6c616e642e6578616d706c65', 4: { 1: 1, -1: 4, -2: h'b2add44368ea6d641f9ca9af308b4079aeb519f11e9b8 a55a600b21233e86e68', -3: h'1a2cf118b9ee6895c8f415b686d4ca1cef362d4a7630a 31ef6019c0c56d33de0' } } } ] } ] } Appendix C. Examples The examples can be found at https://github.com/cose-wg/Examples. I am currently still in the process of getting the examples up there along with some control information for people to be able to check and reproduce the examples. Examples may have some features that are in questions but not yet incorporated in the document. To make it easier to read, the examples are presented using the CBOR's diagnostic notation rather than a binary dump. [CREF14] Using the Ruby based CBOR diagnostic tools at ????, the diagnostic notation Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 37] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 can be converted into binary files using the following command line: (install command is?...) diag2cbor < inputfile > outputfile The examples can be extracted from the XML version of this docuent via an XPath expression as all of the artwork is tagged with the attribute type='CBORdiag'. C.1. Examples of MAC messages C.1.1. Shared Secret Direct MAC This example users the following: o MAC: AES-CMAC, 256-bit key, trucated to 64 bits o Key management: direct shared secret o File name: Mac-04 { 1: 3, 2: h'a1016f4145532d434d41432d3235362f3634', 4: h'546869732069732074686520636f6e74656e742e', 10: h'd9afa663dd740848', 9: [ { 3: { 1: -6, 5: h'6f75722d736563726574' } } ] } C.1.2. ECDH Direct MAC This example uses the following: o MAC: HMAC w/SHA-256, 256-bit key [CREF15] o Key management: ECDH key agreement, two static keys, HKDF w/ context structure Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 38] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 { 1: 3, 2: h'a10104', 4: h'546869732069732074686520636f6e74656e742e', 10: h'2ba937ca03d76c3dbad30cfcbaeef586f9c0f9ba616ad67e9205d3857 6ad9930', 9: [ { 3: { 1: "ECDH-SS", 5: h'6d65726961646f632e6272616e64796275636b406275636b6c61 6e642e6578616d706c65', "spk": { "kid": "peregrin.took@tuckborough.example" }, "apu": h'4d8553e7e74f3c6a3a9dd3ef286a8195cbf8a23d19558ccf ec7d34b824f42d92bd06bd2c7f0271f0214e141fb779ae2856abf585a58368b01 7e7f2a9e5ce4db5' } } ] } C.1.3. Wrapped MAC This example uses the following: o MAC: AES-MAC, 128-bit key, truncated to 64 bits o Key management: AES keywrap w/ a pre-shared 256-bit key { 1: 3, 2: h'a1016e4145532d3132382d4d41432d3634', 4: h'546869732069732074686520636f6e74656e742e', 10: h'6d1fa77b2dd9146a', 9: [ { 3: { 1: -5, 5: h'30313863306165352d346439622d343731622d626664362d6565 66333134626337303337' }, 4: h'711ab0dc2fc4585dce27effa6781c8093eba906f227b6eb0' } ] } Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 39] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 C.1.4. Multi-recipient MAC message This example uses the following: o MAC: HMAC w/ SHA-256, 128-bit key o Key management: Uses three different methods 1. ECDH Ephemeral-Static, Curve P-521, AES-Key Wrap w/ 128-bit key 2. RSA-OAEP w/ SHA-256 3. AES-Key Wrap w/ 256-bit key { 1: 3, 2: h'a10104', 4: h'546869732069732074686520636f6e74656e742e', 10: h'7aaa6e74546873061f0a7de21ff0c0658d401a68da738dd8937486519 83ce1d0', 9: [ { 3: { 1: "ECDH-ES+A128KW", 5: h'62696c626f2e62616767696e7340686f626269746f6e2e657861 6d706c65', 4: { 1: 1, -1: 5, -2: h'43b12669acac3fd27898ffba0bcd2e6c366d53bc4db71f909 a759304acfb5e18cdc7ba0b13ff8c7636271a6924b1ac63c02688075b55ef2d61 3574e7dc242f79c3', -3: h'812dd694f4ef32b11014d74010a954689c6b6e8785b333d1a b44f22b9d1091ae8fc8ae40b687e5cfbe7ee6f8b47918a07bb04e9f5b1a51a334 a16bc09777434113' } }, 4: h'1b120c848c7f2f8943e402cbdbdb58efb281753af4169c70d0126c 0d16436277160821790ef4fe3f' }, { 3: { 1: -2, 5: h'62696c626f2e62616767696e7340686f626269746f6e2e657861 6d706c65' }, 4: h'46c4f88069b650909a891e84013614cd58a3668f88fa18f3852940 Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 40] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 a20b35098591d3aacf91c125a2595cda7bee75a490579f0e2f20fd6bc956623bf de3029c318f82c426dac3463b261c981ab18b72fe9409412e5c7f2d8f2b5abaf7 80df6a282db033b3a863fa957408b81741878f466dcc437006ca21407181a016c a608ca8208bd3c5a1ddc828531e30b89a67ec6bb97b0c3c3c92036c0cb84aa0f0 ce8c3e4a215d173bfa668f116ca9f1177505afb7629a9b0b5e096e81d37900e06 f561a32b6bc993fc6d0cb5d4bb81b74e6ffb0958dac7227c2eb8856303d989f93 b4a051830706a4c44e8314ec846022eab727e16ada628f12ee7978855550249cc b58' }, { 3: { 1: -5, 5: h'30313863306165352d346439622d343731622d626664362d6565 66333134626337303337' }, 4: h'0b2c7cfce04e98276342d6476a7723c090dfdd15f9a518e7736549 e998370695e6d6a83b4ae507bb' } ] } C.2. Examples of Encrypted Messages C.2.1. Direct ECDH This example uses the following: o CEK: AES-GCM w/ 128-bit key o Key managment: ECDH Ephemeral-Static, Curve P-256 Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 41] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 { 1: 2, 2: h'a10101', 3: { -1: h'c9cf4df2fe6c632bf7886413' }, 4: h'45fce2814311024d3a479e7d3eed063850f3f0b9f3f948677e3ae9869b cf9ff4e1763812', 9: [ { 3: { 1: "ECDH-ES", 5: h'6d65726961646f632e6272616e64796275636b406275636b6c61 6e642e6578616d706c65', 4: { 1: 1, -1: 4, -2: h'98f50a4ff6c05861c8860d13a638ea56c3f5ad7590bbfbf05 4e1c7b4d91d6280', -3: h'f01400b089867804b8e9fc96c3932161f1934f4223069170d 924b7e03bf822bb' } } } ] } C.3. Examples of Signed Message C.3.1. Single Signature This example uses the following: o Signature Algorithm: RSA-PSS w/ SHA-384, MGF-1 Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 42] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 { 1: 1, 4: h'546869732069732074686520636f6e74656e742e', 5: [ { 2: h'a20165505333383405581e62696c626f2e62616767696e7340686f 626269746f6e2e6578616d706c65', 6: h'1b22515f96fd798a331c7b156e90bfea7f558ec6de840e05a8e5f4 b7be44ea1451c48517da7fd216c6143898673c232a96937ebcfb88264a58f5995 82d89cf8a4f20ef35fbfcfd2aad46ad8b99ea6425367afd898de1b712d558b0d2 49d6d180d0b1fb7256140ec3553556f3b5b95a49931a75998dfc23ca905efc7d8 e04deeb92d5936c0824e535aa344396f73913d8a65de0010600270ae5df7f5c8d 52ae525a7642d4c4ff9e219acaa52fd933df003be36b9e3c77ced37129d66745e 2a42baa3d0b3f2675cd51ae8a64fd024d126be5396c91b9236fb5f8548d09881b b5d40a61c0d342bed9fe8058f36b8722b9e8465dc3b8bfa4f2fd138ce186b73e4 082' } ] } C.3.2. Multiple Signers This example uses the following: o Signature Algorithm: RSA-PSS w/ SHA-256, MGF-1 o Signature Algorithm: ECDSA w/ SHA-512, Curve P-521 Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 43] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 { 1: 1, 4: h'546869732069732074686520636f6e74656e742e', 5: [ { 2: h'a10129', 3: { 5: h'62696c626f2e62616767696e7340686f626269746f6e2e657861 6d706c65' }, 6: h'028947ac3521f66f2506013007e2cd7b0cb09a209e76ab5b95f751 eb63f5730f1672a282419c49b9653d742577fb6a6cea9ab2e1d4d5d9e786e2240 4760663cc74a1c2c90160af92628e1ebbc3eeba552f757054b691ab17271396b7 ff2d86c100b94a2fce0438c0b50ca70bcdd3074a0f8dc40c2e44e9b26e9093287 b7245ee13171b28ea0f3e291c2cca64aa17f7094aee2be02b5fe5cd2cf343e18c eec0c763cb76a128df9a9cbfc37b835f6467d98d74505eee1dccc9e6ebf2405ea 1329b41a33eeb13f1bbef3a272e42b3df96cdaea9016663e31ddff4603eb66a88 5c583b53977c1fb9707550717d7387f84616a6670e27d4007b08879109aaf3720 f33' }, { 3: { 1: -9, 5: h'62696c626f2e62616767696e7340686f626269746f6e2e657861 6d706c65' }, 6: h'0195345953742c6725352a13cdc55402c895133525c9a3b16bb47d 02ca5f57f8a34aebf47298c602a8feb1dd71d1936886f21029a4142abf38c3aa3 94b3597c2f35c01987c801edc7022c8fddacbf25bc8794b9ffb7cb27f9f346ba4 4db6f5c9b60406530f62b378c5da3e7e2259327f4e55f48271873496497724492 d90ba67a4b65112' } ] } Appendix D. COSE Header Algorithm Label Table This section disappears when we make a decision on password based key management. +------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------------+ | name | algorithm | label | CBOR type | description | +------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------------+ | p2c | PBE | -1 | int | | | | | | | | | p2s | PBE | -2 | bstr | | +------+-----------+-------+-----------+-------------+ Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 44] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 Appendix E. Document Updates E.1. Version -00 to -01 o Add note on where the document is being maintained and contributing notes. o Put in proposal on MTI algorithms. o Changed to use labels rather than keys when talking about what indexes a map. o Moved nonce/IV to be a common header item. o Expand section to discuss the common set of labels used in COSE_Key maps. o Add a set of straw man proposals for algorithms. It is possible/ expected that this text will be moved to a new document. o Add a set of straw man proposals for key structures. It is possible/expected that this text will be moved to a new document. o Start marking element 0 in registries as reserved. o Update examples. Editorial Comments [CREF1] JLS: Need to check this list for correctness before publishing. [CREF2] JLS: I have moved msg_type into the individual structures. However, they would not be necessary in the cases where a) the security service is known and b) security libraries can setup to take individual structures. Should they be moved back to just appearing if used in a COSE_MSG rather than on the individual structure? [CREF3] JLS: Should we create an IANA registries for the values of msg_type? [CREF4] JLS: OPEN ISSUE [CREF5] JLS: A completest version of this grammar would list the options available in the protected and unprotected headers. Do we want to head that direction? Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 45] Internet-Draft CBOR Encoded Message Syntax July 2015 [CREF6] JLS: After looking at this, I am wondering if the type for this should be: [int int]/[int tstr] so that we can keep the major/ minor difference of media-types. This does cost a couple of bytes in the message. [CREF7] JLS: Need to figure out how we are going to go about creating this registry -or are we going to modify the current mime- content table? [CREF8] Ilari: I don't follow/understand this text [CREF9] JLS: Should this sentence be removed? [CREF10] JLS: Do we remove this line and just define them ourselves? [CREF11] JLS: We can really simplify the grammar for COSE_Key to be just the kty (the one required field) and the generic item. The reason to do this is that it makes things simpler. The reason not to do this says that we really need to add a lot more items so that a grammar check can be done that is more tightly enforced. [CREF12] JLS: Finish the registration process. [CREF13] JLS: Should we register both or just the cose+cbor one? [CREF14] JLS: Do we want to keep this as diagnostic notation or should we switch to having "binary" examples instead? [CREF15] JLS: Need to examine how this is worked out. In this case the length of the key to be used is implicit rather than explicit. This needs to be the case because a direct key could be any length, however it means that when the key is derived, there is currently nothing to state how long the derived key needs to be. Author's Address Jim Schaad August Cellars Email: ietf@augustcellars.com Schaad Expires January 6, 2016 [Page 46]