Internet DRAFT - draft-bew-ipsec-signatures
draft-bew-ipsec-signatures
Internet Engineering Task Force Brian Weis
INTERNET-DRAFT Cisco Systems
Document: draft-bew-ipsec-signatures-01.txt August, 2003
Expires: February, 2004
The Use of RSA Signatures within ESP and AH
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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.
Abstract
This memo describes the use of the RSA Signature algorithm [RSA] as
an authentication algorithm within the revised IPSEC Encapsulating
Security Payload [ESP] and the revised IPSEC Authentication Header
[AH]. The use of a digital signature algorithm such as RSA provides
origin authentication, even when ESP and AH are used to secure group
data flows.
Further information on the other components necessary for ESP and AH
implementations is provided by [ROADMAP].
Weis Expires February, 2004 1
The Use of RSA Signatures with ESP and AH August, 2003
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction......................................................2
2.0 Algorithm and Mode................................................3
3.0 Performance.......................................................3
4.0 Interaction with the ESP Cipher Mechanism.........................4
5.0 Security Association Considerations for Group Traffic.............4
6.0 Key Management Considerations.....................................4
7.0 Security Considerations...........................................5
7.1 Eavesdropping...................................................5
7.2 Replay..........................................................5
7.3 Message Insertion...............................................5
7.4 Deletion........................................................5
7.5 Modification....................................................6
7.6 Man in the middle...............................................6
7.7 Denial of Service...............................................6
8.0 IANA Considerations...............................................6
9.0 Acknowledgements..................................................6
10.0 References.......................................................7
10.1 Normative References...........................................7
10.2 Informative References.........................................7
Authors Addresses.....................................................7
1.0 Introduction
AH and ESP payloads can be used to protect unicast traffic, or group
traffic, such as IPv4 and IPv6 multicast traffic. When unicast
traffic is protected between a pair of entities, HMAC transforms
(such as [HMAC-SHA] and [HMAC-MD5]) are sufficient to prove source
authentication. An HMAC is strong enough in that scenario because
only one other entity knows the key. However when AH and ESP protect
group traffic, this property is no longer valid -- all group members
share the single HMAC key and thus can spoof one another.
Some multicast applications require true origin authentication, where
one group member cannot be spoofed by another group member without
detection. The use of asymmetric encryption algorithms, such as RSA,
can provide true origin authentication. The sender generates a pair
of keys, one of which is never shared (called the "private key") and
one of which is distributed to other group members (called the
"public key").
When an asymmetric encryption algorithm is used to encrypt the output
of a cryptographic hash algorithm, the cipher text is called a
"digital signature". A receiver of the digital signature uses the
public key to decrypt the hash.
This memo describes how RSA digital signatures can be applied as an
authentication mechanism to AH and ESP payloads to provide origin
authentication.
Weis Expires February, 2004 2
The Use of RSA Signatures with ESP and AH August, 2003
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].
2.0 Algorithm and Mode
The RSA Public Key Algorithm [RSA] is a widely deployed public key
algorithm commonly used for digital signatures. Compared to other
public key algorithms, signature verification is relatively quick.
This property is useful for groups where receivers may have limited
processing capabilities. The RSA Algorithm is commonly supported in
hardware, and is no longer encumbered by intellectual property
claims.
Several schemes for the RSA Algorithm are described in [RSA]. One
scheme exists specifically for digital signatures. However, that
scheme is not the most efficient for this application. In addition,
the signature scheme encodes the hash type into the signature data
block, and this is not necessary because the hash algorithm is pre-
determined.
The RSAES-OAEP raw RSA scheme [RSA, Section 7.1] MUST be used as the
encryption scheme. As recommended in [RSA, Section B.1], SHA-1 MUST
be used as the signature hash algorithm both as the message to be
encrypted by the RSA Algorithm, and as the encoding parameter for the
OAEP encoding. The value of parameter string P MUST be the default,
which is the hash of an empty string. The mask generation function
MUST be MGF1 as defined in [RSA, Section B.2.1].
The size of the RSA modulus used can vary, but MUST be at least 496
bits. This restriction is a function of the size of the SHA-1 hash
and the number of bits needed for OAEP encapsulation. (For more
information, see [RSA, Section 7.1].)
3.0 Performance
The RSA asymmetric key algorithm is very costly in terms of
processing time compared to the HMAC algorithms. However, processing
cost is decreasing over time. Faster general-purpose processors are
being deployed, faster software implementations are being developed,
and hardware acceleration support for the algorithm is becoming more
prevalent. However, care should always be taken that RSA signatures
are not used for applications that expect to have bandwidth
requirements that would be adversely affected.
The RSA asymmetric key algorithm is best suited to protect network
traffic for network traffic for which:
o the sender has a substantial amount of processing power, whereas
receivers are not guaranteed to have substantial processing power,
and
Weis Expires February, 2004 3
The Use of RSA Signatures with ESP and AH August, 2003
o the network traffic is small enough that adding a relatively large
authentication tag (in the range of 61 to 256 bytes) does not cause
packet fragmentation.
Both key pair generation and encryption (or signing) are
substantially more expensive operations, but these are isolated to
the sender.
The size of the RSA modulus can affect the processing required to
create and verify RSA digital signatures. Care should be taken to
determine what the size of key is needed for the application.
Smaller key sizes may be chosen as long as the network traffic
protected by the private key flows for less time than it is estimated
that an attacker would take to discover the private key. This
lifetime is considerably smaller than most public key applications,
so a key that is normally considered weak may be satisfactory. (If
the RSA public key algorithm were used to encrypt the packet, then
the lifetime would be substantially longer.)
The addition of a digital signature as an authentication tag adds a
significant number of bytes to the packet. This increases the
likelihood that the packet encapsulated in AH or ESP may be
fragmented.
4.0 Interaction with the ESP Cipher Mechanism
As of this writing, there are no known issues that preclude the use
of the RSA signatures algorithm with any specific cipher algorithm.
5.0 Security Association Considerations for Group Traffic
When RSA Signatures are used to protect group traffic, they MUST be
in accordance with the restrictions set forth in the IPSec
Architecture [RFC2401] to ensure that security associations remain
unique. That is, one of the following two cases:
o Single sender groups where only one source IPv4 or IPV6
address is sending packets to the IP multicast destination address.
o Multiple sender groups where a single group controller is
choosing SPI values for AH and ESP security associations for all
group members sending packets to the same IP multicast destination
address.
6.0 Key Management Considerations
The key management mechanism that negotiates the use of RSA
Signatures MUST include the length of the RSA modulus during policy
negotiation in order to give a device the opportunity to decline.
This is especially important for devices with constrained processors
that might not be able to handle the verification of signatures using
larger key sizes.
Weis Expires February, 2004 4
The Use of RSA Signatures with ESP and AH August, 2003
A receiver must have the RSA public key in order to decrypt the
packet. When used with a group key management system such as GDOI
[RFC3547], the public key SHOULD be to sent as part of the key
download policy. If the group has multiple senders, the public key of
each sender SHOULD be sent as part of the key download policy.
When used with a pair-wise key management system such as IKE
[RFC2409] the public key could be passed as an SA attribute. However,
given the above performance considerations, the value of using this
transform for a pair-wise connection is limited.
7.0 Security Considerations
This document provides a method of authentication for AH and ESP
using digital signatures. This feature provides the following
protections:
o Message modification integrity. The digital signature allows
the receiver of the message to verify that it was exactly the same as
when the sender signed it.
o Host authentication. The asymmetric nature of the RSA public
key algorithm allows the sender to be uniquely verified, even when
the message is sent to a group.
As suggested by [RFC3552], the following sections describe various
attacks that could be deployed against using RSA signatures as a
means of authentication.
7.1 Eavesdropping
This document does not address confidentiality. That function, if
desired, must be addressed by an ESP cipher that is used with the
RSA Signatures authentication method. The RSA signature itself does
not need to be protected in any way.
7.2 Replay
This document does not address replay attacks. That function, if
desired, is addressed through use of AH and ESP sequence numbers as
defined in [AH] and [ESP].
7.3 Message Insertion
This document directly addresses message insertion attacks. Inserted
messages will fail authentication and be dropped by the receiver.
7.4 Deletion
This document does not address deletion attacks. It is only
concerned with validating the legitimacy of messages that are not
deleted.
Weis Expires February, 2004 5
The Use of RSA Signatures with ESP and AH August, 2003
7.5 Modification
This document directly addresses message modification attacks.
Modified messages will fail authentication and be dropped by the
receiver.
7.6 Man in the middle
As long as a receiver is given the sender RSA public key in a
trusted manner, it will be able to verify that the digital signature
is correct. A man in the middle will not be able to spoof the actual
sender unless it acquires the RSA private key through some means.
RSA modulus sizes must be chosen carefully to ensure that the time it
takes a man in the middle to determine the RSA private key through
cryptanalysis is longer than the amount of time that packets are
signed with that private key.
7.7 Denial of Service
A receiver of an ESP and AH packet starts by looking up the Security
Association in the SADB. If one is found, the ESP or AH sequence
number in the packet is verified. If the sequence number falls
within the window, the authentication step is performed.
An attacker that sends an ESP or AH packet which matches a valid SA
on the system and which also has a valid sequence number will cause
the receiver to perform the AH or ESP authentication step. Because
the process of verifying an RSA digital signature consumes
relatively large amounts of processing, this could lead to a denial
of service attack on the receiver if many such packets were sent.
If the message was sent to an IPv4 or IPv6 multicast group all group
members that received the packet would be under attack
simultaneously.
Further investigation is needed to better estimate the actual
effects of this attack, and how it can be mitigated.
8.0 IANA Considerations
An assigned number is required in the IPSec Authentication Algorithm
name space in the ISAKMP registry [ISAKMP-REG]. The mnemonic should
be SIG-RSA.
A new IPSEC Security Association Attribute is required in the ISAKMP
registry to pass the RSA modulus size. The attribute class should be
called Authentication Key Length, and it should a Variable type.
9.0 Acknowledgements
TBD
Weis Expires February, 2004 6
The Use of RSA Signatures with ESP and AH August, 2003
10.0 References
10.1 Normative References
[AH] Kent, S., and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header", RFC 2402,
November 1998.
[ESP] Kent, S., and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Security Payload",
RFC 2406, November 1998.
[ISAKMP-REG] http://www.iana.org/assignments/isakmp-registry
[RFC2401] Kent, S., R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", November 1998
[ROADMAP] Thayer, R., Doraswamy, N., and R. Glenn, "IP Security
Document Roadmap", RFC 2411, November 1998.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Level", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3552] E. Rescorla, et. al., Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on
Security Considerations, RFC 3552, July 2003.
[RSA] Jonsson, J., B. Kaliski, "PKCS #1: RSA Cryptography
Specifications Version 2.1", RFC 3447, February 2003.
10.2 Informative References
[HMAC-MD5] Madson, C., and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-MD5-96 within
ESP and AH"", RFC 2403, November, 1998.
[HMAC-SHA] Madson, C., and R. Glenn, " The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96
within ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November, 1998.
[RFC3547] M. Baugher, B. Weis, T. Hardjono, H. Harney, , The Group
Domain of Interpretation, RFC 3547, December 2002.
Authors Addresses
Brian Weis
Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive,
San Jose, CA 95134-1706, USA
(408) 526-4796
bew@cisco.com
Weis Expires February, 2004 7
