keyprov P. Hoyer Internet-Draft ActivIdentity Intended status: Standards Track M. Pei Expires: May 7, 2009 VeriSign S. Machani Diversinet November 03, 2008 Portable Symmetric Key Container draft-ietf-keyprov-portable-symmetric-key-container-06.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 7, 2009. Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 Abstract This document specifies a symmetric key format for transport and provisioning of symmetric keys (for example One Time Password (OTP) shared secrets or symmetric cryptographic keys) to different types of crypto modules such as a strong authentication device. The standard key transport format enables enterprises to deploy best-of-breed solutions combining components from different vendors into the same infrastructure. This work is based on earlier work by the members of OATH (Initiative for Open AuTHentication) to specify a format that can be freely distributed to the technical community. The authors believe that a common and shared specification will facilitate adoption of two- factor authentication on the Internet by enabling interoperability between commercial and open-source implementations. Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1. Online Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.1. Transport of keys from Server to Cryptographic Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.2. Transport of keys from Cryptographic Module to Cryptographic Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.3. Transport of keys from Cryptographic Module to Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1.4. Server to server Bulk import/export of keys . . . . . 9 3.2. Offline Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2.1. Server to server Bulk import/export of keys . . . . . 9 4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. Portable Key container definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.1. KeyContainer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.2. KeyProperties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.3. Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.3.1. DeviceInfo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.4. Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.4.1. KeyData . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5.4.2. Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5.4.3. ValueFormat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.4.4. PINPolicy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6. Usage and profile of algorithms for the portable symmetric key container . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.1. Usage of EncryptionKey to protect keys in transit . . . . 33 6.1.1. Protecting keys using a pre-shared key via symmetric algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.1.2. Protecting keys using passphrase based key encryption keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 6.2. Protecting keys using asymmetric algorithms . . . . . . . 38 6.3. Profile of Key Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 6.3.1. OTP Key Algorithm Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 6.3.2. PIN key value compare algorithm identifier . . . . . . 40 7. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 8.1. Content-type registration for 'application/pskc+xml' . . . 48 8.2. XML Schema Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 8.3. URN Sub-Namespace Registration for urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:keyprov:pskc:1.0 . . . . . . . . . 49 8.4. Symmetric Key Algorithm Identifier Registry . . . . . . . 50 8.4.1. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 8.4.2. Registerable Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 8.4.3. Registration Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 8.4.4. Initial Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 9.1. Payload confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 9.2. Payload integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 9.3. Payload authenticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 11. Appendix A - Example Symmetric Key Containers . . . . . . . . 79 11.1. Symmetric Key Container with a single Non-Encrypted HOTP Secret Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 11.2. Symmetric Key Container with a single PIN protected Non-Encrypted HOTP Secret Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 11.3. Symmetric Key Container with a single AES-128-CBC Encrypted HOTP Secret Key and non-encrypted counter value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 11.4. Symmetric Key Container with signature and a single Password-based Encrypted HOTP Secret Key . . . . . . . . . 83 11.5. Symmetric Key Container with a single RSA 1.5 Encrypted HOTP Secret Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 11.6. Symmetric Key Container with a single AES-128-CBC Encrypted OCRA Secret Key and non-encrypted counter value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 11.7. Symmetric Key Container with a single AES-256-CBC Encrypted TOTP Secret Key and non-encrypted time values . 88 11.8. Symmetric Key Container with two devices containing a Non-Encrypted HOTP Secret Key each sharing common KeyProperties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 95 Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 1. Introduction With increasing use of symmetric key based authentication systems such as systems based one time password (OTP) and challenge response mechanisms, there is a need for vendor interoperability and a standard format for importing, exporting or provisioning symmetric keys from one system to another. Traditionally authentication server vendors and service providers have used proprietary formats for importing, exporting and provisioning these keys into their systems making it hard to use tokens from vendor A with a server from vendor B. This document describes a standard format for serializing symmetric keys such as OTP shared secrets for system import, export or network/ protocol transport. The goal is that the format will facilitate dynamic provisioning and transfer of symmetric keys such as OTP shared secrets or encryption keys of different types. In the case of OTP shared secrets, the format will facilitate dynamic provisioning using an online provisioning protocol to different flavors of embedded tokens or allow customers to import new or existing tokens in batch or single instances into a compliant system. This draft also specifies the key attributes required for computation such as the initial event counter used in the HOTP algorithm [HOTP]. It is also applicable for other time-based or proprietary algorithms. To provide an analogy, in public key environments the PKCS#12 format [PKCS12] is commonly used for importing and exporting private keys and certificates between systems. In the environments outlined in this document where OTP keys may be transported directly down to smartcards or devices with limited computing capabilities and explicit shared secret, configuration attribute information is desirable. With PKCS#12, one would have to use opaque data to carry shared secret attributes used for OTP calculations, whereas a more explicit attribute schema definition is better for interoperability and efficiency. Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 2. Terminology 2.1. Key Words The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 2.2. Definitions This section defines terms used in this document. The same terms may be defined differently in other documents. Authentication Token: A physical device that an authorized user of computer services is given to aid in authentication. The term may also refer to software tokens. Bulk Provisioning: Transferring multiple keys linked to multiple devices in a single execution step within one single PSKC KeyContainer Cryptographic Module: A component of an application, which enables symmetric key cryptographic functionality Cryptographic Key: A parameter used in conjunction with a cryptographic algorithm that determines its operation in such a way that an entity with knowledge of the key can reproduce or reverse the operation, while an entity without knowledge of the key cannot (see [NIST-SP800-57]) Cryptographic Token: See Authentication Token Device: A physical piece of hardware, or a software framework, that hosts symmetric keys DeviceInfo: A set of elements whose values combined uniquely identify a device e.g. Manufacturer 'TokenVendorAcme' and Serialnumber '12345678' Dynamic Provisioning: Usage of a protocol, such as DSKPP, to make a key container available to a recipient Key Encryption Key: A key used to encrypt key Key: See Cryptographic Key Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 Hardware Token: See Authentication Token Key Algorithm: A well-defined computational procedure that takes variable inputs including a cryptographic key and produces an output. Key Container: An object that encapsulates symmetric keys and their attributes for set of devices Key ID (KeyID): A unique identifier for the symmetric key Key Issuer: An organization that issues symmetric keys to end-users Key Type: The type of symmetric key cryptographic methods for which the key will be used (e.g., OATH HOTP or RSA SecurID authentication, AES encryption, etc.) Secret Key: The symmetric key data Software Token: A type of authentication token that is stored on a general-purpose electronic device such as a desktop computer, laptop, PDA, or mobile phone Token: See Authentication Token User: The person or client to whom devices are issued User ID: A unique identifier for the user or client Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 3. Use Cases This section describes a comprehensive list of use cases that inspired the development of this specification. These requirements were used to derive the primary requirement that drove the design. These requirements are covered in the next section. These use cases also help in understanding the applicability of this specification to real world situations. 3.1. Online Use Cases This section describes the use cases related to provisioning the keys using an online provisioning protocol such as [DSKPP] 3.1.1. Transport of keys from Server to Cryptographic Module For example, a mobile device user wants to obtain a symmetric key for use with a Cryptographic Module on the device. The Cryptographic Module from vendor A initiates the provisioning process against a provisioning system from vendor B using a standards-based provisioning protocol such as [DSKPP]. The provisioning entity delivers one or more keys in a standard format that can be processed by the mobile device. For example, in a variation of the above, instead of the user's mobile phone, a key is provisioned in the user's soft token application on a laptop using a network-based online protocol. As before, the provisioning system delivers a key in a standard format that can be processed by the soft token on the PC. For example, the end-user or the key issuer wants to update or configure an existing key in the Cryptographic Module and requests a replacement key container. The container may or may not include a new key and may include new or updated key attributes such as a new counter value in HOTP key case, a modified response format or length, a new friendly name, etc. 3.1.2. Transport of keys from Cryptographic Module to Cryptographic Module For example, a user wants to transport a key from one Cryptographic Module to another. There may be two cryptographic modules, one on a computer one on a mobile phone, and the user wants to transport a key from the computer to the mobile phone. The user can export the key and related data in a standard format for input into the other Cryptographic Module. Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 3.1.3. Transport of keys from Cryptographic Module to Server For example, a user wants to activate and use a new key and related data against a validation system that is not aware of this key. This key may be embedded in the Cryptographic Module (e.g. SD card, USB drive) that the user has purchased at the local electronics retailer. Along with the Cryptographic Module, the user may get the key on a CD or a floppy in a standard format. The user can now upload via a secure online channel or import this key and related data into the new validation system and start using the key. 3.1.4. Server to server Bulk import/export of keys From time to time, a key management system may be required to import or export keys in bulk from one entity to another. For example, instead of importing keys from a manufacturer using a file, a validation server may download the keys using an online protocol. The keys can be downloaded in a standard format that can be processed by a validation system. For example, in a variation of the above, an Over-The-Aire (OTA) key provisioning gateway that provisions keys to mobile phones may obtain key material from a key issuer using an online protocol. The keys are delivered in a standard format that can be processed by the key provisioning gateway and subsequently sent to the end-user's mobile phone. 3.2. Offline Use Cases This section describes the use cases relating to offline transport of keys from one system to another, using some form of export and import model. 3.2.1. Server to server Bulk import/export of keys For example, Cryptographic Modules such as OTP authentication tokens, may have their symmetric keys initialized during the manufacturing process in bulk, requiring copies of the keys and algorithm data to be loaded into the authentication system through a file on portable media. The manufacturer provides the keys and related data in the form of a file containing records in standard format, typically on a CD. Note that the token manufacturer and the vendor for the validation system may be the same or different. Some crypto modules will allow local PIN management (the device will have a PIN pad) hence random initial PINs set at manufacturing should be transmitted together with the respective keys they protect. Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 For example, an enterprise wants to port keys and related data from an existing validation system A into a different validation system B. The existing validation system provides the enterprise with a functionality that enables export of keys and related data (e.g. for OTP authentication tokens) in a standard format. Since the OTP tokens are in the standard format, the enterprise can import the token records into the new validation system B and start using the existing tokens. Note that the vendors for the two validation systems may be the same or different. Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 4. Requirements This section outlines the most relevant requirements that are the basis of this work. Several of the requirements were derived from use cases described above. R1: The format MUST support transport of multiple types of symmetric keys and related attributes for algorithms including HOTP, other OTP, challenge-response, etc. R2: The format MUST handle the symmetric key itself as well of attributes that are typically associated with symmetric keys. Some of these attributes may be * Unique Key Identifier * Issuer information * Algorithm ID * Algorithm mode * Issuer Name * Key friendly name * Event counter value (moving factor for OTP algorithms) * Time value R3: The format SHOULD support both offline and online scenarios. That is it should be serializable to a file as well as it should be possible to use this format in online provisioning protocols such as [DSKPP] R4: The format SHOULD allow bulk representation of symmetric keys R5: The format SHOULD allow bulk representation of PINs related to specific keys R6: The format SHOULD be portable to various platforms. Furthermore, it SHOULD be computationally efficient to process. R7: The format MUST provide appropriate level of security in terms of data encryption and data integrity. Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 R8: For online scenarios the format SHOULD NOT rely on transport level security (e.g., SSL/TLS) for core security requirements. R9: The format SHOULD be extensible. It SHOULD enable extension points allowing vendors to specify additional attributes in the future. R10: The format SHOULD allow for distribution of key derivation data without the actual symmetric key itself. This is to support symmetric key management schemes that rely on key derivation algorithms based on a pre-placed master key. The key derivation data typically consists of a reference to the key, rather than the key value itself. R11: The format SHOULD allow for additional lifecycle management operations such as counter resynchronization. Such processes require confidentiality between client and server, thus could use a common secure container format, without the transfer of key material. R12: The format MUST support the use of pre-shared symmetric keys to ensure confidentiality of sensitive data elements. R13: The format MUST support a password-based encryption (PBE) [PKCS5] scheme to ensure security of sensitive data elements. This is a widely used method for various provisioning scenarios. R14: The format SHOULD support asymmetric encryption algorithms such as RSA to ensure end-to-end security of sensitive data elements. This is to support scenarios where a pre-set shared key encryption key is difficult to use. Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 5. Portable Key container definition The portable key container is based on an XML schema definition and contains the following main entities: 1. KeyContainer entity as defined in Section 5.1 2. KeyProperties entity as defined in Section 5.2 3. Device entity as defined in Section 5.3 4. Key entity as defined in Section 5.4 Additionally other XML schema types have been defined and are detailed in the relevant subsections of this document A KeyContainer MAY contain one or more Device entities. A Device MAY contain one or more Key entities The figure below indicates a possible relationship diagram of a container. -------------------------------------------- | KeyContainer | | | | -------------------- | | | Keyproperties 1 | | | | | | | -------------------- | | ------------------ ----------------- | | | Device 1 | | Device n | | | | | | | | | | ------------ | | ------------ | | | | | Key 1 | | | | Key n | | | | | ------------ | | ------------ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ------------ | | ------------ | | | | | Key m | | | | Key p | | | | | ------------ | | ------------ | | | ------------------ ----------------- | | | -------------------------------------------- The following sections describe in detail all the entities and related XML schema elements and attributes: Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 5.1. KeyContainer The KeyContainer represents the key container entity. A Container MAY contain more than one Device entity; each Device entity MAY contain more than one Key entity. The KeyContainer is defined as follows: The attributes of the KeyContainer have the following meanings: o Version (MANDATORY), the version number for the portable key container format (the XML schema defined in this document). o ID (OPTIONAL), the unique ID for this container in case an XML document contains more than one container and wants to refer to them uniquely. The elements of the KeyContainer have the following meanings: o (OPTIONAL), Identifies the key encryption key, algorithm and possible parameters used to protect the Secret Key data in the container. Please see Section 6.1 for detailed description of how to protect key data in transit and the usage of this element. Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 o (OPTIONAL), Identifies the algorithm used to generate a Message Authentication Code (MAC) of the Secret Key data values when protection algorithms are used that do not have integrity checks. The digest guarantees the integrity and the authenticity of the key data. for profile and usage please see Section 6.1.1 o (OPTIONAL), key property entities containing key related properties that are common for keys within this container. Please see Section 5.2 for detailed description of this element.The KeyContainer MAY contain multiple KeyProperties elements each containing a set of properties related to one or more keys transported within the container. o (MANDATORY), the host Device for one or more Keys as defined in Section 5.3 The KeyContainer MAY contain multiple Device data elements, allowing for bulk provisioning of multiple devices each containing multiple keys. o (OPTIONAL), the signature value of the Container. When the signature is applied to the entire container, it MUST use XML Signature methods as defined in [XMLDSIG]. It MAY be omitted when application layer provisioning or transport layer provisioning protocols provide the integrity and authenticity of the payload between the sender and the recipient of the container. When required, this specification recommends using a symmetric key based signature with the same key used in the encryption of the secret key data. The signature is enveloped. o (OPTIONAL), is the extension point for this entity. All extensions are grouped under this element and will be of type pskc:ExtensionType, which contains an optional attribute 'definition' that can have a URI pointing at the defintion of the extension. In this way groups of extension can be bundled under a subelement. For example: blah blahblah 5.2. KeyProperties The KeyProperties represents common properties shared by more than one key held in the container. If a value is set in the properties the Key element can refer to it via ID attribute. Values that are Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 present in the Key element itself MUST take precedence over values set in KeyProperties. The KeyProperties is defined as follows: The attributes of the KeyProperties entity have the following meanings: o ID (MANDATORY), a unique and global identifier of set of KeyProperties. The identifier is defined as a string of alphanumeric characters. o KeyAlgorithm (MANDATORY), the unique URI of the type of algorithm to use with a secret key for the profiles described in Section 6.3 Since KeyProperties are a method to group element values that are common to multiple keys transported, please refer to Section 5.4 for detailed description of all elements. Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 5.3. Device The Device represents an extensible Device entity in the Container. A Device MAY be bound to a user and MAY contain more than one key. A key SHOULD be bound to only one Device. The Device is defined as follows: The elements of the Device have the following meanings: o (OPTIONAL), a set of elements containing information about the device, whose values uniquely identify the device, defined in Section 5.3.1 o (MANDATORY), represents the key entity as defined in Section 5.4 o (OPTIONAL), identifies the owner or the user of the Device, a string representation of a Distinguished Name as defined in [RFC4514]. For example UID=jsmith,DC=example,DC=net. In systems where unique user Ids are used the string representation 'UID=[uniqueId]' SHOULD be used. o (OPTIONAL), is the extension point for this entity. All extensions are grouped under this element and will be of type pskc:ExtensionType, which contains an optional attribute 'defintion' that can have a URI pointing at the defintion of the extension. In this way groups of extension can be bundled under a subelement. For example: Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 blah blahblah 5.3.1. DeviceInfo The DeviceInfo represents an extensible set of elements that form the identifying criteria to uniquely identify the device that contains the associated keys. Since devices can come in different form factors such as hardware tokens, smart-cards, soft tokens in a mobile phone or PC etc this element allows different criteria to be used. Combined though the criteria MUST uniquely identify the device. For example for hardware tokens the combination of SerialNo and Manufacturer will uniquely identify a device but not SerialNo alone since two different token manufacturers might issue devices with the same serial number (similar to the IssuerDN and serial number of a certificate). Symmetric Keys used in the payment industry are usually stored on Integrated Circuit Smart Cards. These cards are uniquely identified via the Primary Account Number (PAN, the long number printed on the front of the card) and an expiry date of the card. DeviceInfo is an extensible type that allows all these different ways to uniquely identify a specific key containing device. The DeviceInfo is defined as follows: The elements of DeviceInfo have the following meanings: o (MANDATORY), the manufacturer of the device. Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 o (MANDATORY), the serial number of the device or the PAN (primary account number) in case of payment smart cards. o (OPTIONAL), the model of the device (e.g. one-button-HOTP- token-V1) o (OPTIONAL), the issue number in case of smart cards with the same PAN, equivalent to a PSN (PAN Sequence Number). o (OPTIONAL), the identifier that can be used to bind keys to the device or class of device. When loading keys into a device, this identifier can be checked against information obtained from the device to ensure that the correct device or class of device is being used. o (OPTIONAL), the start date of a device (such as the one on a payment card, used when issue numbers are not printed on cards). MUST be expressed in UTC form, with no time zone component. Implementations SHOULD NOT rely on time resolution finer than milliseconds and MUST NOT generate time instants that specify leap seconds. o (OPTIONAL), the expiry date of a device (such as the one on a payment card, used when issue numbers are not printed on cards). MUST be expressed in UTC form, with no time zone component. Implementations SHOULD NOT rely on time resolution finer than milliseconds and MUST NOT generate time instants that specify leap seconds. o (OPTIONAL), is the extension point for this entity. All extensions are grouped under this element and will be of type pskc:ExtensionType, which contains an optional attribute 'defintion' that can have a URI pointing at the defintion of the extension. In this way groups of extension can be bundled under a subelement. For example: blah blahblah 5.4. Key The Key represents the key entity in the KeyContainer. The Key is defined as follows: Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 The attributes of the Key entity have the following meanings: o KeyId (MANDATORY), a unique and global identifier of the symmetric key. The identifier is defined as a string of alphanumeric characters. This identifier SHOULD be valid globally and outside of the instance document of the container. o KeyAlgorithm (MANDATORY), the unique URI of the type of algorithm to use with the secret key, for profiles are described in Section 6.3 o KeyProperties (OPTIONAL), the references to the unique id of the KeyProperties whose value the instance of this key inherits. If Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 this value is set implementation MUST lookup the Keyproperties element referred to by this unique Id and this instance of key will inherit all values from the KeyProperties. Values held in the key instance MUST take precedence over values inherited from KeyProperties."/> The elements of the Key entity have the following meanings: o (OPTIONAL), The key issuer name, this is normally the name of the organization that issues the key to the end user of the key. For example MyBank issuing hardware tokens to their retail banking users 'MyBank' would be the issuer. The Issuer is defined as a String. o (OPTIONAL), defines the intended usage of the key and related metadata as defined in Section 5.4.2 o (OPTIONAL), A unique identifier used between the sending and receiving party of the container to establish a set of key attribute values, common to one or more keys, that are not transmitted witin the container but agreed between sending and receiving party of the container out of band. This Id will then represent the unique reference to a a set of attribute values. For example a smart card application personalisation profile id related to attributes present on a smart card application that have influence when computing a response. An example would be that a sending and receiving party agree on a set of values related to the EMV MasterCard CAP [CAP] algorithm that application on a card personalised with data for a specific batch of cards such as: IAF Internet authentication flag CVN Cryptogram version number, for example (MCHIP2, MCHIP4, VISA 13, VISA14) AIP (Application Interchange Profile), 2 bytes CVR The card verification result IIPB So sending and reciving party would agree thet KeyProfileId '1' would represent a cetain set of values (e.g. IAF="80"). When sending keys these values would not be transmitted as key attributes but only referred to via the KeyProfileId element set to the specific agreed profile (in this case '1'). WHen the receiving party receives the keys it can then associate all Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 relevant key attributes contained in the out of band agreed profile with the imported keys. Often this methodology is used between between the manufacturing and the validation service to avoid transmission of mainly the same set of values. The KeyProfileId is defined as a String. o (OPTIONAL), The unique reference to an external master key when key derivation schemes are used and no specific key is transported but only the reference to the master key used to derive a specific key and some derivation data (e.g. the PKCS#11 key label in an HSM). o (OPTIONAL), The user friendly name that is assigned to the secret key for easy reference. The FriendlyName is defined as a String. o (OPTIONAL), the element carrying the data related to the key as defined in Section 5.4.1 o (OPTIONAL), the policy of the PIN relating to the usage of this key as defined in Section 5.4.4 o (OPTIONAL), the start date of the key, it MUST not be possible to use this key before this date. MUST be expressed in UTC form, with no time zone component. Implementations SHOULD NOT rely on time resolution finer than milliseconds and MUST NOT generate time instants that specify leap seconds. o (OPTIONAL), the expiry date of the key, it MUST not be possible to use this key after this date. MUST be expressed in UTC form, with no time zone component. Implementations SHOULD NOT rely on time resolution finer than milliseconds and MUST NOT generate time instants that specify leap seconds. o (OPTIONAL), identifies the user account (e.g. username or user id) to which the key is assigned. The value MUST be a string representation of a Distinguished Name as defined in [RFC4514]. For example "UID=jsmith,DC=example,DC=net". In systems where unique user Ids are used the string representation 'UID=[uniqueId]' SHOULD be used. o (OPTIONAL), is the extension point for this entity. All extensions are grouped under this element and will be of type pskc:ExtensionType, which contains an optional attribute 'defintion' that can have a URI pointing at the defintion of the extension. In this way groups of extension can be bundled under a subelement. For example: Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 22] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 blah blahblah 5.4.1. KeyData Defines an extensible set of data elements relating to a key including the key value itself (secret). After considerable discussions in forums and at IETF the authors needed a mean to convey data related to a key in an extensible form. A name-value pair approach would be extensible for future new data fields but it lacks support of typing. Hence the current apporach is to have within KeyData a set of elements that have both typing and can be encrypted. Regarding to the encryption, the requirements were that the data elements could be simply encrypted. The XML encryption is adopted in consideration of open standards and broad existing implementations. In this document, a simplified profile of XML encryption is used that only encrypts data value rather than XML elements. xenc: EncryptedDataType is leveraged to carry encrypted data. This simplified usage doesn't need to involve any XML canonicalization among others. All elements within hence obey a simple structure in that they MUST have: a choice between: A element that is typed to the specific type (e.g. xs:integer) An element that is of type xenc:EncryptedDataType where the value of the specific element is placed in case it is encrypted an optional element that is populated with a MAC generated from the unencrypted value in case the encryption algorithm does not support integrity checks For example the pskc:intDataType is defined as follows: Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 23] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 The following typed base types have been defined within the current schema of the PSKC spec with the naming convention DataType (e.g. intDataType) to be able to cater transmission of key data elements: pskc:intDataType - to carry data elements of type integer, PlainValue sub element is of type xs:integer. When encrypted the binary value MUST be 4 bytes unsigned integer in big endian (i.e. network byte order) form pskc:longDataType - to carry data elements of type long, PlainValue sub element is of type xs:long. When encrypted the binary value MUST be 8 bytes unsigned integer in big endian (i.e. network byte order) form pskc:binaryDataType - to carry data elements of type binary, PlainValue sub element is of type xs:Base64Binary pskc:stringDataType - to carry data elements of type string, PlainValue sub element is of type xs:string. When encrypted the binary value MUST UTF-8 encoded string in binary form Therefore the KeyData element is defined as follows and contains sub elements to convey the values required by algorithms considered during the definition of this specification: Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 24] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 The elements of the Data element have the following meanings: o (OPTIONAL), the value of the key itself in binary. o (OPTIONAL), the event counter for event based OTP algorithms. o 8.4.4.6. SecurID-AES-Counter Common Name: SecurID-AES-Counter Class: OTP URI: http://www.rsa.com/names/2008/04/algorithms/SecurID/ SecurID-AES128-Counter Algorithm Definition: http://www.rsa.com/names/2008/04/algorithms/ SecurID/SecurID-AES128-Counter Identifier Definition http://www.rsa.com/names/2008/04/algorithms/ SecurID/SecurID-AES128-Counter Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 61] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 Registrant Contact: Andrea Doherty, RSA the Security Division of EMC, Profile of XML attributes and subelements of the entity: For a of this algorithm, the , , and sub-elements MUST be present. The "OTP" attribute of MUST be set to "true" and it MUST be the only attribute set. The sub-element of MUST be used to indicate the OTP length and the value format. For the Data elements of a of this algorithm, the following subelements MUST be present in either the element itself or an commonly shared element. * Counter The following additional constraints apply: - The value of the element MUST contain key material with a lengthy of at least 16 octets (128 bits) if it is present. - The element MUST have the 'Format' attribute set to "DECIMAL", and the 'Length' attribute MUST be set to a minimum value of 6. - The and elements MUST be of type . - The element MAY be present but the child element of the element cannot be set to "Algorithmic". An example of a of this algorithm is as follows. Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 62] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 RSA, The Security Division of EMC 123456798 Issuer 2006-04-14T00:00:00Z 2010-09-30T00:00:00Z MTIzNDU2Nzg5MDEyMzQ1Njc4OTA= 0 8.4.4.7. SecurID-ALGOR Common Name: SecurID-ALGOR Class: OTP URI: http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/otps/schemas/2005/09/ otps-wst#SecurID-ALGOR Algorithm Definition: http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2821 Identifier Definition: http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2821 Registrant Contact: Andrea Doherty, RSA the Security Division of EMC, Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 63] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 Profile of XML attributes and subelements of the entity: For a of this algorithm, the , , and sub-elements MUST be present. The "OTP" attribute of MUST be set to "true" and it MUST be the only attribute set. The sub-element of MUST be used to indicate the OTP length and the value format. The following additional constraints apply: - The value of the element MUST contain key material with a lengthy of at least 8 octets (64 bits) if it is present. - The element MUST have the 'Format' attribute set to "DECIMAL", and the 'Length' attribute MUST be set to a value of 6 through 8. - The and elements MUST be of type . - The element MAY be present but the child element of the element cannot be set to "Algorithmic". An example of a of this algorithm is as follows. Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 64] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 RSA, The Security Division of EMC 123456798 Issuer 2006-04-14T00:00:00Z 2010-09-30T00:00:00Z 8.4.4.8. ActivIdentity-3DES Common Name: ActivIdentity-3DES Class: OTP URI: http://www.actividentity.com/2008/04/algorithms/ algorithms#ActivIdentity-3DES Algorithm Definition: http://www.actividentity.com/2008/04/ algorithms/algorithms#ActivIdentity-3DES Identifier Definition http://www.actividentity.com/2008/04/ algorithms/algorithms#ActivIdentity-3DES Registrant Contact: Philip Hoyer, ActivIdentity Inc, Profile of XML attributes and subelements of the entity: For a of this algorithm, the subelements MUST be present. This algorithm can be used for otp, challenge response, parameter based MACing (integrity) and to generate a device unlock code (n case of devices where there is local PIN management and the devce has been locked after a specific amount of wrong PIN entry attempts). Hence the "OTP", "CR","Integrity" and "Unlock" attribute of the can be set to "true", but at least one of Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 65] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 the above MUST be set to true. The element of the MUST be used to indicate the OTP length, the value format and optionally if a check digit is being used. If the use is challenge-response then the of the MUST be used to indicate the challenge minimum and maximum length, its format and optionally if a check digit is being used. For the elements of a of this algorithm, the following subelements MUST be present in either the element itself or an commonly shared element. * Secret * Counter * Time * TimeInterval The following additional constraints apply: - The value of the element MUST contain key material with a length of at least 16 octets (Double DES keys 128 bits including parity) if it is present. - The element MUST have the 'Format' attribute set to "DECIMAL" or "HEXADECIMAL", and the 'Length' attribute MUST be between 6 and 16. - The element MUST have the 'Format' attribute set to "DECIMAL", and the 'Min' and 'Max' attributes be between 4 and 16 (The Min attribute MUST be equal or less than the Max). - The element MAY be present but the child element of the element cannot be set to "Algorithmic". An example of a Key of this algorithm is as follows. Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 66] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 ActivIdentity 34567890 Issuer MTIzNDU2Nzg5MDEyMzQ1Njc4OTA= 0 32 0 8.4.4.9. ActivIdentity-AES Common Name: ActivIdentity-AES Class: OTP URI: http://www.actividentity.com/2008/04/algorithms/ algorithms#ActivIdentity-AES Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 67] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 Algorithm Definition: http://www.actividentity.com/2008/04/ algorithms/algorithms#ActivIdentity-AES Identifier Definition http://www.actividentity.com/2008/04/ algorithms/algorithms#ActivIdentity-AES Registrant Contact: Philip Hoyer, ActivIdentity Inc, Profile of XML attributes and subelements of the entity: For a of this algorithm, the subelements MUST be present. This algorithm can be used for otp, challenge response, parameter based MACing (integrity) and to generate a device unlock code (n case of devices where there is local PIN management and the devce has been locked after a specific amount of wrong PIN entry attempts). Hence the "OTP", "CR","Integrity" and "Unlock" attribute of the can be set to "true", but at least one of the above MUST be set to true. The element of the MUST be used to indicate the OTP length, the value format and optionally if a check digit is being used. If the use is challenge-response then the of the MUST be used to indicate the challenge minimum and maximum length, its format and optionally if a check digit is being used. For the elements of a key of this algorithm, the following subelements MUST be present in either the element itself or an commonly shared element. * Secret * Counter * Time * TimeInterval The following additional constraints apply: - The value of the element MUST contain key material with a length of at least 16 octets (128 bits) if it is present. - The element MUST have the 'Format' attribute set to "DECIMAL" or "HEXADECIMAL", and the 'Length' attribute MUST be between 6 and 16. Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 68] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 - The element MUST have the 'Format' attribute set to "DECIMAL", and the 'Min' and 'Max' attributes be between 4 and 16 (The Min attribute MUST be equal or less than the Max). - The element MAY be present but the child element of the element cannot be set to "Algorithmic". An example of a of this algorithm is as follows. Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 69] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 ActivIdentity 34567890 Issuer MTIzNDU2Nzg5MDEyMzQ1Njc4OTA= 0 32 0 8.4.4.10. ActivIdentity-DES Common Name: ActivIdentity-DES Class: OTP URI: http://www.actividentity.com/2008/04/algorithms/ algorithms#ActivIdentity-DES Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 70] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 Algorithm Definition: http://www.actividentity.com/2008/04/ algorithms/algorithms#ActivIdentity-DES Identifier Definition http://www.actividentity.com/2008/04/ algorithms/algorithms#ActivIdentity-DES Registrant Contact: Philip Hoyer, ActivIdentity Inc, Profile of XML attributes and subelements of the entity: For a of this algorithm, the subelements MUST be present. This algorithm can be used for otp, challenge response, parameter based MACing (integrity) and to generate a device unlock code (n case of devices where there is local PIN management and the devce has been locked after a specific amount of wrong PIN entry attempts). Hence the "OTP", "CR","Integrity" and "Unlock" attribute of the can be set to "true", but at least one of the above MUST be set to true. The element of the MUST be used to indicate the OTP length, the value format and optionally if a check digit is being used. If the use is challenge-response then the of the MUST be used to indicate the challenge minimum and maximum length, its format and optionally if a check digit is being used. For the elements of a key of this algorithm, the following subelements MUST be present in either the element itself or an commonly shared element. * Counter * Time * TimeInterval The following additional constraints apply: - The value of the element MUST contain key material with a length of at least 8 octets (56 bits + parity) if it is present. - The element MUST have the 'Format' attribute set to "DECIMAL" or "HEXADECIMAL", and the 'Length' attribute MUST be between 6 and 16. - The element MUST have the 'Format' attribute set to "DECIMAL", and the 'Min' and 'Max' attributes be between 4 and 16 (The Min attribute MUST be equal or less Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 71] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 than the Max). - The element MAY be present but the child element of the element cannot be set to "Algorithmic". An example of a of this algorithm is as follows. Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 72] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 ActivIdentity 34567890 Issuer MTIzNDU2Nzg5MDEyMzQ1Njc4OTA= 0 32 0 8.4.4.11. ActivIdentity-EVENT Common Name: ActivIdentity-EVENT Class: OTP URI: http://www.actividentity.com/2008/04/algorithms/ algorithms#ActivIdentity-EVENT Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 73] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 Algorithm Definition: http://www.actividentity.com/2008/04/ algorithms/algorithms#ActivIdentity-EVENT Identifier Definition http://www.actividentity.com/2008/04/ algorithms/algorithms#ActivIdentity-EVENT Registrant Contact: Philip Hoyer, ActivIdentity Inc, Profile of XML attributes and subelements of the entity: For a of this algorithm, the subelements MUST be present. This algorithm can be used for otp, challenge response, parameter based MACing (integrity) and to generate a device unlock code (n case of devices where there is local PIN management and the device has been locked after a specific amount of wrong PIN entry attempts). Hence the "OTP", "CR","Integrity" and "Unlock" attribute of the can be set to "true", but at least one of the above MUST be set to true. The element of the MUST be used to indicate the OTP length, the value format and optionally if a check digit is being used. If the use is challenge-response then the of the MUST be used to indicate the challenge minimum and maximum length, its format and optionally if a check digit is being used. For the elements of a key of this algorithm, the following subelements MUST be present in either the element itself or an commonly shared element. * Counter The following additional constraints apply: - The value of the element MUST contain key material with a length of at least 8 octets (56 bits + parity) if it is present. - The element MUST have the 'Format' attribute set to "DECIMAL" or "HEXADECIMAL", and the 'Length' attribute MUST be between 6 and 16. - The element MAY be present but the child element of the element cannot be set to "Algorithmic". An example of a of this algorithm is as follows. Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 74] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 ActivIdentity 34567890 Issuer MTIzNDU2Nzg5MDEyMzQ1Njc4OTA= 0 Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 75] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 9. Security Considerations The portable key container carries sensitive information (e.g., cryptographic keys) and may be transported across the boundaries of one secure perimeter to another. For example, a container residing within the secure perimeter of a back-end provisioning server in a secure room may be transported across the internet to an end-user device attached to a personal computer. This means that special care must be taken to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity of the information contained within. 9.1. Payload confidentiality By design, the container allows two main approaches to guaranteeing the confidentiality of the information it contains while transported. First, the container key data payload may be encrypted. In this case no transport layer security is required. However, standard security best practices apply when selecting the strength of the cryptographic algorithm for payload encryption. Symmetric cryptographic cipher should be used - the longer the cryptographic key, the stronger the protection. At the time of this writing both 3DES and AES are mandatory algorithms but 3DES may be dropped in the relatively near future. Applications concerned with algorithm longevity are advised to use AES-256-CBC. In cases where the exchange of key encryption keys between the sender and the receiver is not possible, asymmetric encryption of the secret key payload may be employed. Similarly to symmetric key cryptography, the stronger the asymmetric key, the more secure the protection is. If the payload is encrypted with a method that uses one of the password-based encryption methods provided above, the payload may be subjected to password dictionary attacks to break the encryption password and recover the information. Standard security best practices for selection of strong encryption passwords apply [Schneier]. Practical implementations should use PBESalt and PBEIterationCount when PBE encryption is used. Different PBESalt value per key container should be used for best protection. The second approach to protecting the confidentiality of the payload is based on using transport layer security. The secure channel established between the source secure perimeter (the provisioning server from the example above) and the target perimeter (the device attached to the end-user computer) utilizes encryption to transport the messages that travel across. No payload encryption is required Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 76] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 in this mode. Secure channels that encrypt and digest each message provide an extra measure of security, especially when the signature of the payload does not encompass the entire payload. Because of the fact that the plain text payload is protected only by the transport layer security, practical implementation must ensure protection against man-in-the-middle attacks [Schneier]. Validating the secure channel end-points is critically important for eliminating intruders that may compromise the confidentiality of the payload. 9.2. Payload integrity The portable symmetric key container provides a mean to guarantee the integrity of the information it contains through digital signatures. For best security practices, the digital signature of the container should encompass the entire payload. This provides assurances for the integrity of all attributes. It also allows verification of the integrity of a given payload even after the container is delivered through the communication channel to the target perimeter and channel message integrity check is no longer possible. 9.3. Payload authenticity The digital signature of the payload is the primary way of showing its authenticity. The recipient of the container may use the public key associated with the signature to assert the authenticity of the sender by tracing it back to a preloaded public key or certificate. Note that the digital signature of the payload can be checked even after the container has been delivered through the secure channel of communication. A weaker payload authenticity guarantee may be provided by the transport layer if it is configured to digest each message it transports. However, no authenticity verification is possible once the container is delivered at the recipient end. This approach may be useful in cases where the digital signature of the container does not encompass the entire payload. Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 77] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 10. Acknowledgements The authors of this draft would like to thank the following people for their contributions and support to make this a better specification: Apostol Vassilev, Shuh Chang, Jon Martinson, Siddhart Bajaj, Stu Veath, Kevin Lewis, Philip Hallam-Baker, Hannes Tschofenig, Andrea Doherty, Magnus Nystrom, Tim Moses, Anders Rundgren, Sean Turner and especially Robert Philpott. Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 78] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 11. Appendix A - Example Symmetric Key Containers All examples are syntactically correct and compatible with the XML schema in section 7. The examples will be revised as the test vectors for implementation interoperability verification. Two of the examples below carry some sample test inputs. 11.1. Symmetric Key Container with a single Non-Encrypted HOTP Secret Key Assume the following test data: OTP Secret Key Hex Value (20 bytes): 0x3132333435363738393031323334353637383930 Sample KeyContainer: Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 79] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 TokenVendorAcme 987654321 Issuer 2006-04-14T00:00:00Z 2010-09-30T00:00:00Z MTIzNDU2Nzg5MDEyMzQ1Njc4OTA= 0 11.2. Symmetric Key Container with a single PIN protected Non-Encrypted HOTP Secret Key Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 80] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 TokenVendorAcme 0755225266 AnIssuer MTIzNDU2Nzg5MDEyMzQ1Njc4OTA= 0 MTIzNA== Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 81] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 11.3. Symmetric Key Container with a single AES-128-CBC Encrypted HOTP Secret Key and non-encrypted counter value Assume the following test data: OTP Secret Key Hex Value (20 bytes): 0x3132333435363738393031323334353637383930 AES Key Hex Value (16 bytes): 0x0b0b0b0b0b0b0b0b0b0b0b0b0b0b0b0b The MAC key is the same as the AES encryption key. The sample KeyContainer: Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 82] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 PRE_SHARED_KEY http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#hmac-sha1 TokenVendorAcme 0755225266 AnIssuer xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 0 11.4. Symmetric Key Container with signature and a single Password- based Encrypted HOTP Secret Key Passphrase1 P1ciQdGbrI0= 2000 16 TokenVendorAcme 0755225266 AnIssuer rf4dx3rvEPO0vKtKL14NbeVu8nk= Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 84] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 0 j6lwx3rvEPO0vKtMup4NbeVu8nk= j6lwx3rvEPO0vKtMup4NbeVu8nk= CN=KeyProvisioningUs.com,C=US 12345678 11.5. Symmetric Key Container with a single RSA 1.5 Encrypted HOTP Secret Key Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 85] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 miib TokenVendorAcme 0755225266 AnIssuer rf4dx3rvEPO0vKtKL14NbeVu8nk= 0 11.6. Symmetric Key Container with a single AES-128-CBC Encrypted OCRA Secret Key and non-encrypted counter value Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 86] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 Pre-shared-key http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#hmac-sha1 TokenVendorAcme 987654321 Issuer gVc5jCsntSD1rhIgwWxmWNvEIkpTgn0E6+OH5mDPAok= JIOeKMISfMTy7og7Saq0CZrLdfE= 0 Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 87] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 11.7. Symmetric Key Container with a single AES-256-CBC Encrypted TOTP Secret Key and non-encrypted time values Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 88] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 PRE_SHARED_KEY http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#hmac-sha1 TokenVendorAcme 0755225266 AnIssuer gVc5jCsntSD1rhIgwWxmWNvEIkpTgn0E6+OH5mDPAok= JIOeKMISfMTy7og7Saq0CZrLdfE= 30 4 Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 89] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 11.8. Symmetric Key Container with two devices containing a Non- Encrypted HOTP Secret Key each sharing common KeyProperties Issuer 0 TokenVendorAcme 987654321 MTIzNDU2Nzg5MDEyMzQ1Njc4OTA= TokenVendorAcme 987654322 MTIzNDU2Nzg5MDEyMzQ1Njc4OTA= Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 90] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 91] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 12. References 12.1. Normative References [LUHN] Luhn, H., "Luhn algorithm", US Patent 2950048, August 1960, . [PKCS1] Kaliski, B., "PKCS #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications Version 2.0.", RFC 2437, October 1998. [PKCS5] RSA Laboratories, "PKCS #5: Password-Based Cryptography Standard", Version 2.0, URL: http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/pkcs/, March 1999. [RFC2119] "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3023] Murata, M., St. Laurent, S., and D. Kohn, "XML Media Types", RFC 3023, January 2001. [RFC3553] Mealling, M., Masinter, L., Hardie, T., and G. Klyne, "An IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol Parameters", BCP 73, RFC 3553, June 2003. [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, January 2004. [RFC4288] Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288, December 2005. [RFC4514] Zeilenga, K., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): String Representation of Distinguished Names", RFC 4514, June 2006. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. [XMLDSIG] Eastlake, D., "XML-Signature Syntax and Processing", URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xmldsig-core-20020212/, W3C Recommendation, February 2002. [XMLENC] Eastlake, D., "XML Encryption Syntax and Processing.", URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlenc-core/, W3C Recommendation, December 2002. Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 92] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 12.2. Informative References [AlgorithmURIs] Eastlake, D., "Additional XML Security Uniform Resource Identifiers", RFC 4051, April 2005. [CAP] MasterCard International, "Chip Authentication Program Functional Architecture", September 2004. [DSKPP] Doherty, A., Pei, M., Machani, S., and M. Nystrom, "Dynamic Symmetric Key Provisioning Protocol", Internet Draft Informational, URL: http://www.ietf.org/ internet-drafts/draft-ietf-keyprov-dskpp-05.txt, February 2008. [HOTP] MRaihi, D., Bellare, M., Hoornaert, F., Naccache, D., and O. Ranen, "HOTP: An HMAC-Based One Time Password Algorithm", RFC 4226, December 2005. [NIST-SP800-57] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Recommendation for Key Management - Part I: General (Revised)", NIST 800-57, URL: http://csrc.nist.gov/ publications/nistpubs/800-57/ sp800-57-Part1-revised2_Mar08-2007.pdf, March 2007. [OATH] "Initiative for Open AuTHentication", URL: http://www.openauthentication.org. [OCRA] MRaihi, D., Rydell, J., Naccache, D., Machani, S., and S. Bajaj, "OCRA: OATH Challenge Response Algorithm", Internet Draft Informational, URL: http://www.ietf.org/ internet-drafts/ draft-mraihi-mutual-oath-hotp-variants-06.txt, December 2007. [PKCS12] RSA Laboratories, "PKCS #12: Personal Information Exchange Syntax Standard", Version 1.0, URL: http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/pkcs/. [Schneier] Schneier, B., "Secrets and Lies: Digitial Security in a Networked World", Wiley Computer Publishing, ISBN 0-8493- 8253-7, 2000. Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 93] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 Authors' Addresses Philip Hoyer ActivIdentity, Inc. 117 Waterloo Road London, SE1 8UL UK Phone: +44 (0) 20 7744 6455 Email: Philip.Hoyer@actividentity.com Mingliang Pei VeriSign, Inc. 487 E. Middlefield Road Mountain View, CA 94043 USA Phone: +1 650 426 5173 Email: mpei@verisign.com Salah Machani Diversinet, Inc. 2225 Sheppard Avenue East Suite 1801 Toronto, Ontario M2J 5C2 Canada Phone: +1 416 756 2324 Ext. 321 Email: smachani@diversinet.com Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 94] Internet-Draft Portable Symmetric Key Container November 2008 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Hoyer, et al. Expires May 7, 2009 [Page 95]