Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-lake-edhoc
draft-ietf-lake-edhoc
LAKE Working Group G. Selander
Internet-Draft J. Preuß Mattsson
Intended status: Standards Track F. Palombini
Expires: 25 July 2024 Ericsson
22 January 2024
Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC)
draft-ietf-lake-edhoc-23
Abstract
This document specifies Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC), a
very compact and lightweight authenticated Diffie-Hellman key
exchange with ephemeral keys. EDHOC provides mutual authentication,
forward secrecy, and identity protection. EDHOC is intended for
usage in constrained scenarios and a main use case is to establish an
OSCORE security context. By reusing COSE for cryptography, CBOR for
encoding, and CoAP for transport, the additional code size can be
kept very low.
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 https://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 25 July 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Message Size Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. Document Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4. Terminology and Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. EDHOC Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Protocol Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3. Connection Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4. Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5. Authentication Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.6. Cipher Suites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.7. Ephemeral Public Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.8. External Authorization Data (EAD) . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.9. Application Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4. Key Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.1. Keys for EDHOC Message Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.2. Keys for EDHOC Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5. Message Formatting and Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1. EDHOC Message Processing Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.2. EDHOC Message 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.3. EDHOC Message 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.4. EDHOC Message 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.5. EDHOC Message 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.1. Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.2. Unspecified Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.3. Wrong Selected Cipher Suite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6.4. Unknown Credential Referenced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
7. EDHOC Message Deduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
8. Compliance Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
9.1. Security Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
9.2. Cryptographic Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
9.3. Cipher Suites and Cryptographic Algorithms . . . . . . . 53
9.4. Post-Quantum Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
9.5. Unprotected Data and Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
9.6. Updated Internet Threat Model Considerations . . . . . . 55
9.7. Denial-of-Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
9.8. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
10.1. EDHOC Exporter Label Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
10.2. EDHOC Cipher Suites Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
10.3. EDHOC Method Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
10.4. EDHOC Error Codes Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
10.5. EDHOC External Authorization Data Registry . . . . . . . 63
10.6. COSE Header Parameters Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
10.7. The Well-Known URI Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
10.8. Media Types Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
10.9. CoAP Content-Formats Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
10.10. Resource Type (rt=) Link Target Attribute Values
Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
10.11. Expert Review Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Appendix A. Use with OSCORE and Transfer over CoAP . . . . . . . 76
A.1. Deriving the OSCORE Security Context . . . . . . . . . . 76
A.2. Transferring EDHOC over CoAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Appendix B. Compact Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Appendix C. Use of CBOR, CDDL, and COSE in EDHOC . . . . . . . . 83
C.1. CBOR and CDDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
C.2. CDDL Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
C.3. COSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Appendix D. Authentication Related Verifications . . . . . . . . 88
D.1. Validating the Authentication Credential . . . . . . . . 88
D.2. Identities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
D.3. Certification Path and Trust Anchors . . . . . . . . . . 90
D.4. Revocation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
D.5. Unauthenticated Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Appendix E. Use of External Authorization Data . . . . . . . . . 91
Appendix F. Application Profile Example . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Appendix G. Long PLAINTEXT_2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Appendix H. EDHOC_KeyUpdate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Appendix I. Example Protocol State Machine . . . . . . . . . . . 96
I.1. Initiator State Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
I.2. Responder State Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Appendix J. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
1. Introduction
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
1.1. Motivation
Many Internet of Things (IoT) deployments require technologies which
are highly performant in constrained environments [RFC7228]. IoT
devices may be constrained in various ways, including memory,
storage, processing capacity, and power. The connectivity for these
settings may also exhibit constraints such as unreliable and lossy
channels, highly restricted bandwidth, and dynamic topology. The
IETF has acknowledged this problem by standardizing a range of
lightweight protocols and enablers designed for the IoT, including
the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP, [RFC7252]), Concise
Binary Object Representation (CBOR, [RFC8949]), and Static Context
Header Compression (SCHC, [RFC8724]).
The need for special protocols targeting constrained IoT deployments
extends also to the security domain [I-D.ietf-lake-reqs]. Important
characteristics in constrained environments are the number of round
trips and protocol message sizes, which if kept low can contribute to
good performance by enabling transport over a small number of radio
frames, reducing latency due to fragmentation or duty cycles, etc.
Another important criterion is code size, which may be prohibitively
large for certain deployments due to device capabilities or network
load during firmware update. Some IoT deployments also need to
support a variety of underlying transport technologies, potentially
even with a single connection.
Some security solutions for such settings exist already. CBOR Object
Signing and Encryption (COSE, [RFC9052]) specifies basic application-
layer security services efficiently encoded in CBOR. Another example
is Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE,
[RFC8613]) which is a lightweight communication security extension to
CoAP using CBOR and COSE. In order to establish good quality
cryptographic keys for security protocols such as COSE and OSCORE,
the two endpoints may run an authenticated Diffie-Hellman key
exchange protocol, from which shared secret keying material can be
derived. Such a key exchange protocol should also be lightweight; to
prevent bad performance in case of repeated use, e.g., due to device
rebooting or frequent rekeying for security reasons; or to avoid
latencies in a network formation setting with many devices
authenticating at the same time.
This document specifies Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC), a
lightweight authenticated key exchange protocol providing good
security properties including forward secrecy, identity protection,
and cipher suite negotiation. Authentication can be based on raw
public keys (RPK) or public key certificates and requires the
application to provide input on how to verify that endpoints are
trusted. This specification supports the referencing of credentials
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
in order to reduce message overhead, but credentials may
alternatively be embedded in the messages. EDHOC does not currently
support pre-shared key (PSK) authentication as authentication with
static Diffie-Hellman public keys by reference produces equally small
message sizes but with much simpler key distribution and identity
protection.
EDHOC makes use of known protocol constructions, such as SIGMA
[SIGMA], the Noise XX pattern [Noise], and Extract-and-Expand
[RFC5869]. EDHOC uses COSE for cryptography and identification of
credentials (including COSE_Key, CBOR Web Token (CWT), CWT Claims Set
(CCS), X.509, and CBOR encoded X.509 (C509) certificates, see
Section 3.5.2). COSE provides crypto agility and enables the use of
future algorithms and credential types targeting IoT.
EDHOC is designed for highly constrained settings making it
especially suitable for low-power networks [RFC8376] such as Cellular
IoT, 6TiSCH, and LoRaWAN. A main objective for EDHOC is to be a
lightweight authenticated key exchange for OSCORE, i.e., to provide
authentication and session key establishment for IoT use cases such
as those built on CoAP [RFC7252] involving 'things' with embedded
microcontrollers, sensors, and actuators. By reusing the same
lightweight primitives as OSCORE (CBOR, COSE, CoAP) the additional
code size can be kept very low. Note that while CBOR and COSE
primitives are built into the protocol messages, EDHOC is not bound
to a particular transport.
A typical setting is when one of the endpoints is constrained or in a
constrained network, and the other endpoint is a node on the Internet
(such as a mobile phone). Thing-to-thing interactions over
constrained networks are also relevant since both endpoints would
then benefit from the lightweight properties of the protocol. EDHOC
could, e.g., be run when a device connects for the first time, or to
establish fresh keys which are not revealed by a later compromise of
the long-term keys.
1.2. Message Size Examples
Examples of EDHOC message sizes are shown in Figure 1, using
different kinds of authentication keys and COSE header parameters for
identification: static Diffie-Hellman keys or signature keys, either
in CBOR Web Token (CWT) / CWT Claims Set (CCS) [RFC8392] identified
by a key identifier using 'kid' [RFC9052], or in X.509 certificates
identified by a hash value using 'x5t' [RFC9360]. As a comparison,
in the case of RPK authentication, the EDHOC message size when
transferred in CoAP can be less than 1/7 of the DTLS 1.3 handshake
[RFC9147] with ECDHE and connection ID, see Section 2 of
[I-D.ietf-iotops-security-protocol-comparison].
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
Static DH Keys Signature Keys
---------------- ----------------
kid x5t kid x5t
----------------------------------------------------------
message_1 37 37 37 37
message_2 45 58 102 115
message_3 19 33 77 90
----------------------------------------------------------
Total 101 128 216 242
----------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1: Examples of EDHOC message sizes in bytes.
1.3. Document Structure
The remainder of the document is organized as follows: Section 2
outlines EDHOC authenticated with signature keys, Section 3 describes
the protocol elements of EDHOC, including formatting of the ephemeral
public keys, Section 4 specifies the key derivation, Section 5
specifies message processing for EDHOC authenticated with signature
keys or static Diffie-Hellman keys, Section 6 describes the error
messages, Section 7 describes EDHOC support for transport that does
not handle message duplication, and Section 8 lists compliance
requirements. Note that normative text is also used in appendices,
in particular Appendix A.
1.4. Terminology and Requirements Language
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
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Readers are expected to be familiar with the terms and concepts
described in CBOR [RFC8949], CBOR Sequences [RFC8742], COSE
structures and processing [RFC9052], COSE algorithms [RFC9053], CWT
and CWT Claims Set [RFC8392], and the Concise Data Definition
Language (CDDL, [RFC8610]), which is used to express CBOR data
structures. Examples of CBOR and CDDL are provided in Appendix C.1.
When referring to CBOR, this specification always refers to
Deterministically Encoded CBOR as specified in Sections 4.2.1 and
4.2.2 of [RFC8949]. The single output from authenticated encryption
(including the authentication tag) is called "ciphertext", following
[RFC5116].
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
2. EDHOC Outline
EDHOC specifies different authentication methods of the ephemeral-
ephemeral Diffie-Hellman key exchange: signature keys and static
Diffie-Hellman keys. This section outlines the signature key based
method. Further details of protocol elements and other
authentication methods are provided in the remainder of this
document.
SIGMA (SIGn-and-MAc) is a family of theoretical protocols with a
large number of variants [SIGMA]. Like in IKEv2 [RFC7296] and (D)TLS
1.3 [RFC8446][RFC9147], EDHOC authenticated with signature keys is
built on a variant of the SIGMA protocol, SIGMA-I, which provides
identity protection against active attacks on the party initiating
the protocol. Also like IKEv2, EDHOC implements the MAC-then-Sign
variant of the SIGMA-I protocol. The message flow (excluding an
optional fourth message) is shown in Figure 2.
Initiator Responder
| G_X |
+------------------------------------------------------------------>|
| |
| G_Y, Enc( ID_CRED_R, Sig( R; MAC( CRED_R, G_X, G_Y ) ) ) |
|<------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| AEAD( ID_CRED_I, Sig( I; MAC( CRED_I, G_Y, G_X ) ) ) |
+------------------------------------------------------------------>|
| |
Figure 2: MAC-then-Sign variant of the SIGMA-I protocol used by
EDHOC method 0.
The parties exchanging messages in an EDHOC session are called
Initiator (I) and Responder (R), where the Initiator sends message_1
(see Section 3). They exchange ephemeral public keys, compute a
shared secret session key PRK_out, and derive symmetric application
keys used to protect application data.
* G_X and G_Y are the ECDH ephemeral public keys of I and R,
respectively.
* CRED_I and CRED_R are the authentication credentials containing
the public authentication keys of I and R, respectively.
* ID_CRED_I and ID_CRED_R are used to identify and optionally
transport the credentials of the Initiator and the Responder,
respectively.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
* Sig(I; . ) and Sig(R; . ) denote signatures made with the private
authentication key of I and R, respectively.
* Enc(), AEAD(), and MAC() denotes encryption, authenticated
encryption with additional data, and message authentication code -
crypto algorithms applied with keys derived from one or more
shared secrets calculated during the protocol.
In order to create a "full-fledged" protocol some additional protocol
elements are needed. EDHOC adds:
* Transcript hashes (hashes of message data) TH_2, TH_3, TH_4 used
for key derivation and as additional authenticated data.
* Computationally independent keys derived from the ECDH shared
secret and used for authenticated encryption of different
messages.
* An optional fourth message giving key confirmation to I in
deployments where no protected application data is sent from R to
I.
* A keying material exporter and a key update function with forward
secrecy.
* Secure negotiation of cipher suite.
* Method types, error handling, and padding.
* Selection of connection identifiers C_I and C_R which may be used
in EDHOC to identify protocol state.
* Transport of external authorization data.
EDHOC is designed to encrypt and integrity protect as much
information as possible. Symmetric keys and random material used in
EDHOC are derived using EDHOC_KDF with as much previous information
as possible, see Figure 8. EDHOC is furthermore designed to be as
compact and lightweight as possible, in terms of message sizes,
processing, and the ability to reuse already existing CBOR, COSE, and
CoAP libraries. Like in (D)TLS, authentication is the responsibility
of the application. EDHOC identifies (and optionally transports)
authentication credentials, and provides proof-of-possession of the
private authentication key.
To simplify for implementors, the use of CBOR and COSE in EDHOC is
summarized in Appendix C. Test vectors including CBOR diagnostic
notation are provided in [I-D.ietf-lake-traces].
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
3. Protocol Elements
3.1. General
The EDHOC protocol consists of three mandatory messages (message_1,
message_2, message_3), an optional fourth message (message_4), and an
error message, between an Initiator (I) and a Responder (R). The odd
messages are sent by I, the even by R. Both I and R can send error
messages. The roles have slightly different security properties
which should be considered when the roles are assigned, see
Section 9.1. All EDHOC messages are CBOR Sequences [RFC8742], and
are defined to be deterministically encoded CBOR as specified in
Section 4.2.1 of [RFC8949]. Figure 3 illustrates an EDHOC message
flow with the optional fourth message as well as the content of each
message. The protocol elements in the figure are introduced in
Section 3 and Section 5. Message formatting and processing are
specified in Section 5 and Section 6.
Application data may be protected using the agreed application
algorithms (AEAD, hash) in the selected cipher suite (see
Section 3.6) and the application can make use of the established
connection identifiers C_I and C_R (see Section 3.3). Media types
that may be used for EDHOC are defined in Section 10.8.
The Initiator can derive symmetric application keys after creating
EDHOC message_3, see Section 4.2.1. Protected application data can
therefore be sent in parallel or together with EDHOC message_3.
EDHOC message_4 is typically not sent.
Initiator Responder
| METHOD, SUITES_I, G_X, C_I, EAD_1 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------>|
| message_1 |
| |
| G_Y, Enc( C_R, ID_CRED_R, Signature_or_MAC_2, EAD_2 ) |
|<------------------------------------------------------------------+
| message_2 |
| |
| AEAD( ID_CRED_I, Signature_or_MAC_3, EAD_3 ) |
+------------------------------------------------------------------>|
| message_3 |
| |
| AEAD( EAD_4 ) |
|<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
| message_4 |
Figure 3: EDHOC message flow including the optional fourth message.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
3.2. Method
The data item METHOD in message_1 (see Section 5.2.1), is an integer
specifying the authentication method. EDHOC supports authentication
with signature or static Diffie-Hellman keys, as defined in the four
authentication methods: 0, 1, 2, and 3, see Figure 4. When using a
static Diffie-Hellman key the authentication is provided by a Message
Authentication Code (MAC) computed from an ephemeral-static ECDH
shared secret which enables significant reductions in message sizes.
Note that also in the static Diffie-Hellman based authentication
methods there is an ephemeral-ephemeral Diffie-Hellman key exchange.
The Initiator and the Responder need to have agreed on a single
method to be used for EDHOC, see Section 3.9.
+-------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Method Type | Initiator | Responder |
| Value | Authentication Key | Authentication Key |
+=============+====================+====================+
| 0 | Signature Key | Signature Key |
| 1 | Signature Key | Static DH Key |
| 2 | Static DH Key | Signature Key |
| 3 | Static DH Key | Static DH Key |
+-------------+--------------------+--------------------+
Figure 4: Authentication keys for method types.
EDHOC does not have a dedicated message field to indicate the
protocol version. Breaking changes to EDHOC can be introduced by
specifying and registering new methods.
3.3. Connection Identifiers
EDHOC includes the selection of connection identifiers (C_I, C_R)
identifying a connection for which keys are agreed.
Connection identifiers may be used to correlate EDHOC messages and
facilitate the retrieval of protocol state during an EDHOC session
(see Section 3.4), or may be used in applications of EDHOC, e.g., in
OSCORE (see Section 3.3.3). The connection identifiers do not have
any cryptographic purpose in EDHOC and only facilitate the retrieval
of security data associated with the protocol state.
Connection identifiers in EDHOC are intrinsically byte strings. Most
constrained devices only have a few connections for which short
identifiers may be sufficient. In some cases minimum length
identifiers are necessary to comply with overhead requirements.
However, CBOR byte strings - with the exception of the empty byte
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
string h’’ which encodes as one byte (0x40) - are encoded as two or
more bytes. To enable one-byte encoding of certain byte strings
while maintaining CBOR encoding, EDHOC represents certain identifiers
as CBOR integers on the wire, see Section 3.3.2.
3.3.1. Selection of Connection Identifiers
C_I and C_R are chosen by I and R, respectively. The Initiator
selects C_I and sends it in message_1 for the Responder to use as a
reference to the connection in communication with the Initiator. The
Responder selects C_R and sends it in message_2 for the Initiator to
use as a reference to the connection in communications with the
Responder.
If connection identifiers are used by an application protocol for
which EDHOC establishes keys then the selected connection identifiers
SHALL adhere to the requirements for that protocol, see Section 3.3.3
for an example.
3.3.2. Representation of Byte String Identifiers
To allow identifiers with minimal overhead on the wire, certain byte
strings used in connection identifiers and credential identifiers
(see Section Section 3.5.3) are defined to have integer
representations.
The integers with one-byte CBOR encoding are -24, ..., 23, see
Figure 5.
Integer: -24 -23 ... -11 ... -2 -1 0 1 ... 15 ... 23
Encoding: 37 36 ... 2A ... 21 20 00 01 ... 0F ... 17
Figure 5: One-byte CBOR encoded integers.
The byte strings which coincide with a one-byte CBOR encoding of an
integer MUST be represented by the CBOR encoding of that integer.
Other byte strings are simply encoded as CBOR byte strings.
For example:
* 0x21 is represented by 0x21 (CBOR encoding of the integer -2), not
by 0x4121 (CBOR encoding of the byte string 0x21).
* 0x0D is represented by 0x0D (CBOR encoding of the integer 13), not
by 0x410D (CBOR encoding of the byte string 0x0D).
* 0x18 is represented by 0x4118 (CBOR encoding of the byte string
0x18).
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
* 0x38 is represented by 0x4138 (CBOR encoding of the byte string
0x38).
* 0xABCD is represented by 0x42ABCD (CBOR encoding of the byte
string 0xABCD).
One may view this representation of byte strings as a transport
encoding: a byte string which parses as the one-byte CBOR encoding of
an integer (i.e., integer in the interval -24, ..., 23) is just
copied directly into the message, a byte string which does not is
encoded as a CBOR byte string during transport.
Implementation Note: When implementing the byte string identifier
representation, it can in some programming languages help to define a
new type, or other data structure, which (in its user facing API)
behaves like a byte string, but when serializing to CBOR produces a
CBOR byte string or a CBOR integer depending on its value.
3.3.3. Use of Connection Identifiers with OSCORE
For OSCORE, the choice of connection identifier results in the
endpoint selecting its Recipient ID, see Section 3.1 of [RFC8613],
for which certain uniqueness requirements apply, see Section 3.3 of
[RFC8613]. Therefore, the Initiator and the Responder MUST NOT
select connection identifiers such that it results in the same OSCORE
Recipient ID. Since the connection identifier is a byte string, it
is converted to an OSCORE Recipient ID equal to the byte string.
Examples:
* A connection identifier 0xFF (represented in the EDHOC message as
0x41FF, see Section 3.3.2) is converted to the OSCORE Recipient ID
0xFF.
* A connection identifier 0x21 (represented in the EDHOC message as
0x21, see Section 3.3.2) is converted to the OSCORE Recipient ID
0x21.
3.4. Transport
Cryptographically, EDHOC does not put requirements on the underlying
layers. Received messages are processed as the expected next message
according to protocol state, see Section 5. If processing fails for
any reason then, typically, an error message is attempted to be sent
and the EDHOC session is aborted.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
EDHOC is not bound to a particular transport layer and can even be
used in environments without IP. Ultimately, the application is free
to choose how to transport EDHOC messages including errors. In order
to avoid unnecessary message processing or protocol termination, it
is RECOMMENDED to use reliable transport, such as CoAP in reliable
mode, which is the default transport, see Appendix A.2. In general,
the transport SHOULD handle:
* message loss,
* message duplication, see Section 7 for an alternative,
* flow control,
* congestion control,
* fragmentation and reassembly,
* demultiplexing EDHOC messages from other types of messages,
* denial-of-service mitigation,
* message correlation, see Section 3.4.1.
EDHOC does not require error free transport since a change in message
content is detected through the transcript hashes in a subsequent
integrity verification, see Section 5. The transport does not
require additional means to handle message reordering because of the
lockstep processing of EDHOC.
EDHOC is designed to enable an authenticated key exchange with small
messages, where the minimum message sizes are of the order
illustrated in the first column of Figure 1. There is no maximum
message size specified by the protocol; this is for example dependent
on the size of authentication credentials (if they are transported,
see Section 3.5).
The use of transport is specified in the application profile, which
in particular may specify limitations in message sizes, see
Section 3.9.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
3.4.1. EDHOC Message Correlation
Correlation between EDHOC messages is needed to facilitate the
retrieval of protocol state and security context during an EDHOC
session. It is also helpful for the Responder to get an indication
that a received EDHOC message is the beginning of a new EDHOC
session, such that no existing protocol state or security context
needs to be retrieved.
Correlation may be based on existing mechanisms in the transport
protocol, for example, the CoAP Token may be used to correlate EDHOC
messages in a CoAP response and in an associated CoAP request. The
connection identifiers may also be used to correlate EDHOC messages.
If correlation between consecutive messages is not provided by other
means then the transport binding SHOULD mandate prepending of an
appropriate connection identifier (when available from the EDHOC
protocol) to the EDHOC message. If message_1 indication is not
provided by other means, then the transport binding SHOULD mandate
prepending of message_1 with the CBOR simple value true (0xf5).
Transport of EDHOC in CoAP payloads is described in Appendix A.2,
including how to use connection identifiers and message_1 indication
with CoAP. A similar construction is possible for other client-
server protocols. Protocols that do not provide any correlation at
all can prescribe prepending of the peer's connection identifier to
all messages.
Note that correlation between EDHOC messages may be obtained without
transport support or connection identifiers, for example if the
endpoints only accept a single instance of the protocol at a time,
and execute conditionally on a correct sequence of messages.
3.5. Authentication Parameters
EDHOC supports various settings for how the other endpoint's
authentication (public) key may be transported, identified, and
trusted.
EDHOC performs the following authentication related operations:
* EDHOC transports information about credentials in ID_CRED_I and
ID_CRED_R (described in Section 3.5.3). Based on this
information, the authentication credentials CRED_I and CRED_R
(described in Section 3.5.2) can be obtained. EDHOC may also
transport certain authentication related information as External
Authorization Data (see Section 3.8).
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
* EDHOC uses the authentication credentials in two ways (see
Section 5.3.2 and Section 5.4.2):
- The authentication credential is input to the integrity
verification using the MAC fields.
- The authentication key of the authentication credential is used
with the Signature_or_MAC field to verify proof-of-possession
of the private key.
Other authentication related verifications are out of scope for
EDHOC, and is the responsibility of the application. In particular,
the authentication credential needs to be validated in the context of
the connection for which EDHOC is used, see Appendix D. EDHOC MUST
allow the application to read received information about credential
(ID_CRED_R, ID_CRED_I). EDHOC MUST have access to the authentication
key and the authentication credential.
Note that the type of authentication key, authentication credential,
and the identification of the credential have a large impact on the
message size. For example, the Signature_or_MAC field is much
smaller with a static DH key than with a signature key. A CWT Claims
Set (CCS) is much smaller than a self-signed certificate/CWT, but if
it is possible to reference the credential with a COSE header like
'kid', then that is in turn much smaller than a CCS.
3.5.1. Authentication Keys
The authentication key (i.e., the public key used for authentication)
MUST be a signature key or static Diffie-Hellman key. The Initiator
and the Responder MAY use different types of authentication keys,
e.g., one uses a signature key and the other uses a static Diffie-
Hellman key.
The authentication key algorithm needs to be compatible with the
method and the selected cipher suite (see Section 3.6). The
authentication key algorithm needs to be compatible with the EDHOC
key exchange algorithm when static Diffie-Hellman authentication is
used, and compatible with the EDHOC signature algorithm when
signature authentication is used.
Note that for most signature algorithms, the signature is determined
by the signature algorithm and the authentication key algorithm
together. When using static Diffie-Hellman keys the Initiator's and
Responder's private authentication keys are denoted as I and R,
respectively, and the public authentication keys are denoted G_I and
G_R, respectively.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
For X.509 certificates the authentication key is represented by a
SubjectPublicKeyInfo field. For CWT and CCS (see Section 3.5.2)) the
authentication key is represented by a 'cnf' claim [RFC8747]
containing a COSE_Key [RFC9052]. In EDHOC, a raw public key (RPK) is
an authentication key encoded as a COSE_Key wrapped in a CCS.
3.5.2. Authentication Credentials
The authentication credentials, CRED_I and CRED_R, contains the
public authentication key of the Initiator and the Responder,
respectively. We use the notation CRED_x to refer to CRED_I or
CRED_R. Requirements on CRED_x applies both to CRED_I and to CRED_R.
The authentication credential typically also contains other
parameters that needs to be verified by the application, see
Appendix D, and in particular information about the identity
("subject") of the endpoint to prevent misbinding attacks, see
Appendix D.2.
EDHOC relies on COSE for identification of credentials (see
Section 3.5.3), for example X.509 certificates [RFC9360], C509
certificates [I-D.ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert], CWTs [RFC8392] and
CWT Claims Sets (CCS) [RFC8392]. When the identified credential is a
chain or a bag, the authentication credential CRED_x is just the end
entity X.509 or C509 certificate / CWT. In the choice between chain
or bag it is RECOMMENDED to use a chain, since the certificates in a
bag are unordered and may contain self-signed and extraneous
certificates, which can add complexity to the process of extracting
the end entity certificate. The Initiator and the Responder MAY use
different types of authentication credentials, e.g., one uses an RPK
and the other uses a public key certificate.
Since CRED_R is used in the integrity verification, see
Section 5.3.2, it needs to be specified such that it is identical
when used by Initiator or Responder. Similarly for CRED_I, see
Section 5.4.2. The Initiator and Responder are expected to agree on
the specific encoding of the authentication credentials, see
Section 3.9. It is RECOMMENDED that the COSE 'kid' parameter, when
used to identify the authentication credential, refers to a such a
specific encoding of the authentication credential. The Initiator
and Responder SHOULD use an available authentication credential
(transported in EDHOC or otherwise provisioned) without re-encoding.
If for some reason re-encoding of an authentication credential passed
by reference may occur, then a potential common encoding for CBOR
based credentials is deterministically encoded CBOR as specified in
Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of [RFC8949].
* When the authentication credential is an X.509 certificate, CRED_x
SHALL be the DER encoded certificate, encoded as a bstr [RFC9360].
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
* When the authentication credential is a C509 certificate, CRED_x
SHALL be the C509Certificate [I-D.ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert].
* When the authentication credential is a CWT including a COSE_Key,
CRED_x SHALL be the untagged CWT.
* When the authentication credential includes a COSE_Key but is not
in a CWT, CRED_x SHALL be an untagged CWT Claims Set (CCS). This
is how RPKs are encoded, see Figure 6 for an example.
- Naked COSE_Keys are thus dressed as CCS when used in EDHOC, in
its simplest form by prefixing the COSE_Key with 0xA108A101 (a
map with a 'cnf' claim). In that case the resulting
authentication credential contains no other identity than the
public key itself, see Appendix D.2.
An example of CRED_x is shown below:
{ /CCS/
2 : "42-50-31-FF-EF-37-32-39", /sub/
8 : { /cnf/
1 : { /COSE_Key/
1 : 1, /kty/
2 : h'00', /kid/
-1 : 4, /crv/
-2 : h'b1a3e89460e88d3a8d54211dc95f0b90 /x/
3ff205eb71912d6db8f4af980d2db83a'
}
}
}
Figure 6: CWT Claims Set (CCS) containing an X25519 static
Diffie-Hellman key and an EUI-64 identity.
3.5.3. Identification of Credentials
The ID_CRED fields, ID_CRED_R and ID_CRED_I, are transported in
message_2 and message_3, respectively, see Section 5.3.2 and
Section 5.4.2. We use the notation ID_CRED_x to refer to ID_CRED_I
or ID_CRED_R. Requirements on ID_CRED_x applies both to ID_CRED_I
and to ID_CRED_R. The ID_CRED fields are used to identify and
optionally transport credentials:
* ID_CRED_R is intended to facilitate for the Initiator retrieving
the authentication credential CRED_R and the authentication key of
R.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
* ID_CRED_I is intended to facilitate for the Responder retrieving
the authentication credential CRED_I and the authentication key of
I.
ID_CRED_x may contain the authentication credential CRED_x, for x = I
or R, but for many settings it is not necessary to transport the
authentication credential within EDHOC. For example, it may be pre-
provisioned or acquired out-of-band over less constrained links.
ID_CRED_I and ID_CRED_R do not have any cryptographic purpose in
EDHOC since the authentication credentials are integrity protected.
EDHOC relies on COSE for identification of credentials and supports
all credential types for which COSE header parameters are defined
including X.509 certificates ([RFC9360]), C509 certificates
([I-D.ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert]), CWT (see Section 3.5.3.1) and
CWT Claims Set (see Section 3.5.3.1).
ID_CRED_I and ID_CRED_R are of type COSE header_map, as defined in
Section 3 of [RFC9052], and contains one or more COSE header
parameters. If a map contains several header paramerers, the labels
do not need to be sorted in bytewise lexicographic order. ID_CRED_I
and ID_CRED_R MAY contain different header parameters. The header
parameters typically provide some information about the format of the
credential.
Example: X.509 certificates can be identified by a hash value using
the 'x5t' parameter, see Section 2 of [RFC9360]:
* ID_CRED_x = { 34 : COSE_CertHash }, for x = I or R,
Example: CWT or CCS can be identified by a key identifier using the
'kid' parameter, see Section 3.1 of [RFC9052]:
* ID_CRED_x = { 4 : kid_x }, where kid_x : kid, for x = I or R.
Note that COSE header parameters in ID_CRED_x are used to identify
the message sender's credential. There is therefore no reason to use
the "-sender" header parameters, such as x5t-sender, defined in
Section 3 of [RFC9360]. Instead, the corresponding parameter without
"-sender", such as x5t, SHOULD be used.
As stated in Section 3.1 of [RFC9052], applications MUST NOT assume
that 'kid' values are unique and several keys associated with a 'kid'
may need to be checked before the correct one is found. Applications
might use additional information such as 'kid context' or lower
layers to determine which key to try first. Applications should
strive to make ID_CRED_x as unique as possible, since the recipient
may otherwise have to try several keys.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
See Appendix C.3 for more examples.
3.5.3.1. COSE Header Parameters for CWT and CWT Claims Set
This document registers two new COSE header parameters 'kcwt' and
'kccs' for use with CBOR Web Token (CWT, [RFC8392]) and CWT Claims
Set (CCS, [RFC8392]), respectively. The CWT/CCS MUST contain a
COSE_Key in a 'cnf' claim [RFC8747]. There may be any number of
additional claims present in the CWT/CCS.
CWTs sent in 'kcwt' are protected using a MAC or a signature and are
similar to a certificate (when with public key cryptography) or a
Kerberos ticket (when used with symmetric key cryptography). CCSs
sent in 'kccs' are not protected and are therefore similar to raw
public keys or self-signed certificates.
Security considerations for 'kcwt' and 'kccs' are made in
Section 9.8.
3.5.3.2. Compact Encoding of ID_CRED Fields for 'kid'
To comply with the LAKE message size requirements, see
[I-D.ietf-lake-reqs], two optimizations are made for the case when
ID_CRED_x, for x = I or R, contains a single 'kid' parameter.
1. The CBOR map { 4 : kid_x } is replaced by the byte string kid_x.
2. The representation of identifiers specified in Section 3.3.2 is
applied to kid_x.
These optimizations MUST be applied if and only if ID_CRED_x = { 4 :
kid_x } and ID_CRED_x in PLAINTEXT_y of message_y, y = 2 or 3, see
Section 5.3.2 and Section 5.4.2. Note that these optimizations are
not applied to instances of ID_CRED_x which have no impact on message
size, e.g., context_y, or the COSE protected header. Examples:
* For ID_CRED_x = { 4 : h'FF' }, the encoding in PLAINTEXT_y is not
the CBOR map 0xA10441FF but the CBOR byte string h'FF', i.e.,
0x41FF.
* For ID_CRED_x = { 4 : h'21' }, the encoding in PLAINTEXT_y is
neither the CBOR map 0xA1044121, nor the CBOR byte string h'21',
i.e., 0x4121, but the CBOR integer 0x21.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
3.6. Cipher Suites
An EDHOC cipher suite consists of an ordered set of algorithms from
the "COSE Algorithms" and "COSE Elliptic Curves" registries as well
as the EDHOC MAC length. All algorithm names and definitions follow
from COSE algorithms [RFC9053]. Note that COSE sometimes uses
peculiar names such as ES256 for ECDSA with SHA-256, A128 for AES-
128, and Ed25519 for the curve edwards25519. Algorithms need to be
specified with enough parameters to make them completely determined.
The EDHOC MAC length MUST be at least 8 bytes. Any cryptographic
algorithm used in the COSE header parameters in ID_CRED fields is
selected independently of the selected cipher suite. EDHOC is
currently only specified for use with key exchange algorithms of type
ECDH curves, but any Key Encapsulation Method (KEM), including Post-
Quantum Cryptography (PQC) KEMs, can be used in method 0, see
Section 9.4. Use of other types of key exchange algorithms to
replace static DH authentication (method 1,2,3) would likely require
a specification updating EDHOC with new methods.
EDHOC supports all signature algorithms defined by COSE. Just like
in (D)TLS 1.3 [RFC8446][RFC9147] and IKEv2 [RFC7296], a signature in
COSE is determined by the signature algorithm and the authentication
key algorithm together, see Section 3.5.1. The exact details of the
authentication key algorithm depend on the type of authentication
credential. COSE supports different formats for storing the public
authentication keys including COSE_Key and X.509, which use different
names and ways to represent the authentication key and the
authentication key algorithm.
An EDHOC cipher suite consists of the following parameters:
* EDHOC AEAD algorithm
* EDHOC hash algorithm
* EDHOC MAC length in bytes (Static DH)
* EDHOC key exchange algorithm (ECDH curve)
* EDHOC signature algorithm
* Application AEAD algorithm
* Application hash algorithm
Each cipher suite is identified with a pre-defined integer label.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
EDHOC can be used with all algorithms and curves defined for COSE.
Implementations can either use any combination of COSE algorithms and
parameters to define their own private cipher suite, or use one of
the pre-defined cipher suites. Private cipher suites can be
identified with any of the four values -24, -23, -22, -21. The pre-
defined cipher suites are listed in the IANA registry (Section 10.2)
with initial content outlined here:
* Cipher suites 0-3, based on AES-CCM, are intended for constrained
IoT where message overhead is a very important factor. Note that
AES-CCM-16-64-128 and AES-CCM-16-128-128 are compatible with the
IEEE CCM* mode.
- Cipher suites 1 and 3 use a larger tag length (128-bit) in
EDHOC than in the Application AEAD algorithm (64-bit).
* Cipher suites 4 and 5, based on ChaCha20, are intended for less
constrained applications and only use 128-bit tag lengths.
* Cipher suite 6, based on AES-GCM, is for general non-constrained
applications. It consists of high performance algorithms that are
widely used in non-constrained applications.
* Cipher suites 24 and 25 are intended for high security
applications such as government use and financial applications.
These cipher suites do not share any algorithms. Cipher suite 24
consists of algorithms from the CNSA 1.0 suite [CNSA].
The different methods (Section 3.2) use the same cipher suites, but
some algorithms are not used in some methods. The EDHOC signature
algorithm is not used in methods without signature authentication.
The Initiator needs to have a list of cipher suites it supports in
order of preference. The Responder needs to have a list of cipher
suites it supports. SUITES_I contains cipher suites supported by the
Initiator, formatted and processed as detailed in Section 5.2.1 to
secure the cipher suite negotiation. Examples of cipher suite
negotiation are given in Section 6.3.2.
3.7. Ephemeral Public Keys
The ephemeral public keys in EDHOC (G_X and G_Y) use compact
representation of elliptic curve points, see Appendix B. In COSE,
compact representation is achieved by formatting the ECDH ephemeral
public keys as COSE_Keys of type EC2 or OKP according to Sections 7.1
and 7.2 of [RFC9053], but only including the 'x' parameter in G_X and
G_Y. For Elliptic Curve Keys of type EC2, compact representation MAY
be used also in the COSE_Key. COSE always uses compact output for
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
Elliptic Curve Keys of type EC2. If the COSE implementation requires
a 'y' parameter, the value y = false or a calculated y-coordinate can
be used, see Appendix B.
3.8. External Authorization Data (EAD)
In order to reduce round trips and the number of messages, or to
simplify processing, external security applications may be integrated
into EDHOC by transporting authorization related data in the
messages.
EDHOC allows processing of external authorization data (EAD) to be
defined in a separate specification, and sent in dedicated fields of
the four EDHOC messages (EAD_1, EAD_2, EAD_3, EAD_4). EAD is opaque
data to EDHOC.
Each EAD field, EAD_x for x = 1, 2, 3 or 4, is a CBOR sequence (see
Appendix C.1) consisting of one or more EAD items. An EAD item ead
is a CBOR sequence of an ead_label and an optional ead_value, see
Figure 7 and Appendix C.2 for the CDDL definitions.
ead = (
ead_label : int,
? ead_value : bstr,
)
Figure 7: EAD item.
A security application may register one or more EAD labels, see
Section 10.5, and specify the associated processing and security
considerations. The IANA registry contains the absolute value of the
ead_label, |ead_label|; the same ead_value applies independently of
sign of ead_label.
An EAD item can be either critical or non-critical, determined by the
sign of the ead_label in the EAD item transported in the EAD field.
A negative value indicates that the EAD item is critical and a non-
negative value indicates that the EAD item is non-critical.
If an endpoint receives a critical EAD item it does not recognize, or
a critical EAD item that contains information that it cannot process,
then the endpoint MUST send an EDHOC error message back as defined in
Section 6, and the EDHOC session MUST be aborted. The EAD item
specification defines the error processing. A non-critical EAD item
can be ignored.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
The security application registering a new EAD item needs to describe
under what conditions the EAD item is critical or non-critical, and
thus whether the ead_label is used with negative or positive sign.
ead_label = 0 is used for padding, see Section 3.8.1.
The security application may define multiple uses of certain EAD
items, e.g., the same EAD item may be used in different EDHOC
messages. Multiple occurrences of an EAD item in one EAD field may
also be specified, but the criticality of the repeated EAD item is
expected to be the same.
The EAD fields of EDHOC MUST only be used with registered EAD items,
see Section 10.5. Examples of the use of EAD are provided in
Appendix E.
3.8.1. Padding
EDHOC message_1 and the plaintext of message_2, message_3 and
message_4 can be padded with the use of the corresponding EAD_x
field, for x = 1, 2, 3, 4. Padding in EAD_1 mitigates amplification
attacks (see Section 9.7), and padding in EAD_2, EAD_3, and EAD_4
hides the true length of the plaintext (see Section 9.6). Padding
MUST be ignored and discarded by the receiving application.
Padding is obtained by using an EAD item with ead_label = 0 and a
(pseudo-)randomly generated byte string of appropriate length as
ead_value, noting that the ead_label and the CBOR encoding of
ead_value also add bytes. Examples:
* One byte padding (optional ead_value omitted):
- EAD_x = 0x00
* Two bytes padding, using the empty byte string (0x40) as
ead_value:
- EAD_x = 0x0040
* Three bytes padding, constructed from the pseudorandomly generated
ead_value 0xe9 encoded as byte string:
- EAD_x = 0x0041e9
Multiple occurrences of EAD items with ead_label = 0 are allowed.
Certain padding lengths require the use of at least two such EAD
items.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
Note that padding is non-critical because the intended behaviour when
receiving is to ignore it.
3.9. Application Profile
EDHOC requires certain parameters to be agreed upon between Initiator
and Responder. Some parameters can be negotiated through the
protocol execution (specifically, cipher suite, see Section 3.6) but
other parameters are only communicated and may not be negotiated
(e.g., which authentication method is used, see Section 3.2). Yet
other parameters need to be known out-of-band to ensure successful
completion, e.g., whether message_4 is used or not. The application
decides which endpoint is Initiator and which is Responder.
The purpose of an application profile is to describe the intended use
of EDHOC to allow for the relevant processing and verifications to be
made, including things like:
1. How the endpoint detects that an EDHOC message is received. This
includes how EDHOC messages are transported, for example in the
payload of a CoAP message with a certain Uri-Path or Content-
Format; see Appendix A.2.
* The method of transporting EDHOC messages may also describe
data carried along with the messages that are needed for the
transport to satisfy the requirements of Section 3.4, e.g.,
connection identifiers used with certain messages, see
Appendix A.2.
2. Authentication method (METHOD; see Section 3.2).
3. Profile for authentication credentials (CRED_I, CRED_R; see
Section 3.5.2), e.g., profile for certificate or CCS, including
supported authentication key algorithms (subject public key
algorithm in X.509 or C509 certificate).
4. Type used to identify credentials (ID_CRED_I, ID_CRED_R; see
Section 3.5.3).
5. Use and type of external authorization data (EAD_1, EAD_2, EAD_3,
EAD_4; see Section 3.8).
6. Identifier used as the identity of the endpoint; see
Appendix D.2.
7. If message_4 shall be sent/expected, and if not, how to ensure a
protected application message is sent from the Responder to the
Initiator; see Section 5.5.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
The application profile may also contain information about supported
cipher suites. The procedure for selecting and verifying a cipher
suite is still performed as described in Section 5.2.1 and
Section 6.3, but it may become simplified by this knowledge. EDHOC
messages can be processed without the application profile, i.e., the
EDHOC messages includes information about the type and length of all
fields.
An example of an application profile is shown in Appendix F.
For some parameters, like METHOD, type of ID_CRED field or EAD, the
receiver of an EDHOC message is able to verify compliance with the
application profile, and if it needs to fail because of lack of
compliance, to infer the reason why the EDHOC session failed.
For other encodings, like the profiling of CRED_x in the case that it
is not transported, it may not be possible to verify that lack of
compliance with the application profile was the reason for failure:
Integrity verification in message_2 or message_3 may fail not only
because of a wrong credential. For example, in case the Initiator
uses a public key certificate by reference (i.e., not transported
within the protocol) then both endpoints need to use an identical
data structure as CRED_I or else the integrity verification will
fail.
Note that it is not necessary for the endpoints to specify a single
transport for the EDHOC messages. For example, a mix of CoAP and
HTTP may be used along the path, and this may still allow correlation
between messages.
The application profile may be dependent on the identity of the other
endpoint, or other information carried in an EDHOC message, but it
then applies only to the later phases of the protocol when such
information is known. (The Initiator does not know the identity of
the Responder before having verified message_2, and the Responder
does not know the identity of the Initiator before having verified
message_3.)
Other conditions may be part of the application profile, such as what
is the target application or use (if there is more than one
application/use) to the extent that EDHOC can distinguish between
them. In case multiple application profiles are used, the receiver
needs to be able to determine which is applicable for a given EDHOC
session, for example based on URI to which the EDHOC message is sent,
or external authorization data type.
4. Key Derivation
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
4.1. Keys for EDHOC Message Processing
EDHOC uses Extract-and-Expand [RFC5869] with the EDHOC hash algorithm
in the selected cipher suite to derive keys used in message
processing. This section defines EDHOC_Extract (Section 4.1.1) and
EDHOC_Expand (Section 4.1.2), and how to use them to derive PRK_out
(Section 4.1.3) which is the shared secret session key resulting from
a completed EDHOC session.
EDHOC_Extract is used to derive fixed-length uniformly pseudorandom
keys (PRK) from ECDH shared secrets. EDHOC_Expand is used to define
EDHOC_KDF for generating MACs and for deriving output keying material
(OKM) from PRKs.
In EDHOC a specific message is protected with a certain pseudorandom
key, but how the key is derived depends on the authentication method
(Section 3.2) as detailed in Section 5.
4.1.1. EDHOC_Extract
The pseudorandom keys (PRKs) used for EDHOC message processing are
derived using EDHOC_Extract:
PRK = EDHOC_Extract( salt, IKM )
where the input keying material (IKM) and salt are defined for each
PRK below.
The definition of EDHOC_Extract depends on the EDHOC hash algorithm
of the selected cipher suite:
* if the EDHOC hash algorithm is SHA-2, then EDHOC_Extract( salt,
IKM ) = HKDF-Extract( salt, IKM ) [RFC5869]
* if the EDHOC hash algorithm is SHAKE128, then EDHOC_Extract( salt,
IKM ) = KMAC128( salt, IKM, 256, "" )
* if the EDHOC hash algorithm is SHAKE256, then EDHOC_Extract( salt,
IKM ) = KMAC256( salt, IKM, 512, "" )
where the Keccak message authentication code (KMAC) is specified in
[SP800-185].
The rest of the section defines the pseudorandom keys PRK_2e,
PRK_3e2m and PRK_4e3m; their use is shown in Figure 8. The index of
a PRK indicates its use or in what message protection operation it is
involved. For example, PRK_3e2m is involved in the encryption of
message 3 and in calculating the MAC of message 2.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
4.1.1.1. PRK_2e
The pseudorandom key PRK_2e is derived with the following input:
* The salt SHALL be TH_2.
* The IKM SHALL be the ephemeral-ephemeral ECDH shared secret G_XY
(calculated from G_X and Y or G_Y and X) as defined in
Section 6.3.1 of [RFC9053]. The use of G_XY gives forward
secrecy, in the sense that compromise of the private
authentication keys does not compromise past session keys.
Example: Assuming the use of curve25519, the ECDH shared secret G_XY
is the output of the X25519 function [RFC7748]:
G_XY = X25519( Y, G_X ) = X25519( X, G_Y )
Example: Assuming the use of SHA-256 the extract phase of HKDF
produces PRK_2e as follows:
PRK_2e = HMAC-SHA-256( TH_2, G_XY )
4.1.1.2. PRK_3e2m
The pseudorandom key PRK_3e2m is derived as follows:
If the Responder authenticates with a static Diffie-Hellman key, then
PRK_3e2m = EDHOC_Extract( SALT_3e2m, G_RX ), where
* SALT_3e2m is derived from PRK_2e, see Section 4.1.2, and
* G_RX is the ECDH shared secret calculated from G_R and X, or G_X
and R (the Responder's private authentication key, see
Section 3.5.1),
else PRK_3e2m = PRK_2e.
4.1.1.3. PRK_4e3m
The pseudorandom key PRK_4e3m is derived as follows:
If the Initiator authenticates with a static Diffie-Hellman key, then
PRK_4e3m = EDHOC_Extract( SALT_4e3m, G_IY ), where
* SALT_4e3m is derived from PRK_3e2m, see Section 4.1.2, and
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
* G_IY is the ECDH shared secret calculated from G_I and Y, or G_Y
and I (the Initiator's private authentication key, see
Section 3.5.1),
else PRK_4e3m = PRK_3e2m.
4.1.2. EDHOC_Expand and EDHOC_KDF
The output keying material (OKM) - including keys, IVs, and salts -
are derived from the PRKs using the EDHOC_KDF, which is defined
through EDHOC_Expand:
OKM = EDHOC_KDF( PRK, info_label, context, length )
= EDHOC_Expand( PRK, info, length )
where info is encoded as the CBOR sequence
info = (
info_label : int,
context : bstr,
length : uint,
)
where
* info_label is an int
* context is a bstr
* length is the length of OKM in bytes
When EDHOC_KDF is used to derive OKM for EDHOC message processing,
then context includes one of the transcript hashes TH_2, TH_3, or
TH_4 defined in Sections 5.3.2 and 5.4.2.
The definition of EDHOC_Expand depends on the EDHOC hash algorithm of
the selected cipher suite:
* if the EDHOC hash algorithm is SHA-2, then EDHOC_Expand( PRK,
info, length ) = HKDF-Expand( PRK, info, length ) [RFC5869]
* if the EDHOC hash algorithm is SHAKE128, then EDHOC_Expand( PRK,
info, length ) = KMAC128( PRK, info, L, "" )
* if the EDHOC hash algorithm is SHAKE256, then EDHOC_Expand( PRK,
info, length ) = KMAC256( PRK, info, L, "" )
where L = 8 ⋅ length, the output length in bits.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
Figure 8 lists derivations made with EDHOC_KDF, where
* hash_length - length of output size of the EDHOC hash algorithm of
the selected cipher suite
* key_length - length of the encryption key of the EDHOC AEAD
algorithm of the selected cipher suite
* iv_length - length of the initialization vector of the EDHOC AEAD
algorithm of the selected cipher suite
Further details of the key derivation and how the output keying
material is used are specified in Section 5.
KEYSTREAM_2 = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_2e, 0, TH_2, plaintext_length )
SALT_3e2m = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_2e, 1, TH_2, hash_length )
MAC_2 = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_3e2m, 2, context_2, mac_length_2 )
K_3 = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_3e2m, 3, TH_3, key_length )
IV_3 = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_3e2m, 4, TH_3, iv_length )
SALT_4e3m = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_3e2m, 5, TH_3, hash_length )
MAC_3 = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_4e3m, 6, context_3, mac_length_3 )
PRK_out = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_4e3m, 7, TH_4, hash_length )
K_4 = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_4e3m, 8, TH_4, key_length )
IV_4 = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_4e3m, 9, TH_4, iv_length )
PRK_exporter = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_out, 10, h'', hash_length )
Figure 8: Key derivations using EDHOC_KDF. h'' is CBOR diagnostic
notation for the empty byte string, 0x40.
4.1.3. PRK_out
The pseudorandom key PRK_out, derived as shown in Figure 8, is the
output session key of a completed EDHOC session.
Keys for applications are derived using EDHOC_Exporter (see
Section 4.2.1) from PRK_exporter, which in turn is derived from
PRK_out as shown in Figure 8. For the purpose of generating
application keys, it is sufficient to store PRK_out or PRK_exporter.
(Note that the word "store" used here does not imply that the
application has access to the plaintext PRK_out since that may be
reserved for code within a Trusted Execution Environment, see
Section 9.8).
4.2. Keys for EDHOC Applications
This section defines EDHOC_Exporter in terms of EDHOC_KDF and
PRK_exporter. A key update function is defined in Appendix H.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
4.2.1. EDHOC_Exporter
Keying material for the application can be derived using the
EDHOC_Exporter interface defined as:
EDHOC_Exporter(exporter_label, context, length)
= EDHOC_KDF(PRK_exporter, exporter_label, context, length)
where
* exporter_label is a registered uint from the EDHOC_Exporter Label
registry (Section 10.1)
* context is a bstr defined by the application
* length is a uint defined by the application
The (exporter_label, context) pair used in EDHOC_Exporter must be
unique, i.e., an (exporter_label, context) MUST NOT be used for two
different purposes. However, an application can re-derive the same
key several times as long as it is done securely. For example, in
most encryption algorithms the same key can be reused with different
nonces. The context can for example be the empty CBOR byte string.
Examples of use of the EDHOC_Exporter are given in Appendix A.
5. Message Formatting and Processing
This section specifies formatting of the messages and processing
steps. Error messages are specified in Section 6. Annotated traces
of EDHOC sessions are provided in [I-D.ietf-lake-traces].
An EDHOC message is encoded as a sequence of CBOR data items (CBOR
Sequence, [RFC8742]). Additional optimizations are made to reduce
message overhead.
While EDHOC uses the COSE_Key, COSE_Sign1, and COSE_Encrypt0
structures, only a subset of the parameters is included in the EDHOC
messages, see Appendix C.3. In order to recreate the COSE object,
the recipient endpoint may need to add parameters to the COSE headers
not included in the EDHOC message, for example the parameter 'alg' to
COSE_Sign1 or COSE_Encrypt0.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
5.1. EDHOC Message Processing Outline
For each new/ongoing EDHOC session, the endpoints are assumed to keep
an associated protocol state containing identifiers, keying material,
etc. used for subsequent processing of protocol related data. The
protocol state is assumed to be associated with an application
profile (Section 3.9) which provides the context for how messages are
transported, identified, and processed.
EDHOC messages SHALL be processed according to the current protocol
state. The following steps are expected to be performed at reception
of an EDHOC message:
1. Detect that an EDHOC message has been received, for example by
means of port number, URI, or media type (Section 3.9).
2. Retrieve the protocol state according to the message correlation,
see Section 3.4.1. If there is no protocol state, in the case of
message_1, a new protocol state is created. The Responder
endpoint needs to make use of available denial-of-service
mitigation (Section 9.7).
3. If the message received is an error message, then process it
according to Section 6, else process it as the expected next
message according to the protocol state.
The message processing steps SHALL be processed in order, unless
otherwise stated. If the processing fails for some reason then,
typically, an error message is sent, the EDHOC session is aborted,
and the protocol state erased. When the composition and sending of
one message is completed and before the next message is received,
error messages SHALL NOT be sent.
After having successfully processed the last message (message_3 or
message_4 depending on application profile) the EDHOC session is
completed, after which no error messages are sent and EDHOC session
output MAY be maintained even if error messages are received.
Further details are provided in the following subsections and in
Section 6.
Different instances of the same message MUST NOT be processed in one
EDHOC session. Note that processing will fail if the same message
appears a second time for EDHOC processing in the same EDHOC session
because the state of the protocol has moved on and now expects
something else. Message deduplication MUST be done by the transport
protocol (see Section 3.4) or, if not supported by the transport, as
described in Section 7.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
5.2. EDHOC Message 1
5.2.1. Formatting of Message 1
message_1 SHALL be a CBOR Sequence (see Appendix C.1) as defined
below
message_1 = (
METHOD : int,
SUITES_I : suites,
G_X : bstr,
C_I : bstr / -24..23,
? EAD_1,
)
suites = [ 2* int ] / int
EAD_1 = 1* ead
where:
* METHOD - authentication method, see Section 3.2.
* SUITES_I - array of cipher suites which the Initiator supports
constructed as specified in Section 5.2.2.
* G_X - the ephemeral public key of the Initiator
* C_I - variable length connection identifier. Note that connection
identifiers are byte strings but certain values are represented as
integers in the message, see Section 3.3.2.
* EAD_1 - external authorization data, see Section 3.8.
5.2.2. Initiator Composition of Message 1
The processing steps are detailed below and in Section 6.3.
The Initiator SHALL compose message_1 as follows:
* Construct SUITES_I as an array of cipher suites supported by I in
order of preference by I with the first cipher suite in the array
being the most preferred by I, and the last being the one selected
by I for this EDHOC session. If the cipher suite most preferred
by I is selected then SUITES_I contains only that cipher suite and
is encoded as an int. All cipher suites, if any, preferred by I
over the selected one MUST be included. (See also Section 6.3.)
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
- The selected suite is based on what the Initiator can assume to
be supported by the Responder; if the Initiator previously
received from the Responder an error message with error code 2
containing SUITES_R (see Section 6.3) indicating cipher suites
supported by the Responder, then the Initiator SHOULD select
its most preferred supported cipher suite among those (bearing
in mind that error messages may be forged).
- The Initiator MUST NOT change its order of preference for
cipher suites, and MUST NOT omit a cipher suite preferred to
the selected one because of previous error messages received
from the Responder.
* Generate an ephemeral ECDH key pair using the curve in the
selected cipher suite and format it as a COSE_Key. Let G_X be the
'x' parameter of the COSE_Key.
* Choose a connection identifier C_I and store it during the EDHOC
session.
* Encode message_1 as a sequence of CBOR encoded data items as
specified in Section 5.2.1
5.2.3. Responder Processing of Message 1
The Responder SHALL process message_1 in the following order:
* Decode message_1 (see Appendix C.1).
* Process message_1, in particular verify that the selected cipher
suite is supported and that no prior cipher suite as ordered in
SUITES_I is supported.
* If all processing completed successfully, and if EAD_1 is present,
then make it available to the application for EAD processing.
If any processing step fails, then the Responder MUST send an EDHOC
error message back as defined in Section 6, and the EDHOC session
MUST be aborted.
5.3. EDHOC Message 2
5.3.1. Formatting of Message 2
message_2 SHALL be a CBOR Sequence (see Appendix C.1) as defined
below
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
message_2 = (
G_Y_CIPHERTEXT_2 : bstr,
)
where:
* G_Y_CIPHERTEXT_2 - the concatenation of G_Y (i.e., the ephemeral
public key of the Responder) and CIPHERTEXT_2.
5.3.2. Responder Composition of Message 2
The Responder SHALL compose message_2 as follows:
* Generate an ephemeral ECDH key pair using the curve in the
selected cipher suite and format it as a COSE_Key. Let G_Y be the
'x' parameter of the COSE_Key.
* Choose a connection identifier C_R and store it for the length of
the EDHOC session.
* Compute the transcript hash TH_2 = H( G_Y, H(message_1) ) where
H() is the EDHOC hash algorithm of the selected cipher suite. The
input to the hash function is a CBOR Sequence. Note that
H(message_1) can be computed and cached already in the processing
of message_1.
* Compute MAC_2 as in Section 4.1.2 with context_2 = << C_R,
ID_CRED_R, TH_2, CRED_R, ? EAD_2 >> (see Appendix C.1 for
notation)
- If the Responder authenticates with a static Diffie-Hellman key
(method equals 1 or 3), then mac_length_2 is the EDHOC MAC
length of the selected cipher suite. If the Responder
authenticates with a signature key (method equals 0 or 2), then
mac_length_2 is equal to hash_length.
- C_R - variable length connection identifier. Note that
connection identifiers are byte strings but certain values are
represented as integers in the message, see Section 3.3.2.
- ID_CRED_R - identifier to facilitate the retrieval of CRED_R,
see Section 3.5.3
- CRED_R - CBOR item containing the authentication credential of
the Responder, see Section 3.5.2
- EAD_2 - external authorization data, see Section 3.8
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
* If the Responder authenticates with a static Diffie-Hellman key
(method equals 1 or 3), then Signature_or_MAC_2 is MAC_2. If the
Responder authenticates with a signature key (method equals 0 or
2), then Signature_or_MAC_2 is the 'signature' field of a
COSE_Sign1 object, computed as specified in Section 4.4 of
[RFC9053] using the signature algorithm of the selected cipher
suite, the private authentication key of the Responder, and the
following parameters as input (see Appendix C.3 for an overview of
COSE and Appendix C.1 for notation):
- protected = << ID_CRED_R >>
- external_aad = << TH_2, CRED_R, ? EAD_2 >>
- payload = MAC_2
* CIPHERTEXT_2 is calculated with a binary additive stream cipher,
using a keystream generated with EDHOC_Expand, and the following
plaintext:
- PLAINTEXT_2 = ( C_R, ID_CRED_R / bstr / -24..23,
Signature_or_MAC_2, ? EAD_2 )
o If ID_CRED_R contains a single 'kid' parameter, i.e.,
ID_CRED_R = { 4 : kid_R }, then the compact encoding is
applied, see Section 3.5.3.2.
o C_R - variable length connection identifier. Note that
connection identifiers are byte strings but certain values
are represented as integers in the message, see
Section 3.3.2.
- Compute KEYSTREAM_2 as in Section 4.1.2, where plaintext_length
is the length of PLAINTEXT_2. For the case of plaintext_length
exceeding the EDHOC_KDF output size, see Appendix G.
- CIPHERTEXT_2 = PLAINTEXT_2 XOR KEYSTREAM_2
* Encode message_2 as a sequence of CBOR encoded data items as
specified in Section 5.3.1.
5.3.3. Initiator Processing of Message 2
The Initiator SHALL process message_2 in the following order:
* Decode message_2 (see Appendix C.1).
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
* Retrieve the protocol state using available message correlation
(e.g., the CoAP Token, the 5-tuple, or the prepended C_I, see
Section 3.4.1).
* Decrypt CIPHERTEXT_2, see Section 5.3.2.
* If all processing completed successfully, then make ID_CRED_R and
(if present) EAD_2 available to the application for
authentication- and EAD processing. When and how to perform
authentication is up to the application.
* Obtain the authentication credential (CRED_R) and the
authentication key of R from the application (or by other means).
* Verify Signature_or_MAC_2 using the algorithm in the selected
cipher suite. The verification process depends on the method, see
Section 5.3.2. Make the result of the verification available to
the application.
If any processing step fails, then the Initiator MUST send an EDHOC
error message back as defined in Section 6, and the EDHOC session
MUST be aborted.
5.4. EDHOC Message 3
5.4.1. Formatting of Message 3
message_3 SHALL be a CBOR Sequence (see Appendix C.1) as defined
below
message_3 = (
CIPHERTEXT_3 : bstr,
)
5.4.2. Initiator Composition of Message 3
The Initiator SHALL compose message_3 as follows:
* Compute the transcript hash TH_3 = H(TH_2, PLAINTEXT_2, CRED_R)
where H() is the EDHOC hash algorithm of the selected cipher
suite. The input to the hash function is a CBOR Sequence. Note
that TH_3 can be computed and cached already in the processing of
message_2.
* Compute MAC_3 as in Section 4.1.2, with context_3 = << ID_CRED_I,
TH_3, CRED_I, ? EAD_3 >>
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
- If the Initiator authenticates with a static Diffie-Hellman key
(method equals 2 or 3), then mac_length_3 is the EDHOC MAC
length of the selected cipher suite. If the Initiator
authenticates with a signature key (method equals 0 or 1), then
mac_length_3 is equal to hash_length.
- ID_CRED_I - identifier to facilitate the retrieval of CRED_I,
see Section 3.5.3
- CRED_I - CBOR item containing the authentication credential of
the Initiator, see Section 3.5.2
- EAD_3 - external authorization data, see Section 3.8
* If the Initiator authenticates with a static Diffie-Hellman key
(method equals 2 or 3), then Signature_or_MAC_3 is MAC_3. If the
Initiator authenticates with a signature key (method equals 0 or
1), then Signature_or_MAC_3 is the 'signature' field of a
COSE_Sign1 object, computed as specified in Section 4.4 of
[RFC9052] using the signature algorithm of the selected cipher
suite, the private authentication key of the Initiator, and the
following parameters as input (see Appendix C.3):
- protected = << ID_CRED_I >>
- external_aad = << TH_3, CRED_I, ? EAD_3 >>
- payload = MAC_3
* Compute a COSE_Encrypt0 object as defined in Sections 5.2 and 5.3
of [RFC9052], with the EDHOC AEAD algorithm of the selected cipher
suite, using the encryption key K_3, the initialization vector
IV_3 (if used by the AEAD algorithm), the plaintext PLAINTEXT_3,
and the following parameters as input (see Appendix C.3):
- protected = h''
- external_aad = TH_3
- K_3 and IV_3 are defined in Section 4.1.2
- PLAINTEXT_3 = ( ID_CRED_I / bstr / -24..23, Signature_or_MAC_3,
? EAD_3 )
o If ID_CRED_I contains a single 'kid' parameter, i.e.,
ID_CRED_I = { 4 : kid_I }, then the compact encoding is
applied, see Section 3.5.3.2.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
CIPHERTEXT_3 is the 'ciphertext' of COSE_Encrypt0.
* Compute the transcript hash TH_4 = H(TH_3, PLAINTEXT_3, CRED_I)
where H() is the EDHOC hash algorithm of the selected cipher
suite. The input to the hash function is a CBOR Sequence.
* Calculate PRK_out as defined in Figure 8. The Initiator can now
derive application keys using the EDHOC_Exporter interface, see
Section 4.2.1.
* Encode message_3 as a CBOR data item as specified in
Section 5.4.1.
* Make the connection identifiers (C_I, C_R) and the application
algorithms in the selected cipher suite available to the
application.
After creating message_3, the Initiator can compute PRK_out, see
Section 4.1.3, and derive application keys using the EDHOC_Exporter
interface, see Section 4.2.1. The Initiator SHOULD NOT persistently
store PRK_out or application keys until the Initiator has verified
message_4 or a message protected with a derived application key, such
as an OSCORE message, from the Responder and the application has
authenticated the Responder. This is similar to waiting for an
acknowledgment (ACK) in a transport protocol. The Initiator SHOULD
NOT send protected application data until the application has
authenticated the Responder.
5.4.3. Responder Processing of Message 3
The Responder SHALL process message_3 in the following order:
* Decode message_3 (see Appendix C.1).
* Retrieve the protocol state using available message correlation
(e.g., the CoAP Token, the 5-tuple, or the prepended C_R, see
Section 3.4.1).
* Decrypt and verify the COSE_Encrypt0 as defined in Sections 5.2
and 5.3 of [RFC9052], with the EDHOC AEAD algorithm in the
selected cipher suite, and the parameters defined in
Section 5.4.2.
* If all processing completed successfully, then make ID_CRED_I and
(if present) EAD_3 available to the application for
authentication- and EAD processing. When and how to perform
authentication is up to the application.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
* Obtain the authentication credential (CRED_I) and the
authentication key of I from the application (or by other means).
* Verify Signature_or_MAC_3 using the algorithm in the selected
cipher suite. The verification process depends on the method, see
Section 5.4.2. Make the result of the verification available to
the application.
* Make the connection identifiers (C_I, C_R) and the application
algorithms in the selected cipher suite available to the
application.
After processing message_3, the Responder can compute PRK_out, see
Section 4.1.3, and derive application keys using the EDHOC_Exporter
interface, see Section 4.2.1. The Responder SHOULD NOT persistently
store PRK_out or application keys until the application has
authenticated the Initiator. The Responder SHOULD NOT send protected
application data until the application has authenticated the
Initiator.
If any processing step fails, then the Responder MUST send an EDHOC
error message back as defined in Section 6, and the EDHOC session
MUST be aborted.
5.5. EDHOC Message 4
This section specifies message_4 which is OPTIONAL to support. Key
confirmation is normally provided by sending an application message
from the Responder to the Initiator protected with a key derived with
the EDHOC_Exporter, e.g., using OSCORE (see Appendix A). In
deployments where no protected application message is sent from the
Responder to the Initiator, message_4 MUST be supported and MUST be
used. Two examples of such deployments are:
1. When EDHOC is only used for authentication and no application
data is sent.
2. When application data is only sent from the Initiator to the
Responder.
Further considerations about when to use message_4 are provided in
Section 3.9 and Section 9.1.
5.5.1. Formatting of Message 4
message_4 SHALL be a CBOR Sequence (see Appendix C.1) as defined
below
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
message_4 = (
CIPHERTEXT_4 : bstr,
)
5.5.2. Responder Composition of Message 4
The Responder SHALL compose message_4 as follows:
* Compute a COSE_Encrypt0 as defined in Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of
[RFC9052], with the EDHOC AEAD algorithm of the selected cipher
suite, using the encryption key K_4, the initialization vector
IV_4 (if used by the AEAD algorithm), the plaintext PLAINTEXT_4,
and the following parameters as input (see Appendix C.3):
- protected = h''
- external_aad = TH_4
- K_4 and IV_4 are defined in Section 4.1.2
- PLAINTEXT_4 = ( ? EAD_4 )
o EAD_4 - external authorization data, see Section 3.8.
CIPHERTEXT_4 is the 'ciphertext' of COSE_Encrypt0.
* Encode message_4 as a CBOR data item as specified in
Section 5.5.1.
5.5.3. Initiator Processing of Message 4
The Initiator SHALL process message_4 as follows:
* Decode message_4 (see Appendix C.1).
* Retrieve the protocol state using available message correlation
(e.g., the CoAP Token, the 5-tuple, or the prepended C_I, see
Section 3.4.1).
* Decrypt and verify the COSE_Encrypt0 as defined in Sections 5.2
and 5.3 of [RFC9052], with the EDHOC AEAD algorithm in the
selected cipher suite, and the parameters defined in
Section 5.5.2.
* Make (if present) EAD_4 available to the application for EAD
processing.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
If any processing step fails, then the Initiator MUST send an EDHOC
error message back as defined in Section 6, and the EDHOC session
MUST be aborted.
After verifying message_4, the Initiator is assured that the
Responder has calculated the key PRK_out (key confirmation) and that
no other party can derive the key.
6. Error Handling
This section defines the format for error messages, and the
processing associated with the currently defined error codes.
Additional error codes may be registered, see Section 10.4.
Many kinds of errors that can occur during EDHOC processing. As in
CoAP, an error can be triggered by errors in the received message or
internal errors in the receiving endpoint. Except for processing and
formatting errors, it is up to the application when to send an error
message. Sending error messages is essential for debugging but MAY
be skipped if, for example, an EDHOC session cannot be found or due
to denial-of-service reasons, see Section 9.7. Error messages in
EDHOC are always fatal. After sending an error message, the sender
MUST abort the EDHOC session. The receiver SHOULD treat an error
message as an indication that the other party likely has aborted the
EDHOC session. But since error messages might be forged, the
receiver MAY try to continue the EDHOC session.
An EDHOC error message can be sent by either endpoint as a reply to
any non-error EDHOC message. How errors at the EDHOC layer are
transported depends on lower layers, which need to enable error
messages to be sent and processed as intended.
error SHALL be a CBOR Sequence (see Appendix C.1) as defined below
error = (
ERR_CODE : int,
ERR_INFO : any,
)
Figure 9: EDHOC error message.
where:
* ERR_CODE - error code encoded as an integer. The value 0 is
reserved for success and can only be used internally, all other
values (negative or positive) indicate errors.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
* ERR_INFO - error information. Content and encoding depend on
error code.
The remainder of this section specifies the currently defined error
codes, see Figure 10. Additional error codes and corresponding error
information may be specified.
+----------+---------------+----------------------------------------+
| ERR_CODE | ERR_INFO Type | Description |
+==========+===============+========================================+
| 0 | | This value is reserved |
+----------+---------------+----------------------------------------+
| 1 | tstr | Unspecified error |
+----------+---------------+----------------------------------------+
| 2 | suites | Wrong selected cipher suite |
+----------+---------------+----------------------------------------+
| 3 | true | Unknown credential referenced |
+----------+---------------+----------------------------------------+
Figure 10: EDHOC error codes and error information.
6.1. Success
Error code 0 MAY be used internally in an application to indicate
success, i.e., as a standard value in case of no error, e.g., in
status reporting or log files. Error code 0 MUST NOT be used as part
of the EDHOC message exchange. If an endpoint receives an error
message with error code 0, then it MUST abort the EDHOC session and
MUST NOT send an error message.
6.2. Unspecified Error
Error code 1 is used for errors that do not have a specific error
code defined. ERR_INFO MUST be a text string containing a human-
readable diagnostic message which SHOULD be written in English, for
example "Method not supported". The diagnostic text message is
mainly intended for software engineers that during debugging need to
interpret it in the context of the EDHOC specification. The
diagnostic message SHOULD be provided to the calling application
where it SHOULD be logged.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
6.3. Wrong Selected Cipher Suite
Error code 2 MUST only be used when replying to message_1 in case the
cipher suite selected by the Initiator is not supported by the
Responder, or if the Responder supports a cipher suite more preferred
by the Initiator than the selected cipher suite, see Section 5.2.3.
In this case, ERR_INFO = SUITES_R and is of type suites, see
Section 5.2.1. If the Responder does not support the selected cipher
suite, then SUITES_R MUST include one or more supported cipher
suites. If the Responder supports a cipher suite in SUITES_I other
than the selected cipher suite (independently of if the selected
cipher suite is supported or not) then SUITES_R MUST include the
supported cipher suite in SUITES_I which is most preferred by the
Initiator. SUITES_R MAY include a single cipher suite, in which case
it is encoded as an int. If the Responder does not support any
cipher suite in SUITES_I, then it SHOULD include all its supported
cipher suites in SUITES_R.
In contrast to SUITES_I, the order of the cipher suites in SUITES_R
has no significance.
6.3.1. Cipher Suite Negotiation
After receiving SUITES_R, the Initiator can determine which cipher
suite to select (if any) for the next EDHOC run with the Responder.
If the Initiator intends to contact the Responder in the future, the
Initiator SHOULD remember which selected cipher suite to use until
the next message_1 has been sent, otherwise the Initiator and
Responder will likely run into an infinite loop where the Initiator
selects its most preferred cipher suite and the Responder sends an
error with supported cipher suites. After a completed EDHOC session,
the Initiator MAY remember the selected cipher suite to use in future
EDHOC sessions. Note that if the Initiator or Responder is updated
with new cipher suite policies, any cached information may be
outdated.
Note that the Initiator's list of supported cipher suites and order
of preference is fixed (see Section 5.2.1 and Section 5.2.2).
Furthermore, the Responder SHALL only accept message_1 if the
selected cipher suite is the first cipher suite in SUITES_I that the
Responder also supports (see Section 5.2.3). Following this
procedure ensures that the selected cipher suite is the most
preferred (by the Initiator) cipher suite supported by both parties.
For examples, see Section 6.3.2.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
If the selected cipher suite is not the first cipher suite which the
Responder supports in SUITES_I received in message_1, then the
Responder MUST abort the EDHOC session, see Section 5.2.3. If
SUITES_I in message_1 is manipulated, then the integrity verification
of message_2 containing the transcript hash TH_2 will fail and the
Initiator will abort the EDHOC session.
6.3.2. Examples
Assume that the Initiator supports the five cipher suites 5, 6, 7, 8,
and 9 in decreasing order of preference. Figures 11 and 12 show two
examples of how the Initiator can format SUITES_I and how SUITES_R is
used by Responders to give the Initiator information about the cipher
suites that the Responder supports.
In Example 1 (Figure 11), the Responder supports cipher suite 6 but
not the initially selected cipher suite 5. The Responder rejects the
first message_1 with an error indicating support for suite 6 in
SUITES_R. The Initiator also supports suite 6, and therefore selects
suite 6 in the second message_1. The Initiator prepends in SUITES_I
the selected suite 6 with the more preferred suites, in this case
suite 5, to mitigate a potential attack on the cipher suite
negotiation.
Initiator Responder
| METHOD, SUITES_I = 5, G_X, C_I, EAD_1 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------>|
| message_1 |
| |
| ERR_CODE = 2, SUITES_R = 6 |
|<------------------------------------------------------------------+
| error |
| |
| METHOD, SUITES_I = [5, 6], G_X, C_I, EAD_1 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------>|
| message_1 |
Figure 11: Cipher suite negotiation example 1.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
In Example 2 (Figure 12), the Responder supports cipher suites 8 and
9 but not the more preferred (by the Initiator) cipher suites 5, 6 or
7. To illustrate the negotiation mechanics we let the Initiator
first make a guess that the Responder supports suite 6 but not suite
5. Since the Responder supports neither 5 nor 6, it rejects the
first message_1 with an error indicating support for suites 8 and 9
in SUITES_R (in any order). The Initiator also supports suites 8 and
9, and prefers suite 8, so selects suite 8 in the second message_1.
The Initiator prepends in SUITES_I the selected suite 8 with the more
preferred suites in order of preference, in this case suites 5, 6 and
7, to mitigate a potential attack on the cipher suite negotiation.
Note 1. If the Responder had supported suite 5, then the first
message_1 would not have been accepted either, since the Responder
observes that suite 5 is more preferred by the Initiator than the
selected suite 6. In that case the Responder would have included
suite 5 in SUITES_R of the response, and it would then have become
the selected and only suite in the second message_1.
Note 2. For each message_1 the Initiator MUST generate a new
ephemeral ECDH key pair matching the selected cipher suite.
Initiator Responder
| METHOD, SUITES_I = [5, 6], G_X, C_I, EAD_1 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------>|
| message_1 |
| |
| ERR_CODE = 2, SUITES_R = [9, 8] |
|<------------------------------------------------------------------+
| error |
| |
| METHOD, SUITES_I = [5, 6, 7, 8], G_X, C_I, EAD_1 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------>|
| message_1 |
Figure 12: Cipher suite negotiation example 2.
6.4. Unknown Credential Referenced
Error code 3 is used for errors due to a received credential
identifier (ID_CRED_R in message_2 or ID_CRED_I message_3) containing
a reference to a credential which the receiving endpoint does not
have access to. The intent with this error code is that the endpoint
who sent the credential identifier should for the next EDHOC session
try another credential identifier supported according to the
application profile.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
For example, an application profile could list x5t and x5chain as
supported credential identifiers, and state that x5t should be used
if it can be assumed that the X.509 certificate is available at the
receiving side. This error code thus enables the certificate chain
to be sent only when needed, bearing in mind that error messages are
not protected so an adversary can try to cause unnecessary large
credential identifiers.
For the error code 3, the error information SHALL be the CBOR simple
value true (0xf5). Error code 3 MUST NOT be used when the received
credential identifier type is not supported.
7. EDHOC Message Deduplication
EDHOC by default assumes that message duplication is handled by the
transport, in this section exemplified with CoAP, see Appendix A.2.
Deduplication of CoAP messages is described in Section 4.5 of
[RFC7252]. This handles the case when the same Confirmable (CON)
message is received multiple times due to missing acknowledgment on
the CoAP messaging layer. The recommended processing in [RFC7252] is
that the duplicate message is acknowledged (ACK), but the received
message is only processed once by the CoAP stack.
Message deduplication is resource demanding and therefore not
supported in all CoAP implementations. Since EDHOC is targeting
constrained environments, it is desirable that EDHOC can optionally
support transport layers which do not handle message duplication.
Special care is needed to avoid issues with duplicate messages, see
Section 5.1.
The guiding principle here is similar to the deduplication processing
on the CoAP messaging layer: a received duplicate EDHOC message SHALL
NOT result in another instance of the next EDHOC message. The result
MAY be that a duplicate next EDHOC message is sent, provided it is
still relevant with respect to the current protocol state. In any
case, the received message MUST NOT be processed more than once in
the same EDHOC session. This is called "EDHOC message
deduplication".
An EDHOC implementation MAY store the previously sent EDHOC message
to be able to resend it.
In principle, if the EDHOC implementation would deterministically
regenerate the identical EDHOC message previously sent, it would be
possible to instead store the protocol state to be able to recreate
and resend the previously sent EDHOC message. However, even if the
protocol state is fixed, the message generation may introduce
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
differences which compromise security. For example, in the
generation of message_3, if I is performing a (non-deterministic)
ECDSA signature (say, method 0 or 1, cipher suite 2 or 3) then
PLAINTEXT_3 is randomized, but K_3 and IV_3 are the same, leading to
a key and nonce reuse.
The EDHOC implementation MUST NOT store previous protocol state and
regenerate an EDHOC message if there is a risk that the same key and
IV are used for two (or more) distinct messages.
The previous message or protocol state MUST NOT be kept longer than
what is required for retransmission, for example, in the case of CoAP
transport, no longer than the EXCHANGE_LIFETIME (see Section 4.8.2 of
[RFC7252]).
8. Compliance Requirements
In the absence of an application profile specifying otherwise:
An implementation MAY support only Initiator or only Responder.
An implementation MAY support only a single method. None of the
methods are mandatory-to-implement.
Implementations MUST support 'kid' parameters. None of the other
COSE header parameters are mandatory-to-implement.
An implementation MAY support only a single credential type (CCS,
CWT, X.509, C509). None of the credential types are mandatory-to-
implement.
Implementations MUST support the EDHOC_Exporter.
Implementations MAY support message_4. Error codes (ERR_CODE) 1 and
2 MUST be supported.
Implementations MUST support EAD.
Implementations MUST support cipher suite 2 and 3. Cipher suites 2
(AES-CCM-16-64-128, SHA-256, 8, P-256, ES256, AES-CCM-16-64-128, SHA-
256) and 3 (AES-CCM-16-128-128, SHA-256, 16, P-256, ES256, AES-CCM-
16-64-128, SHA-256) only differ in the size of the MAC length, so
supporting one or both of these is not significantly different.
Implementations only need to implement the algorithms needed for
their supported methods.
9. Security Considerations
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
9.1. Security Properties
EDHOC has similar security properties as can be expected from the
theoretical SIGMA-I protocol [SIGMA] and the Noise XX pattern
[Noise], which are similar to methods 0 and 3, respectively. Proven
security properties are detailed in the security analysis
publications referenced at the end of this section.
Using the terminology from [SIGMA], EDHOC provides forward secrecy,
mutual authentication with aliveness, consistency, and peer
awareness. As described in [SIGMA], message_3 provides peer
awareness to the Responder while message_4 provides peer awareness to
the Initiator. By including the authentication credentials in the
transcript hash, EDHOC protects against Duplicate Signature Key
Selection (DSKS)-like identity mis-binding attack that the MAC-then-
Sign variant of SIGMA-I is otherwise vulnerable to.
As described in [SIGMA], different levels of identity protection are
provided to the Initiator and the Responder. EDHOC provides identity
protection of the Initiator against active attacks and identity
protection of the Responder against passive attacks. An active
attacker can get the credential identifier of the Responder by
eavesdropping on the destination address used for transporting
message_1 and then sending its own message_1 to the same address.
The roles should be assigned to protect the most sensitive identity/
identifier, typically that which is not possible to infer from
routing information in the lower layers.
EDHOC messages might change in transit due to a noisy channel or
through modification by an attacker. Changes in message_1 and
message_2 (except Signature_or_MAC_2 when the signature scheme is not
strongly unforgeable) are detected when verifying Signature_or_MAC_2.
Changes to not strongly unforgeable Signature_or_MAC_2, and message_3
are detected when verifying CIPHERTEXT_3. Changes to message_4 are
detected when verifying CIPHERTEXT_4.
Compared to [SIGMA], EDHOC adds an explicit method type and expands
the message authentication coverage to additional elements such as
algorithms, external authorization data, and previous plaintext
messages. This protects against an attacker replaying messages or
injecting messages from another EDHOC session.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
EDHOC also adds selection of connection identifiers and downgrade
protected negotiation of cryptographic parameters, i.e., an attacker
cannot affect the negotiated parameters. A single session of EDHOC
does not include negotiation of cipher suites, but it enables the
Responder to verify that the selected cipher suite is the most
preferred cipher suite by the Initiator which is supported by both
the Initiator and the Responder, and to abort the EDHOC session if
not.
As required by [RFC7258], IETF protocols need to mitigate pervasive
monitoring when possible. EDHOC therefore only supports methods with
ephemeral Diffie-Hellman and provides a key update function (see
Appendix H) for lightweight application protocol rekeying. Either of
these provides forward secrecy, in the sense that compromise of the
private authentication keys does not compromise past session keys
(PRK_out), and compromise of a session key does not compromise past
session keys. Frequently re-running EDHOC with ephemeral Diffie-
Hellman forces attackers to perform dynamic key exfiltration where
the attacker must have continuous interactions with the collaborator,
which is a significant sustained attack.
To limit the effect of breaches, it is important to limit the use of
symmetric group keys for bootstrapping. EDHOC therefore strives to
make the additional cost of using raw public keys and self-signed
certificates as small as possible. Raw public keys and self-signed
certificates are not a replacement for a public key infrastructure
but SHOULD be used instead of symmetric group keys for bootstrapping.
Compromise of the long-term keys (private signature or static DH
keys) does not compromise the security of completed EDHOC sessions.
Compromising the private authentication keys of one party lets an
active attacker impersonate that compromised party in EDHOC sessions
with other parties but does not let the attacker impersonate other
parties in EDHOC sessions with the compromised party. Compromise of
the long-term keys does not enable a passive attacker to compromise
future session keys (PRK_out). Compromise of the HDKF input
parameters (ECDH shared secret) leads to compromise of all session
keys derived from that compromised shared secret. Compromise of one
session key does not compromise other session keys. Compromise of
PRK_out leads to compromise of all keying material derived with the
EDHOC_Exporter.
Based on the cryptographic algorithms requirements Section 9.3, EDHOC
provides a minimum of 64-bit security against online brute force
attacks and a minimum of 128-bit security against offline brute force
attacks. To break 64-bit security against online brute force an
attacker would on average have to send 4.3 billion messages per
second for 68 years, which is infeasible in constrained IoT radio
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
technologies. A forgery against a 64-bit MAC in EDHOC breaks the
security of all future application data, while a forgery against a
64-bit MAC in the subsequent application protocol (e.g., OSCORE
[RFC8613]) typically only breaks the security of the data in the
forged packet.
As the EDHOC session is aborted when verification fails, the security
against online attacks is given by the sum of the strength of the
verified signatures and MACs (including MAC in AEAD). As an example,
if EDHOC is used with method 3, cipher suite 2, and message_4, the
Responder is authenticated with 128-bit security against online
attacks (the sum of the 64-bit MACs in message_2 and message_4). The
same principle applies for MACs in an application protocol keyed by
EDHOC as long as EDHOC is rerun when verification of the first MACs
in the application protocol fails. As an example, if EDHOC with
method 3 and cipher suite 2 is used as in Figure 2 of
[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-edhoc], 128-bit mutual authentication against
online attacks can be achieved after completion of the first OSCORE
request and response.
After sending message_3, the Initiator is assured that no other party
than the Responder can compute the key PRK_out. While the Initiator
can securely send protected application data, the Initiator SHOULD
NOT persistently store the keying material PRK_out until the
Initiator has verified message_4 or a message protected with a
derived application key, such as an OSCORE message, from the
Responder. After verifying message_3, the Responder is assured that
an honest Initiator has computed the key PRK_out. The Responder can
securely derive and store the keying material PRK_out, and send
protected application data.
External authorization data sent in message_1 (EAD_1) or message_2
(EAD_2) should be considered unprotected by EDHOC, see Section 9.5.
EAD_2 is encrypted but the Responder has not yet authenticated the
Initiator and the encryption does not provide confidentiality against
active attacks.
External authorization data sent in message_3 (EAD_3) or message_4
(EAD_4) is protected between Initiator and Responder by the protocol,
but note that EAD fields may be used by the application before the
message verification is completed, see Section 3.8. Designing a
secure mechanism that uses EAD is not necessarily straightforward.
This document only provides the EAD transport mechanism, but the
problem of agreeing on the surrounding context and the meaning of the
information passed to and from the application remains. Any new uses
of EAD should be subject to careful review.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
Key compromise impersonation (KCI): In EDHOC authenticated with
signature keys, EDHOC provides KCI protection against an attacker
having access to the long-term key or the ephemeral secret key. With
static Diffie-Hellman key authentication, KCI protection would be
provided against an attacker having access to the long-term Diffie-
Hellman key, but not to an attacker having access to the ephemeral
secret key. Note that the term KCI has typically been used for
compromise of long-term keys, and that an attacker with access to the
ephemeral secret key can only attack that specific EDHOC session.
Repudiation: If an endpoint authenticates with a signature, the other
endpoint can prove that the endpoint performed a run of the protocol
by presenting the data being signed as well as the signature itself.
With static Diffie-Hellman key authentication, the authenticating
endpoint can deny having participated in the protocol.
Earlier versions of EDHOC have been formally analyzed [Bruni18]
[Norrman20] [CottierPointcheval22] [Jacomme23] [GuentherIlunga22] and
the specification has been updated based on the analysis.
9.2. Cryptographic Considerations
The SIGMA protocol requires that the encryption of message_3 provides
confidentiality against active attackers and EDHOC message_4 relies
on the use of authenticated encryption. Hence, the message
authenticating functionality of the authenticated encryption in EDHOC
is critical: authenticated encryption MUST NOT be replaced by plain
encryption only, even if authentication is provided at another level
or through a different mechanism.
To reduce message overhead EDHOC does not use explicit nonces and
instead relies on the ephemeral public keys to provide randomness to
each EDHOC session. A good amount of randomness is important for the
key generation, to provide liveness, and to protect against
interleaving attacks. For this reason, the ephemeral keys MUST NOT
be used in more than one EDHOC message, and both parties SHALL
generate fresh random ephemeral key pairs. Note that an ephemeral
key may be used to calculate several ECDH shared secrets. When
static Diffie-Hellman authentication is used the same ephemeral key
is used in both ephemeral-ephemeral and ephemeral-static ECDH.
As discussed in [SIGMA], the encryption of message_2 does only need
to protect against passive attacker as active attackers can always
get the Responder's identity by sending their own message_1. EDHOC
uses the EDHOC_Expand function (typically HKDF-Expand) as a binary
additive stream cipher which is proven secure as long as the expand
function is a PRF. HKDF-Expand is not often used as a stream cipher
as it is slow on long messages, and most applications require both
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
confidentiality with indistinguishability under chosen ciphertext
(IND-CCA) as well as integrity protection. For the encryption of
message_2, any speed difference is negligible, IND-CCA does not
increase security, and integrity is provided by the inner MAC (and
signature depending on method).
Requirements for how to securely generate, validate, and process the
public keys depend on the elliptic curve. For X25519 and X448, the
requirements are defined in [RFC7748]. For X25519 and X448, the
check for all-zero output as specified in Section 6 of [RFC7748] MUST
be done. For secp256r1, secp384r1, and secp521r1, the requirements
are defined in Section 5 of [SP-800-56A]. For secp256r1, secp384r1,
and secp521r1, at least partial public-key validation MUST be done.
The same authentication credential MAY be used for both the Initiator
and Responder roles. As noted in Section 12 of [RFC9052] the use of
a single key for multiple algorithms is strongly discouraged unless
proven secure by a dedicated cryptographic analysis. In particular
this recommendation applies to using the same private key for static
Diffie-Hellman authentication and digital signature authentication.
A preliminary conjecture is that a minor change to EDHOC may be
sufficient to fit the analysis of secure shared signature and ECDH
key usage in [Degabriele11] and [Thormarker21].
The property that a completed EDHOC session implies that another
identity has been active is upheld as long as the Initiator does not
have its own identity in the set of Responder identities it is
allowed to communicate with. In Trust on first use (TOFU) use cases,
see Appendix D.5, the Initiator should verify that the Responder's
identity is not equal to its own. Any future EDHOC methods using
e.g., pre-shared keys might need to mitigate this in other ways.
However, an active attacker can gain information about the set of
identities an Initiator is willing to communicate with. If the
Initiator is willing to communicate with all identities except its
own an attacker can determine that a guessed Initiator identity is
correct. To not leak any long-term identifiers, using a freshly
generated authentication key as identity in each initial TOFU session
is RECOMMENDED.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
NIST SP 800-56A [SP-800-56A] forbids deriving secret and non-secret
randomness from the same KDF instance, but this decision has been
criticized by Krawczyk [HKDFpaper] and doing so is common practice.
In addition to IVs, other examples are the challenge in EAP-TTLS, the
RAND in 3GPP AKAs, and the Session-Id in EAP-TLS 1.3. Note that part
of KEYSTREAM_2 is also non-secret randomness as it is known or
predictable to an attacker. The more recent NIST SP 800-108
[SP-800-108] aligns with [HKDFpaper] and states that for a secure
KDF, the revelation of one portion of the derived keying material
must not degrade the security of any other portion of that keying
material.
9.3. Cipher Suites and Cryptographic Algorithms
When using private cipher suite or registering new cipher suites, the
choice of key length used in the different algorithms needs to be
harmonized, so that a sufficient security level is maintained for
authentication credentials, the EDHOC session, and the protection of
application data. The Initiator and the Responder should enforce a
minimum security level.
The output size of the EDHOC hash algorithm MUST be at least
256-bits, i.e., the hash algorithms SHA-1 and SHA-256/64 (SHA-256
truncated to 64-bits) SHALL NOT be supported for use in EDHOC except
for certificate identification with x5t and c5t. For security
considerations of SHA-1, see [RFC6194]. As EDHOC integrity protects
the whole authentication credentials, the choice of hash algorithm in
x5t and c5t does not affect security, and using the same hash
algorithm as in the cipher suite, but with as much truncation as
possible, is RECOMMENDED. That is, when the EDHOC hash algorithm is
SHA-256, using SHA-256/64 in x5t and c5t is RECOMMENDED. The EDHOC
MAC length MUST be at least 8 bytes and the tag length of the EDHOC
AEAD algorithm MUST be at least 64-bits. Note that secp256k1 is only
defined for use with ECDSA and not for ECDH. Note that some COSE
algorithms are marked as not recommended in the COSE IANA registry.
9.4. Post-Quantum Considerations
As of the publication of this specification, it is unclear when or
even if a quantum computer of sufficient size and power to exploit
public key cryptography will exist. Deployments that need to
consider risks decades into the future should transition to Post-
Quantum Cryptography (PQC) in the not-too-distant future. Many other
systems should take a slower wait-and-see approach where PQC is
phased in when the quantum threat is more imminent. Current PQC
algorithms have limitations compared to Elliptic Curve Cryptography
(ECC) and the data sizes would be problematic in many constrained IoT
systems.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
Symmetric algorithms used in EDHOC such as SHA-256 and AES-CCM-
16-64-128 are practically secure against even large quantum
computers. Two of NIST's security levels for quantum-resistant
public-key cryptography are based on AES-128 and SHA-256. Quantum
computer will likely be expensive, slow due to heavy error
correction, and Grover’s algorithm, which is proven to be optimal,
cannot effectively be parallelized. Grover’s algorithm will provide
little or no advantage in attacking AES, and AES-128 will remain
secure for decades to come [NISTPQC].
EDHOC supports all signature algorithms defined by COSE, including
PQC signature algorithms such as HSS-LMS. EDHOC is currently only
specified for use with key exchange algorithms of type ECDH curves,
but any Key Encapsulation Method (KEM), including PQC KEMs, can be
used in method 0. While the key exchange in method 0 is specified
with terms of the Diffie-Hellman protocol, the key exchange adheres
to a KEM interface: G_X is then the public key of the Initiator, G_Y
is the encapsulation, and G_XY is the shared secret. Use of PQC KEMs
to replace static DH authentication would likely require a
specification updating EDHOC with new methods.
9.5. Unprotected Data and Privacy
The Initiator and the Responder must make sure that unprotected data
and metadata do not reveal any sensitive information. This also
applies for encrypted data sent to an unauthenticated party. In
particular, it applies to EAD_1, ID_CRED_R, EAD_2, and error
messages. Using the same EAD_1 in several EDHOC sessions allows
passive eavesdroppers to correlate the different sessions. Note that
even if ead_value is encrypted outside of EDHOC, the ead_labels in
EAD_1 is revealed to passive attackers and the ead_labels in EAD_2 is
revealed to active attackers. Another consideration is that the list
of supported cipher suites may potentially be used to identify the
application. The Initiator and the Responder must also make sure
that unauthenticated data does not trigger any harmful actions. In
particular, this applies to EAD_1 and error messages.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
An attacker observing network traffic may use connection identifiers
sent in clear in EDHOC or the subsequent application protocol to
correlate packets sent on different paths or at different times. The
attacker may use this information for traffic flow analysis or to
track an endpoint. Application protocols using connection
identifiers from EDHOC SHOULD provide mechanisms to update the
connection identifiers and MAY provide mechanisms to issue several
simultaneously active connection identifiers. See [RFC9000] for a
non-constrained example of such mechanisms. Connection identifiers
can e.g., be chosen randomly among the set of unused 1-byte
connection identifiers. Connection identity privacy mechanisms are
only useful when there are not fixed identifiers such as IP address
or MAC address in the lower layers.
9.6. Updated Internet Threat Model Considerations
Since the publication of [RFC3552] there has been an increased
awareness of the need to protect against endpoints that are
compromised, malicious, or whose interests simply do not align with
the interests of users
[I-D.arkko-arch-internet-threat-model-guidance]. [RFC7624] describes
an updated threat model for Internet confidentiality, see
Section 9.1. [I-D.arkko-arch-internet-threat-model-guidance] further
expands the threat model. Implementations and users should take
these threat models into account and consider actions to reduce the
risk of tracking by other endpoints. In particular, even data sent
protected to the other endpoint such as ID_CRED fields and EAD fields
can be used for tracking, see Section 2.7 of
[I-D.arkko-arch-internet-threat-model-guidance].
The fields ID_CRED_I, ID_CRED_R, EAD_2, EAD_3, and EAD_4 have
variable length, and information regarding the length may leak to an
attacker. A passive attacker may, e.g., be able to differentiate
endpoints using identifiers of different length. To mitigate this
information leakage an implementation may ensure that the fields have
fixed length or use padding. An implementation may, e.g., only use
fixed length identifiers like 'kid' of length 1. Alternatively,
padding may be used (see Section 3.8.1) to hide the true length of,
e.g., certificates by value in 'x5chain' or 'c5c'.
9.7. Denial-of-Service
EDHOC itself does not provide countermeasures against denial-of-
service attacks. In particular, by sending a number of new or
replayed message_1 an attacker may cause the Responder to allocate
state, perform cryptographic operations, and amplify messages. To
mitigate such attacks, an implementation SHOULD make use of available
lower layer mechanisms. For instance, when EDHOC is transferred as
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
an exchange of CoAP messages, the CoAP server can use the Echo option
defined in [RFC9175] which forces the CoAP client to demonstrate
reachability at its apparent network address. To avoid an additional
roundtrip the Initiator can reduce the amplification factor by
padding message_1, i.e., using EAD_1, see Section 3.8.1. Note that
while the Echo option mitigates some resource exhaustion aspects of
spoofing, it does not protect against a distributed denial-of-service
attack made by real, potentially compromised, clients. Similarly,
limiting amplification only reduces the impact, which still may be
significant because of a large number of clients engaged in the
attack.
An attacker can also send faked message_2, message_3, message_4, or
error in an attempt to trick the receiving party to send an error
message and abort the EDHOC session. EDHOC implementations MAY
evaluate if a received message is likely to have been forged by an
attacker and ignore it without sending an error message or aborting
the EDHOC session.
9.8. Implementation Considerations
The availability of a secure random number generator is essential for
the security of EDHOC. If no true random number generator is
available, a random seed MUST be provided from an external source and
used with a cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator.
As each pseudorandom number must only be used once, an implementation
needs to get a unique input to the pseudorandom number generator
after reboot, or continuously store state in nonvolatile memory.
Appendix B.1.1 in [RFC8613] describes issues and solution approaches
for writing to nonvolatile memory. Intentionally or unintentionally
weak or predictable pseudorandom number generators can be abused or
exploited for malicious purposes. [RFC8937] describes a way for
security protocol implementations to augment their (pseudo)random
number generators using a long-term private key and a deterministic
signature function. This improves randomness from broken or
otherwise subverted random number generators. The same idea can be
used with other secrets and functions such as a Diffie-Hellman
function or a symmetric secret and a PRF like HMAC or KMAC. It is
RECOMMENDED to not trust a single source of randomness and to not put
unaugmented random numbers on the wire.
For many constrained IoT devices it is problematic to support several
crypto primitives. Existing devices can be expected to support
either ECDSA or EdDSA. If ECDSA is supported, "deterministic ECDSA"
as specified in [RFC6979] MAY be used. Pure deterministic elliptic-
curve signatures such as deterministic ECDSA and EdDSA have gained
popularity over randomized ECDSA as their security do not depend on a
source of high-quality randomness. Recent research has however found
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
that implementations of these signature algorithms may be vulnerable
to certain side-channel and fault injection attacks due to their
determinism. See e.g., Section 1 of
[I-D.irtf-cfrg-det-sigs-with-noise] for a list of attack papers. As
suggested in Section 2.1.1 of [RFC9053] this can be addressed by
combining randomness and determinism.
Appendix D of [I-D.ietf-lwig-curve-representations] describes how
Montgomery curves such as X25519 and X448 and (twisted) Edwards
curves as curves such as Ed25519 and Ed448 can be mapped to and from
short-Weierstrass form for implementation on platforms that
accelerate elliptic curve group operations in short-Weierstrass form.
All private keys, symmetric keys, and IVs MUST be secret. Only the
Responder SHALL have access to the Responder's private authentication
key and only the Initiator SHALL have access to the Initiator's
private authentication key. Implementations should provide
countermeasures to side-channel attacks such as timing attacks.
Intermediate computed values such as ephemeral ECDH keys and ECDH
shared secrets MUST be deleted after key derivation is completed.
The Initiator and the Responder are responsible for verifying the
integrity and validity of certificates. Verification of validity may
require the use of a Real-Time Clock (RTC). The selection of trusted
CAs should be done very carefully and certificate revocation should
be supported. The choice of revocation mechanism is left to the
application. For example, in case of X.509 certificates, Certificate
Revocation Lists [RFC5280] or OCSP [RFC6960] may be used.
Similar considerations as for certificates are needed for CWT/CCS.
The endpoints are responsible for verifying the integrity and
validity of CWT/CCS, and to handle revocation. The application needs
to determine what trust anchors are relevant, and have a well-defined
trust-establishment process. A self-signed certificate/CWT or CCS
appearing in the protocol cannot be a trigger to modify the set of
trust anchors. One common way for a new trust anchor to be added to
(or removed from) a device is by means firmware upgrade. See
[RFC9360] for a longer discussion on trust and validation in
constrained devices.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
Just like for certificates, the contents of the COSE header
parameters 'kcwt' and 'kccs' defined in Section 10.6 must be
processed as untrusted input. Endpoints that intend to rely on the
assertions made by a CWT/CCS obtained from any of these methods need
to validate the contents. For 'kccs', which enables transport of raw
public keys, the data structure used does not include any protection
or verification data. 'kccs' may be used for unauthenticated
operations, e.g. trust on first use, with the limitations and caveats
entailed, see Appendix D.5.
The Initiator and the Responder are allowed to select the connection
identifier C_I and C_R, respectively, for the other party to use in
the ongoing EDHOC session as well as in a subsequent application
protocol (e.g., OSCORE [RFC8613]). The choice of connection
identifier is not security critical in EDHOC but intended to simplify
the retrieval of the right security context in combination with using
short identifiers. If the wrong connection identifier of the other
party is used in a protocol message it will result in the receiving
party not being able to retrieve a security context (which will abort
the EDHOC session) or retrieve the wrong security context (which also
aborts the EDHOC session as the message cannot be verified).
If two nodes unintentionally initiate two simultaneous EDHOC sessions
with each other even if they only want to complete a single EDHOC
session, they MAY abort the EDHOC session with the lexicographically
smallest G_X. Note that in cases where several EDHOC sessions with
different parameter sets (method, COSE headers, etc.) are used, an
attacker can affect which parameter set will be used by blocking some
of the parameter sets.
If supported by the device, it is RECOMMENDED that at least the long-
term private keys are stored in a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE,
see for example [RFC9397]) and that sensitive operations using these
keys are performed inside the TEE. To achieve even higher security
it is RECOMMENDED that additional operations such as ephemeral key
generation, all computations of shared secrets, and storage of the
PRK keys can be done inside the TEE. The use of a TEE aims at
preventing code within that environment to be tampered with, and
preventing data used by such code to be read or tampered with by code
outside that environment.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
Note that HKDF-Expand has a relatively small maximum output length of
255 ⋅ hash_length, where hash_length is the output size in bytes of
the EDHOC hash algorithm of the selected cipher suite. This means
that when SHA-256 is used as hash algorithm, PLAINTEXT_2 cannot be
longer than 8160 bytes. This is probably not a limitation for most
intended applications, but to be able to support for example long
certificate chains or large external authorization data, there is a
backwards compatible method specified in Appendix G.
The sequence of transcript hashes in EDHOC (TH_2, TH_3, TH_4) does
not make use of a so-called running hash. This is a design choice as
running hashes are often not supported on constrained platforms.
When parsing a received EDHOC message, implementations MUST abort the
EDHOC session if the message does not comply with the CDDL for that
message. Implementations are not required to support non-
deterministic encodings and MAY abort the EDHOC session if the
received EDHOC message is not encoded using deterministic CBOR.
Implementations MUST abort the EDHOC session if validation of a
received public key fails or if any cryptographic field has the wrong
length.
10. IANA Considerations
This Section gives IANA Considerations and, unless otherwise noted,
conforms with [RFC8126].
10.1. EDHOC Exporter Label Registry
IANA is requested to create a new registry under the new registry
group "Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC)" as follows:
Registry Name: EDHOC Exporter Label
Reference: [[this document]]
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
+-------------+------------------------------+-------------------+
| Label | Description | Reference |
+=============+==============================+===================+
| 0 | Derived OSCORE Master Secret | [[this document]] |
+-------------+------------------------------+-------------------+
| 1 | Derived OSCORE Master Salt | [[this document]] |
+-------------+------------------------------+-------------------+
| 2-22 | Unassigned | |
+-------------+------------------------------+-------------------+
| 23 | Reserved | [[this document]] |
+-------------+------------------------------+-------------------+
| 24-32767 | Unassigned | |
+-------------+------------------------------+-------------------+
| 32768-65535 | Private Use | |
+-------------+------------------------------+-------------------+
Figure 13: EDHOC exporter label.
+-------------+-------------------------------------+
| Range | Registration Procedures |
+=============+=====================================+
| 0 to 23 | Standards Action |
+-------------+-------------------------------------+
| 24 to 32767 | Expert Review |
+-------------+-------------------------------------+
10.2. EDHOC Cipher Suites Registry
IANA is requested to create a new registry under the new registry
group "Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC)" as follows:
Registry Name: EDHOC Cipher Suites
Reference: [[this document]]
The columns of the registry are Value, Array and Description, where
Value is an integer and the other columns are text strings. The
initial contents of the registry are:
Value: -24
Array: N/A
Description: Private Use
Reference: [[this document]]
Value: -23
Array: N/A
Description: Private Use
Reference: [[this document]]
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
Value: -22
Array: N/A
Description: Private Use
Reference: [[this document]]
Value: -21
Array: N/A
Description: Private Use
Reference: [[this document]]
Value: 0
Array: 10, -16, 8, 4, -8, 10, -16
Description: AES-CCM-16-64-128, SHA-256, 8, X25519, EdDSA,
AES-CCM-16-64-128, SHA-256
Reference: [[this document]]
Value: 1
Array: 30, -16, 16, 4, -8, 10, -16
Description: AES-CCM-16-128-128, SHA-256, 16, X25519, EdDSA,
AES-CCM-16-64-128, SHA-256
Reference: [[this document]]
Value: 2
Array: 10, -16, 8, 1, -7, 10, -16
Description: AES-CCM-16-64-128, SHA-256, 8, P-256, ES256,
AES-CCM-16-64-128, SHA-256
Reference: [[this document]]
Value: 3
Array: 30, -16, 16, 1, -7, 10, -16
Description: AES-CCM-16-128-128, SHA-256, 16, P-256, ES256,
AES-CCM-16-64-128, SHA-256
Reference: [[this document]]
Value: 4
Array: 24, -16, 16, 4, -8, 24, -16
Description: ChaCha20/Poly1305, SHA-256, 16, X25519, EdDSA,
ChaCha20/Poly1305, SHA-256
Reference: [[this document]]
Value: 5
Array: 24, -16, 16, 1, -7, 24, -16
Description: ChaCha20/Poly1305, SHA-256, 16, P-256, ES256,
ChaCha20/Poly1305, SHA-256
Reference: [[this document]]
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
Value: 6
Array: 1, -16, 16, 4, -7, 1, -16
Description: A128GCM, SHA-256, 16, X25519, ES256,
A128GCM, SHA-256
Reference: [[this document]]
Value: 23
Reserved
Reference: [[this document]]
Value: 24
Array: 3, -43, 16, 2, -35, 3, -43
Description: A256GCM, SHA-384, 16, P-384, ES384,
A256GCM, SHA-384
Reference: [[this document]]
Value: 25
Array: 24, -45, 16, 5, -8, 24, -45
Description: ChaCha20/Poly1305, SHAKE256, 16, X448, EdDSA,
ChaCha20/Poly1305, SHAKE256
Reference: [[this document]]
+----------------+-------------------------------------+
| Range | Registration Procedures |
+================+=====================================+
| -65536 to -25 | Specification Required |
+----------------+-------------------------------------+
| -20 to 23 | Standards Action with Expert Review |
+----------------+-------------------------------------+
| 24 to 65535 | Specification Required |
+----------------+-------------------------------------+
10.3. EDHOC Method Type Registry
IANA is requested to create a new registry under the new registry
group "Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC)" as follows:
Registry Name: EDHOC Method Type
Reference: [[this document]]
The columns of the registry are Value, Initiator Authentication Key,
and Responder Authentication Key, and Reference, where Value is an
integer and the key columns are text strings describing the
authentication keys.
The initial contents of the registry are shown in Figure 4. Method
23 is Reserved.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
+----------------+-------------------------------------+
| Range | Registration Procedures |
+================+=====================================+
| -65536 to -25 | Specification Required |
+----------------+-------------------------------------+
| -24 to 23 | Standards Action with Expert Review |
+----------------+-------------------------------------+
| 24 to 65535 | Specification Required |
+----------------+-------------------------------------+
10.4. EDHOC Error Codes Registry
IANA is requested to create a new registry under the new registry
group "Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC)" as follows:
Registry Name: EDHOC Error Codes
Reference: [[this document]]
The columns of the registry are ERR_CODE, ERR_INFO Type, Description,
and Reference, where ERR_CODE is an integer, ERR_INFO is a CDDL
defined type, and Description is a text string. The initial contents
of the registry are shown in Figure 10. Error code 23 is Reserved.
+----------------+-------------------------------------+
| Range | Registration Procedures |
+================+=====================================+
| -65536 to -25 | Expert Review |
+----------------+-------------------------------------+
| -24 to 23 | Standards Action |
+----------------+-------------------------------------+
| 24 to 65535 | Expert Review |
+----------------+-------------------------------------+
10.5. EDHOC External Authorization Data Registry
IANA is requested to create a new registry under the new registry
group "Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC)" as follows:
Registry Name: EDHOC External Authorization Data
Reference: [[this document]]
The columns of the registry are Name, Label, Description, and
Reference, where Label is a non-negative integer and the other
columns are text strings. The initial contents of the registry is
shown in Figure 14. EAD label 23 is Reserved.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
+-----------+-------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Name | Label | Description | Reference |
+===========+=======+========================+===================+
| Padding | 0 | Randomly generated | [[this document]] |
| | | CBOR byte string | Section 3.8.1 |
+-----------+-------+------------------------+-------------------+
Figure 14: EAD labels.
+-------------+-------------------------------------+
| Range | Registration Procedures |
+=============+=====================================+
| 0 to 23 | Standards Action with Expert Review |
+-------------+-------------------------------------+
| 24 to 65535 | Specification Required |
+-------------+-------------------------------------+
10.6. COSE Header Parameters Registry
IANA is requested to register the following entries in the "COSE
Header Parameters" registry under the registry group "CBOR Object
Signing and Encryption (COSE)" (see Figure 15): The value of the
'kcwt' header parameter is a COSE Web Token (CWT) [RFC8392], and the
value of the 'kccs' header parameter is a CWT Claims Set (CCS), see
Section 1.4. The CWT/CCS must contain a COSE_Key in a 'cnf' claim
[RFC8747]. The Value Registry for this item is empty and omitted
from the table below.
+------+-------+---------------+------------------------------------+
| Name | Label | Value Type | Description |
+======+=======+===============+====================================+
| kcwt | TBD1 | COSE_Messages | A CBOR Web Token (CWT) containing |
| | | | a COSE_Key in a 'cnf' claim and |
| | | | possibly other claims. CWT is |
| | | | defined in RFC 8392. COSE_Messages |
| | | | is defined in RFC 9052. |
+------+-------+---------------+------------------------------------+
| kccs | TBD2 | map | A CWT Claims Set (CCS) containing |
| | | | a COSE_Key in a 'cnf' claim and |
| | | | possibly other claims. CCS is |
| | | | defined in RFC 8392. |
+------+-------+---------------+------------------------------------+
Figure 15: COSE header parameter labels.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
10.7. The Well-Known URI Registry
IANA is requested to add the well-known URI "edhoc" to the "Well-
Known URIs" registry.
* URI suffix: edhoc
* Change controller: IETF
* Specification document(s): [[this document]]
* Related information: None
10.8. Media Types Registry
IANA is requested to add the media types "application/edhoc+cbor-seq"
and "application/cid-edhoc+cbor-seq" to the "Media Types" registry.
10.8.1. application/edhoc+cbor-seq Media Type Registration
* Type name: application
* Subtype name: edhoc+cbor-seq
* Required parameters: N/A
* Optional parameters: N/A
* Encoding considerations: binary
* Security considerations: See Section 7 of this document.
* Interoperability considerations: N/A
* Published specification: [[this document]] (this document)
* Applications that use this media type: To be identified
* Fragment identifier considerations: N/A
* Additional information:
- Magic number(s): N/A
- File extension(s): N/A
- Macintosh file type code(s): N/A
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
* Person & email address to contact for further information: See
"Authors' Addresses" section.
* Intended usage: COMMON
* Restrictions on usage: N/A
* Author: See "Authors' Addresses" section.
* Change Controller: IESG
10.8.2. application/cid-edhoc+cbor-seq Media Type Registration
* Type name: application
* Subtype name: cid-edhoc+cbor-seq
* Required parameters: N/A
* Optional parameters: N/A
* Encoding considerations: binary
* Security considerations: See Section 7 of this document.
* Interoperability considerations: N/A
* Published specification: [[this document]] (this document)
* Applications that use this media type: To be identified
* Fragment identifier considerations: N/A
* Additional information:
- Magic number(s): N/A
- File extension(s): N/A
- Macintosh file type code(s): N/A
* Person & email address to contact for further information: See
"Authors' Addresses" section.
* Intended usage: COMMON
* Restrictions on usage: N/A
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
* Author: See "Authors' Addresses" section.
* Change Controller: IESG
10.9. CoAP Content-Formats Registry
IANA is requested to add the media types "application/edhoc+cbor-seq"
and "application/cid-edhoc+cbor-seq" to the "CoAP Content-Formats"
registry under the registry group "Constrained RESTful Environments
(CoRE) Parameters".
+--------------------------------+----------+------+-------------------+
| Media Type | Encoding | ID | Reference |
+================================+==========+======+===================+
| application/edhoc+cbor-seq | - | TBD5 | [[this document]] |
| application/cid-edhoc+cbor-seq | - | TBD6 | [[this document]] |
+--------------------------------+----------+------+-------------------+
Figure 16: CoAP Content-Format IDs
10.10. Resource Type (rt=) Link Target Attribute Values Registry
IANA is requested to add the resource type "core.edhoc" to the
"Resource Type (rt=) Link Target Attribute Values" registry under the
registry group "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters".
* Value: "core.edhoc"
* Description: EDHOC resource.
* Reference: [[this document]]
10.11. Expert Review Instructions
The IANA Registries established in this document are defined as
"Expert Review", "Specification Required" or "Standards Action with
Expert Review". This section gives some general guidelines for what
the experts should be looking for, but they are being designated as
experts for a reason so they should be given substantial latitude.
Expert reviewers should take into consideration the following points:
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
* Clarity and correctness of registrations. Experts are expected to
check the clarity of purpose and use of the requested entries.
Expert needs to make sure the values of algorithms are taken from
the right registry, when that is required. Experts should
consider requesting an opinion on the correctness of registered
parameters from relevant IETF working groups. Encodings that do
not meet these objective of clarity and completeness should not be
registered.
* Experts should take into account the expected usage of fields when
approving code point assignment. The length of the encoded value
should be weighed against how many code points of that length are
left, the size of device it will be used on, and the number of
code points left that encode to that size.
* Even for "Expert Review" specifications are recommended. When
specifications are not provided for a request where Expert Review
is the assignment policy, the description provided needs to have
sufficient information to verify the code points above.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3279] Bassham, L., Polk, W., and R. Housley, "Algorithms and
Identifiers for the Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile", RFC 3279, DOI 10.17487/RFC3279, April
2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3279>.
[RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3552>.
[RFC5116] McGrew, D., "An Interface and Algorithms for Authenticated
Encryption", RFC 5116, DOI 10.17487/RFC5116, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5116>.
[RFC5869] Krawczyk, H. and P. Eronen, "HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand
Key Derivation Function (HKDF)", RFC 5869,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5869, May 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5869>.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
[RFC6090] McGrew, D., Igoe, K., and M. Salter, "Fundamental Elliptic
Curve Cryptography Algorithms", RFC 6090,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6090, February 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6090>.
[RFC6960] Santesson, S., Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A.,
Galperin, S., and C. Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key
Infrastructure Online Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP",
RFC 6960, DOI 10.17487/RFC6960, June 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6960>.
[RFC6979] Pornin, T., "Deterministic Usage of the Digital Signature
Algorithm (DSA) and Elliptic Curve Digital Signature
Algorithm (ECDSA)", RFC 6979, DOI 10.17487/RFC6979, August
2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6979>.
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
[RFC7748] Langley, A., Hamburg, M., and S. Turner, "Elliptic Curves
for Security", RFC 7748, DOI 10.17487/RFC7748, January
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7748>.
[RFC7959] Bormann, C. and Z. Shelby, Ed., "Block-Wise Transfers in
the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7959,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7959, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7959>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8392] Jones, M., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and H. Tschofenig,
"CBOR Web Token (CWT)", RFC 8392, DOI 10.17487/RFC8392,
May 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8392>.
[RFC8410] Josefsson, S. and J. Schaad, "Algorithm Identifiers for
Ed25519, Ed448, X25519, and X448 for Use in the Internet
X.509 Public Key Infrastructure", RFC 8410,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8410, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8410>.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 69]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
[RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.
[RFC8613] Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz,
"Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
(OSCORE)", RFC 8613, DOI 10.17487/RFC8613, July 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8613>.
[RFC8724] Minaburo, A., Toutain, L., Gomez, C., Barthel, D., and JC.
Zuniga, "SCHC: Generic Framework for Static Context Header
Compression and Fragmentation", RFC 8724,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8724, April 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8724>.
[RFC8742] Bormann, C., "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
Sequences", RFC 8742, DOI 10.17487/RFC8742, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8742>.
[RFC8747] Jones, M., Seitz, L., Selander, G., Erdtman, S., and H.
Tschofenig, "Proof-of-Possession Key Semantics for CBOR
Web Tokens (CWTs)", RFC 8747, DOI 10.17487/RFC8747, March
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8747>.
[RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.
[RFC9052] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
Structures and Process", STD 96, RFC 9052,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9052, August 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9052>.
[RFC9053] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
Initial Algorithms", RFC 9053, DOI 10.17487/RFC9053,
August 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9053>.
[RFC9175] Amsüss, C., Preuß Mattsson, J., and G. Selander,
"Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP): Echo, Request-
Tag, and Token Processing", RFC 9175,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9175, February 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9175>.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 70]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
[RFC9360] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
Header Parameters for Carrying and Referencing X.509
Certificates", RFC 9360, DOI 10.17487/RFC9360, February
2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9360>.
11.2. Informative References
[Bruni18] Bruni, A., Sahl Jørgensen, T., Grønbech Petersen, T., and
C. Schürmann, "Formal Verification of Ephemeral Diffie-
Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC)", November 2018,
<https://www.springerprofessional.de/en/formal-
verification-of-ephemeral-diffie-hellman-over-cose-
edhoc/16284348>.
[CborMe] Bormann, C., "CBOR Playground", May 2018,
<https://cbor.me/>.
[CNSA] NSA, "Commercial National Security Algorithm Suite",
August 2015, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Commercial_National_Security_Algorithm_Suite>.
[CottierPointcheval22]
Cottier, B. and D. Pointcheval, "Security Analysis of the
EDHOC protocol", September 2022,
<https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.03599>.
[Degabriele11]
Degabriele, J. P., Lehmann, A., Paterson, K. G., Smart, N.
P., and M. Strefler, "On the Joint Security of Encryption
and Signature in EMV", December 2011,
<https://eprint.iacr.org/2011/615>.
[GuentherIlunga22]
Günther, F. and M. Ilunga, "Careful with MAc-then-SIGn: A
Computational Analysis of the EDHOC Lightweight
Authenticated Key Exchange Protocol", December 2022,
<https://eprint.iacr.org/2022/1705>.
[HKDFpaper]
Krawczyk, H., "Cryptographic Extraction and Key
Derivation: The HKDF Scheme", May 2010,
<https://eprint.iacr.org/2010/264.pdf>.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 71]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
[I-D.arkko-arch-internet-threat-model-guidance]
Arkko, J. and S. Farrell, "Internet Threat Model
Guidance", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-arkko-
arch-internet-threat-model-guidance-00, 12 July 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-arkko-arch-
internet-threat-model-guidance-00>.
[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-edhoc]
Palombini, F., Tiloca, M., Höglund, R., Hristozov, S., and
G. Selander, "Using Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE
(EDHOC) with the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
and Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
(OSCORE)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
core-oscore-edhoc-10, 29 November 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-
oscore-edhoc-10>.
[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-key-update]
Höglund, R. and M. Tiloca, "Key Update for OSCORE
(KUDOS)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
core-oscore-key-update-06, 23 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-
oscore-key-update-06>.
[I-D.ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert]
Mattsson, J. P., Selander, G., Raza, S., Höglund, J., and
M. Furuhed, "CBOR Encoded X.509 Certificates (C509
Certificates)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert-07, 20 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cose-
cbor-encoded-cert-07>.
[I-D.ietf-iotops-security-protocol-comparison]
Mattsson, J. P., Palombini, F., and M. Vučinić,
"Comparison of CoAP Security Protocols", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-iotops-security-protocol-
comparison-03, 23 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-iotops-
security-protocol-comparison-03>.
[I-D.ietf-lake-reqs]
Vučinić, M., Selander, G., Mattsson, J. P., and D. Garcia-
Carillo, "Requirements for a Lightweight AKE for OSCORE",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lake-reqs-04,
8 June 2020, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-lake-reqs-04>.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 72]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
[I-D.ietf-lake-traces]
Selander, G., Mattsson, J. P., Serafin, M., Tiloca, M.,
and M. Vučinić, "Traces of EDHOC", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lake-traces-08, 22 September
2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
lake-traces-08>.
[I-D.ietf-lwig-curve-representations]
Struik, R., "Alternative Elliptic Curve Representations",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lwig-curve-
representations-23, 21 January 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lwig-
curve-representations-23>.
[I-D.ietf-rats-eat]
Lundblade, L., Mandyam, G., O'Donoghue, J., and C.
Wallace, "The Entity Attestation Token (EAT)", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rats-eat-25, 15
January 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-rats-eat-25>.
[I-D.irtf-cfrg-det-sigs-with-noise]
Mattsson, J. P., Thormarker, E., and S. Ruohomaa,
"Deterministic ECDSA and EdDSA Signatures with Additional
Randomness", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-irtf-
cfrg-det-sigs-with-noise-00, 8 August 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-
det-sigs-with-noise-00>.
[I-D.selander-lake-authz]
Selander, G., Mattsson, J. P., Vučinić, M., Richardson,
M., and A. Schellenbaum, "Lightweight Authorization using
Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-selander-lake-authz-03, 7 July 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-selander-
lake-authz-03>.
[Jacomme23]
Jacomme, C., Klein, E., Kremer, S., and M. Racouchot, "A
comprehensive, formal and automated analysis of the EDHOC
protocol", October 2022,
<https://hal.inria.fr/hal-03810102/>.
[NISTPQC] "Post-Quantum Cryptography FAQs", August 2023,
<https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/post-quantum-cryptography/
faqs>.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 73]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
[Noise] Perrin, T., "The Noise Protocol Framework, Revision 34",
July 2018, <https://noiseprotocol.org/noise.html>.
[Norrman20]
Norrman, K., Sundararajan, V., and A. Bruni, "Formal
Analysis of EDHOC Key Establishment for Constrained IoT
Devices", September 2020,
<https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.11427>.
[RFC2986] Nystrom, M. and B. Kaliski, "PKCS #10: Certification
Request Syntax Specification Version 1.7", RFC 2986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2986, November 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2986>.
[RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.
[RFC6194] Polk, T., Chen, L., Turner, S., and P. Hoffman, "Security
Considerations for the SHA-0 and SHA-1 Message-Digest
Algorithms", RFC 6194, DOI 10.17487/RFC6194, March 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6194>.
[RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>.
[RFC7258] Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258, May
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258>.
[RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
(IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>.
[RFC7624] Barnes, R., Schneier, B., Jennings, C., Hardie, T.,
Trammell, B., Huitema, C., and D. Borkmann,
"Confidentiality in the Face of Pervasive Surveillance: A
Threat Model and Problem Statement", RFC 7624,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7624, August 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7624>.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 74]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
[RFC8366] Watsen, K., Richardson, M., Pritikin, M., and T. Eckert,
"A Voucher Artifact for Bootstrapping Protocols",
RFC 8366, DOI 10.17487/RFC8366, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8366>.
[RFC8376] Farrell, S., Ed., "Low-Power Wide Area Network (LPWAN)
Overview", RFC 8376, DOI 10.17487/RFC8376, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8376>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
[RFC8937] Cremers, C., Garratt, L., Smyshlyaev, S., Sullivan, N.,
and C. Wood, "Randomness Improvements for Security
Protocols", RFC 8937, DOI 10.17487/RFC8937, October 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8937>.
[RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>.
[RFC9147] Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The
Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version
1.3", RFC 9147, DOI 10.17487/RFC9147, April 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9147>.
[RFC9176] Amsüss, C., Ed., Shelby, Z., Koster, M., Bormann, C., and
P. van der Stok, "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE)
Resource Directory", RFC 9176, DOI 10.17487/RFC9176, April
2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9176>.
[RFC9397] Pei, M., Tschofenig, H., Thaler, D., and D. Wheeler,
"Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning (TEEP)
Architecture", RFC 9397, DOI 10.17487/RFC9397, July 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9397>.
[SECG] "Standards for Efficient Cryptography 1 (SEC 1)", May
2009, <https://www.secg.org/sec1-v2.pdf>.
[SIGMA] Krawczyk, H., "SIGMA - The 'SIGn-and-MAc' Approach to
Authenticated Diffie-Hellman and Its Use in the IKE-
Protocols", June 2003,
<https://www.iacr.org/cryptodb/archive/2003/
CRYPTO/1495/1495.pdf>.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 75]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
[SP-800-108]
Chen, L., "Recommendation for Key Derivation Using
Pseudorandom Functions", NIST Special Publication 800-108
Revision 1, August 2022,
<https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-108r1>.
[SP-800-56A]
Barker, E., Chen, L., Roginsky, A., Vassilev, A., and R.
Davis, "Recommendation for Pair-Wise Key-Establishment
Schemes Using Discrete Logarithm Cryptography",
NIST Special Publication 800-56A Revision 3, April 2018,
<https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-56Ar3>.
[SP800-185]
John Kelsey, Shu-jen Chang, and Ray Perlner, "SHA-3
Derived Functions cSHAKE, KMAC, TupleHash and
ParallelHash", NIST Special Publication 800-185, December
2016, <https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-185>.
[Thormarker21]
Thormarker, E., "On using the same key pair for Ed25519
and an X25519 based KEM", April 2021,
<https://eprint.iacr.org/2021/509.pdf>.
Appendix A. Use with OSCORE and Transfer over CoAP
This appendix describes how to derive an OSCORE security context when
EDHOC is used to key OSCORE, and how to transfer EDHOC messages over
CoAP. The use of CoAP or OSCORE with EDHOC is optional, but if you
are using CoAP or OSCORE, then certain normative requirements apply
as detailed in the subsections.
A.1. Deriving the OSCORE Security Context
This section specifies how to use EDHOC output to derive the OSCORE
security context.
After successful processing of EDHOC message_3, Client and Server
derive Security Context parameters for OSCORE as follows (see
Section 3.2 of [RFC8613]):
* The Master Secret and Master Salt SHALL be derived by using the
EDHOC_Exporter interface, see Section 4.2.1:
- The EDHOC Exporter Labels for deriving the OSCORE Master Secret
and the OSCORE Master Salt, are the uints 0 and 1,
respectively.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 76]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
- The context parameter is h'' (0x40), the empty CBOR byte
string.
- By default, oscore_key_length is the key length (in bytes) of
the application AEAD Algorithm of the selected cipher suite for
the EDHOC session. Also by default, oscore_salt_length has
value 8. The Initiator and Responder MAY agree out-of-band on
a longer oscore_key_length than the default, and on shorter or
longer than the default oscore_salt_length.
Master Secret = EDHOC_Exporter( 0, h'', oscore_key_length )
Master Salt = EDHOC_Exporter( 1, h'', oscore_salt_length )
* The AEAD Algorithm SHALL be the application AEAD algorithm of the
selected cipher suite for the EDHOC session.
* The HKDF Algorithm SHALL be the one based on the application hash
algorithm of the selected cipher suite for the EDHOC session. For
example, if SHA-256 is the application hash algorithm of the
selected cipher suite, HKDF SHA-256 is used as HKDF Algorithm in
the OSCORE Security Context.
* The relationship between identifiers in OSCORE and EDHOC is
specified in Section 3.3.3. The OSCORE Sender ID and Recipient ID
SHALL be determined by the EDHOC connection identifiers C_R and
C_I for the EDHOC session as shown in Figure 17.
+-----------------+------------------+---------------------+
| | OSCORE Sender ID | OSCORE Recipient ID |
+=================+==================+=====================+
| EDHOC Initiator | C_R | C_I |
+-----------------+------------------+---------------------+
| EDHOC Responder | C_I | C_R |
+-----------------+------------------+---------------------+
Figure 17: Usage of connection identifiers in OSCORE.
Client and Server SHALL use the parameters above to establish an
OSCORE Security Context, as per Section 3.2.1 of [RFC8613].
From then on, Client and Server retrieve the OSCORE protocol state
using the Recipient ID, and optionally other transport information
such as the 5-tuple.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 77]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
A.2. Transferring EDHOC over CoAP
This section specifies how EDHOC can be transferred as an exchange of
CoAP [RFC7252] messages. CoAP provides a reliable transport that can
preserve packet ordering, provides flow and congestion control, and
handles message duplication. CoAP can also perform fragmentation and
mitigate certain denial-of-service attacks. The underlying CoAP
transport should be used in reliable mode, in particular when
fragmentation is used, to avoid, e.g., situations with hanging
endpoints waiting for each other.
EDHOC may run with the Initiator either being CoAP client or CoAP
server. We denote the former by the "forward message flow" (see
Appendix A.2.1) and the latter by the "reverse message flow" (see
Appendix A.2.2). By default, we assume the forward message flow, but
the roles SHOULD be chosen to protect the most sensitive identity,
see Section 9.
According to this specification, EDHOC is transferred in POST
requests to the Uri-Path: "/.well-known/edhoc" (see Section 10.7),
and 2.04 (Changed) responses. An application may define its own path
that can be discovered, e.g., using a resource directory [RFC9176].
Client applications can use the resource type "core.edhoc" to
discover a server's EDHOC resource, i.e., where to send a request for
executing the EDHOC protocol, see Section 10.10. An alternative
transfer of the forward message flow is specified in
[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-edhoc].
In order for the server to correlate a message received from a client
to a message previously sent in the same EDHOC session over CoAP,
messages sent by the client SHALL be prepended with the CBOR
serialization of the connection identifier which the server has
selected, see Section 3.4.1. This applies both to the forward and
the reverse message flows. To indicate a new EDHOC session in the
forward message flow, message_1 SHALL be prepended with the CBOR
simple value true (0xf5). Even if CoAP is carried over a reliable
transport protocol such as TCP, the prepending of identifiers
specified here SHALL be practiced to enable interoperability
independent of how CoAP is transported.
The prepended identifiers are encoded in CBOR and thus self-
delimiting. The representation of identifiers described in
Section 3.3.2 SHALL be used. They are sent in front of the actual
EDHOC message to keep track of messages in an EDHOC session, and only
the part of the body following the identifier is used for EDHOC
processing. In particular, the connection identifiers within the
EDHOC messages are not impacted by the prepended identifiers.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 78]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
An EDHOC message has media type application/edhoc+cbor-seq, whereas
an EDHOC message prepended by a connection identifier has media type
application/cid-edhoc+cbor-seq, see Section 10.9.
To mitigate certain denial-of-service attacks, the CoAP server MAY
respond to the first POST request with a 4.01 (Unauthorized)
containing an Echo option [RFC9175]. This forces the Initiator to
demonstrate reachability at its apparent network address. If message
fragmentation is needed, the EDHOC messages may be fragmented using
the CoAP Block-Wise Transfer mechanism [RFC7959].
EDHOC error messages need to be transported in response to a message
that failed (see Section 6). EDHOC error messages transported with
CoAP are carried in the payload.
Note that the transport over CoAP can serve as a blueprint for other
client-server protocols:
* The client prepends the connection identifier selected by the
server (or, for message_1, the CBOR simple value true) to any
request message it sends.
* The server does not send any such indicator, as responses are
matched to request by the client-server protocol design.
A.2.1. The Forward Message Flow
In the forward message flow the CoAP client is the Initiator and the
CoAP server is the Responder. This flow protects the client identity
against active attackers and the server identity against passive
attackers.
In the forward message flow, the CoAP Token enables correlation on
the Initiator (client) side, and the prepended C_R enables
correlation on the Responder (server) side.
* EDHOC message_1 is sent in the payload of a POST request from the
client to the server's resource for EDHOC, prepended with the
identifier true (0xf5) indicating a new EDHOC session.
* EDHOC message_2 or the EDHOC error message is sent from the server
to the client in the payload of the response, in the former case
with response code 2.04 (Changed), in the latter with response
code as specified in Appendix A.2.3.
* EDHOC message_3 or the EDHOC error message is sent from the client
to the server's resource in the payload of a POST request,
prepended with the connection identifier C_R.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 79]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
* If EDHOC message_4 is used, or in case of an error message, it is
sent from the server to the client in the payload of the response,
with response codes analogously to message_2. In case of an error
message sent in response to message_4, it is sent analogously to
error message sent in response to message_2.
An example of a completed EDHOC session over CoAP in the forward
message flow is shown in Figure 18.
Client Server
| |
+--------->| Header: POST (Code=0.02)
| POST | Uri-Path: "/.well-known/edhoc"
| | Content-Format: application/cid-edhoc+cbor-seq
| | Payload: true, EDHOC message_1
| |
|<---------+ Header: 2.04 Changed
| 2.04 | Content-Format: application/edhoc+cbor-seq
| | Payload: EDHOC message_2
| |
+--------->| Header: POST (Code=0.02)
| POST | Uri-Path: "/.well-known/edhoc"
| | Content-Format: application/cid-edhoc+cbor-seq
| | Payload: C_R, EDHOC message_3
| |
|<---------+ Header: 2.04 Changed
| 2.04 | Content-Format: application/edhoc+cbor-seq
| | Payload: EDHOC message_4
| |
Figure 18: Example of the forward message flow.
The forward message flow of EDHOC can be combined with an OSCORE
exchange in a total of two round-trips, see
[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-edhoc].
A.2.2. The Reverse Message Flow
In the reverse message flow the CoAP client is the Responder and the
CoAP server is the Initiator. This flow protects the server identity
against active attackers and the client identity against passive
attackers.
In the reverse message flow, the CoAP Token enables correlation on
the Responder (client) side, and the prepended C_I enables
correlation on the Initiator (server) side.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 80]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
* To trigger a new EDHOC session, the client makes an empty POST
request to the server's resource for EDHOC.
* EDHOC message_1 is sent from the server to the client in the
payload of the response with response code 2.04 (Changed).
* EDHOC message_2 or the EDHOC error message is sent from the client
to the server's resource in the payload of a POST request,
prepended with the connection identifier C_I.
* EDHOC message_3 or the EDHOC error message is sent from the server
to the client in the payload of the response, in the former case
with response code 2.04 (Changed), in the latter with response
code as specified in Appendix A.2.3.
* If EDHOC message_4 is used, or in case of an error message, it is
sent from the client to the server's resource in the payload of a
POST request, prepended with the connection identifier C_I. In
case of an error message sent in response to message_4, it is sent
analogously to an error message sent in response to message_2.
An example of a completed EDHOC session over CoAP in the reverse
message flow is shown in Figure 19.
Client Server
| |
+--------->| Header: POST (Code=0.02)
| POST | Uri-Path: "/.well-known/edhoc"
| |
|<---------+ Header: 2.04 Changed
| 2.04 | Content-Format: application/edhoc+cbor-seq
| | Payload: EDHOC message_1
| |
+--------->| Header: POST (Code=0.02)
| POST | Uri-Path: "/.well-known/edhoc"
| | Content-Format: application/cid-edhoc+cbor-seq
| | Payload: C_I, EDHOC message_2
| |
|<---------+ Header: 2.04 Changed
| 2.04 | Content-Format: application/edhoc+cbor-seq
| | Payload: EDHOC message_3
| |
Figure 19: Example of the reverse message flow.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 81]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
A.2.3. Errors in EDHOC over CoAP
When using EDHOC over CoAP, EDHOC error messages sent as CoAP
responses MUST be sent in the payload of error responses, i.e., they
MUST specify a CoAP error response code. In particular, it is
RECOMMENDED that such error responses have response code either 4.00
(Bad Request) in case of client error (e.g., due to a malformed EDHOC
message), or 5.00 (Internal Server Error) in case of server error
(e.g., due to failure in deriving EDHOC keying material). The
Content-Format of the error response MUST be set to application/
edhoc+cbor-seq, see Section 10.9.
Appendix B. Compact Representation
This section defines a format for compact representation based on the
Elliptic-Curve-Point-to-Octet-String Conversion defined in
Section 2.3.3 of [SECG].
As described in Section 4.2 of [RFC6090] the x-coordinate of an
elliptic curve public key is a suitable representative for the entire
point whenever scalar multiplication is used as a one-way function.
One example is ECDH with compact output, where only the x-coordinate
of the computed value is used as the shared secret.
In EDHOC, compact representation is used for the ephemeral public
keys (G_X and G_Y), see Section 3.7. Using the notation from [SECG],
the output is an octet string of length ceil( (log2 q) / 8 ), where
ceil(x) is the smallest integer not less than x. See [SECG] for a
definition of q, M, X, xp, and ~yp. The steps in Section 2.3.3 of
[SECG] are replaced by:
1. Convert the field element xp to an octet string X of length ceil(
(log2 q) / 8 ) octets using the conversion routine specified in
Section 2.3.5 of [SECG].
2. Output M = X
The encoding of the point at infinity is not supported.
Compact representation does not change any requirements on
validation, see Section 9.2. Using compact representation has some
security benefits. An implementation does not need to check that the
point is not the point at infinity (the identity element).
Similarly, as not even the sign of the y-coordinate is encoded,
compact representation trivially avoids so-called "benign
malleability" attacks where an attacker changes the sign, see [SECG].
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 82]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
The following may be needed for validation or compatibility with APIs
that do not support compact representation or do not support the full
[SECG] format:
* If a compressed y-coordinate is required, then the value ~yp set
to zero can be used. The compact representation described above
can in such a case be transformed into the SECG point compressed
format by prepending it with the single byte 0x02 (i.e., M =
0x02 || X).
* If an uncompressed y-coordinate is required, then a y-coordinate
has to be calculated following Section 2.3.4 of [SECG] or
Appendix C of [RFC6090]. Any of the square roots (see [SECG] or
[RFC6090]) can be used. The uncompressed SECG format is M =
0x04 || X || Y.
For example: The curve P-256 has the parameters (using the notation
in [RFC6090])
* p = 2^256 − 2^224 + 2^192 + 2^96 − 1
* a = -3
* b = 410583637251521421293261297800472684091144410159937255
54835256314039467401291
Given an example x:
* x = 115792089183396302095546807154740558443406795108653336
398970697772788799766525
we can calculate y as the square root w = (x^3 + a ⋅ x + b)^((p +
1)/4) (mod p)
* y = 834387180070192806820075864918626005281451259964015754
16632522940595860276856
Note that this does not guarantee that (x, y) is on the correct
elliptic curve. A full validation according to Section 5.6.2.3.3 of
[SP-800-56A] can be achieved by also checking that 0 ≤ x < p and that
y^2 ≡ x^3 + a ⋅ x + b (mod p).
Appendix C. Use of CBOR, CDDL, and COSE in EDHOC
This Appendix is intended to help implementors not familiar with CBOR
[RFC8949], CDDL [RFC8610], COSE [RFC9052], and HKDF [RFC5869].
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 83]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
C.1. CBOR and CDDL
The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC8949] is a data
format designed for small code size and small message size. CBOR
builds on the JSON data model but extends it by e.g., encoding binary
data directly without base64 conversion. In addition to the binary
CBOR encoding, CBOR also has a diagnostic notation that is readable
and editable by humans. The Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL)
[RFC8610] provides a way to express structures for protocol messages
and APIs that use CBOR. [RFC8610] also extends the diagnostic
notation.
CBOR data items are encoded to or decoded from byte strings using a
type-length-value encoding scheme, where the three highest order bits
of the initial byte contain information about the major type. CBOR
supports several types of data items, in addition to integers (int,
uint), simple values, byte strings (bstr), and text strings (tstr),
CBOR also supports arrays [] of data items, maps {} of pairs of data
items, and sequences [RFC8742] of data items. Some examples are
given below.
The EDHOC specification sometimes use CDDL names in CBOR diagnostic
notation as in e.g., << ID_CRED_R, ? EAD_2 >>. This means that EAD_2
is optional and that ID_CRED_R and EAD_2 should be substituted with
their values before evaluation. I.e., if ID_CRED_R = { 4 : h'' } and
EAD_2 is omitted then << ID_CRED_R, ? EAD_2 >> = << { 4 : h'' } >>,
which encodes to 0x43a10440. We also make use of the occurrence
symbol "*", like in e.g., 2* int, meaning two or more CBOR integers.
For a complete specification and more examples, see [RFC8949] and
[RFC8610]. We recommend implementors get used to CBOR by using the
CBOR playground [CborMe].
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 84]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
Diagnostic Encoded Type
-----------------------------------------------------------
1 0x01 unsigned integer
24 0x1818 unsigned integer
-24 0x37 negative integer
-25 0x3818 negative integer
true 0xf5 simple value
h'' 0x40 byte string
h'12cd' 0x4212cd byte string
'12cd' 0x4431326364 byte string
"12cd" 0x6431326364 text string
{ 4 : h'cd' } 0xa10441cd map
<< 1, 2, true >> 0x430102f5 byte string
[ 1, 2, true ] 0x830102f5 array
( 1, 2, true ) 0x0102f5 sequence
1, 2, true 0x0102f5 sequence
-----------------------------------------------------------
Figure 20: Examples of use of CBOR and CDDL.
C.2. CDDL Definitions
This section compiles the CDDL definitions for ease of reference.
suites = [ 2* int ] / int
ead = (
ead_label : int,
? ead_value : bstr,
)
EAD_1 = 1* ead
EAD_2 = 1* ead
EAD_3 = 1* ead
EAD_4 = 1* ead
message_1 = (
METHOD : int,
SUITES_I : suites,
G_X : bstr,
C_I : bstr / -24..23,
? EAD_1,
)
message_2 = (
G_Y_CIPHERTEXT_2 : bstr,
)
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 85]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
PLAINTEXT_2 = (
C_R,
ID_CRED_R : map / bstr / -24..23,
Signature_or_MAC_2 : bstr,
? EAD_2,
)
message_3 = (
CIPHERTEXT_3 : bstr,
)
PLAINTEXT_3 = (
ID_CRED_I : map / bstr / -24..23,
Signature_or_MAC_3 : bstr,
? EAD_3,
)
message_4 = (
CIPHERTEXT_4 : bstr,
)
PLAINTEXT_4 = (
? EAD_4,
)
error = (
ERR_CODE : int,
ERR_INFO : any,
)
info = (
info_label : int,
context : bstr,
length : uint,
)
C.3. COSE
CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) [RFC9052] describes how to
create and process signatures, message authentication codes, and
encryption using CBOR. COSE builds on JOSE, but is adapted to allow
more efficient processing in constrained devices. EDHOC makes use of
COSE_Key, COSE_Encrypt0, and COSE_Sign1 objects in the message
processing:
* ECDH ephemeral public keys of type EC2 or OKP in message_1 and
message_2 consist of the COSE_Key parameter named 'x', see
Section 7.1 and 7.2 of [RFC9053]
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 86]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
* The ciphertexts in message_3 and message_4 consist of a subset of
the single recipient encrypted data object COSE_Encrypt0, which is
described in Sections 5.2-5.3 of [RFC9052]. The ciphertext is
computed over the plaintext and associated data, using an
encryption key and an initialization vector. The associated data
is an Enc_structure consisting of protected headers and externally
supplied data (external_aad). COSE constructs the input to the
AEAD [RFC5116] for message_i (i = 3 or 4, see Section 5.4 and
Section 5.5, respectively) as follows:
- Secret key K = K_i
- Nonce N = IV_i
- Plaintext P for message_i
- Associated Data A = [ "Encrypt0", h'', TH_i ]
* Signatures in message_2 of method 0 and 2, and in message_3 of
method 0 and 1, consist of a subset of the single signer data
object COSE_Sign1, which is described in Sections 4.2-4.4 of
[RFC9052]. The signature is computed over a Sig_structure
containing payload, protected headers and externally supplied data
(external_aad) using a private signature key and verified using
the corresponding public signature key. For COSE_Sign1, the
message to be signed is:
[ "Signature1", protected, external_aad, payload ]
where protected, external_aad and payload are specified in
Section 5.3 and Section 5.4.
Different header parameters to identify X.509 or C509 certificates by
reference are defined in [RFC9360] and
[I-D.ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert]:
* by a hash value with the 'x5t' or 'c5t' parameters, respectively:
- ID_CRED_x = { 34 : COSE_CertHash }, for x = I or R,
- ID_CRED_x = { TBD3 : COSE_CertHash }, for x = I or R;
* or by a URI with the 'x5u' or 'c5u' parameters, respectively:
- ID_CRED_x = { 35 : uri }, for x = I or R,
- ID_CRED_x = { TBD4 : uri }, for x = I or R.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 87]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
When ID_CRED_x does not contain the actual credential, it may be very
short, e.g., if the endpoints have agreed to use a key identifier
parameter 'kid':
* ID_CRED_x = { 4 : kid_x }, where kid_x : kid, for x = I or R. For
further optimization, see Section 3.5.3.
Note that ID_CRED_x can contain several header parameters, for
example { x5u, x5t } or { kid, kid_context }.
ID_CRED_x MAY also identify the credential by value. For example, a
certificate chain can be transported in an ID_CRED field with COSE
header parameter c5c or x5chain, defined in
[I-D.ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert] and [RFC9360] and credentials of
type CWT and CCS can be transported with the COSE header parameters
registered in Section 10.6.
Appendix D. Authentication Related Verifications
EDHOC performs certain authentication related operations, see
Section 3.5, but in general it is necessary to make additional
verifications beyond EDHOC message processing. Which verifications
that are needed depend on the deployment, in particular the trust
model and the security policies, but most commonly it can be
expressed in terms of verifications of credential content.
EDHOC assumes the existence of mechanisms (certification authority or
other trusted third party, pre-provisioning, etc.) for generating and
distributing authentication credentials and other credentials, as
well as the existence of trust anchors (CA certificates, trusted
public keys, etc.). For example, a public key certificate or CWT may
rely on a trusted third party whose public key is pre-provisioned,
whereas a CCS or a self-signed certificate/CWT may be used when trust
in the public key can be achieved by other means, or in the case of
Trust on first use, see Appendix D.5.
In this section we provide some examples of such verifications.
These verifications are the responsibility of the application but may
be implemented as part of an EDHOC library.
D.1. Validating the Authentication Credential
The authentication credential may contain, in addition to the
authentication key, other parameters that needs to be verified. For
example:
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 88]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
* In X.509 and C509 certificates, signature keys typically have key
usage "digitalSignature" and Diffie-Hellman public keys typically
have key usage "keyAgreement" [RFC3279][RFC8410].
* In X.509 and C509 certificates validity is expressed using Not
After and Not Before. In CWT and CCS, the “exp” and “nbf” claims
have similar meanings.
D.2. Identities
The application must decide on allowing a connection or not depending
on the intended endpoint, and in particular whether it is a specific
identity or in a set of identities. To prevent misbinding attacks,
the identity of the endpoint is included in a MAC verified through
the protocol. More details and examples are provided in this
section.
Policies for what connections to allow are typically set based on the
identity of the other endpoint, and endpoints typically only allow
connections from a specific identity or a small restricted set of
identities. For example, in the case of a device connecting to a
network, the network may only allow connections from devices which
authenticate with certificates having a particular range of serial
numbers and signed by a particular CA. Conversely, a device may only
be allowed to connect to a network which authenticates with a
particular public key.
* When a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) is used with certificates,
the identity is the subject whose unique name, e.g., a domain
name, a Network Access Identifier (NAI), or an Extended Unique
Identifier (EUI), is included in the endpoint's certificate.
* Similarly, when a PKI is used with CWTs, the identity is the
subject identified by the relevant claim(s), such as 'sub'
(subject).
* When PKI is not used (e.g., CCS, self-signed certificate/CWT) the
identity is typically directly associated with the authentication
key of the other party. For example, if identities can be
expressed in the form of unique subject names assigned to public
keys, then a binding to identity is achieved by including both
public key and associated subject name in the authentication
credential: CRED_I or CRED_R may be a self-signed certificate/CWT
or CCS containing the authentication key and the subject name, see
Section 3.5.2. Each endpoint thus needs to know the specific
authentication key/unique associated subject name, or set of
public authentication keys/unique associated subject names, which
it is allowed to communicate with.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 89]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
To prevent misbinding attacks in systems where an attacker can
register public keys without proving knowledge of the private key,
SIGMA [SIGMA] enforces a MAC to be calculated over the "identity".
EDHOC follows SIGMA by calculating a MAC over the whole
authentication credential, which in case of an X.509 or C509
certificate includes the "subject" and "subjectAltName" fields, and
in the case of CWT or CCS includes the "sub" claim.
(While the SIGMA paper only focuses on the identity, the same
principle is true for other information such as policies associated
with the public key.)
D.3. Certification Path and Trust Anchors
When a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) is used with certificates, the
trust anchor is a Certification Authority (CA) certificate. Each
party needs at least one CA public key certificate, or just the CA
public key. The certification path contains proof that the subject
of the certificate owns the public key in the certificate. Only
validated public-key certificates are to be accepted.
Similarly, when a PKI is used with CWTs, each party needs to have at
least one trusted third party public key as trust anchor to verify
the end entity CWTs. The trusted third party public key can, e.g.,
be stored in a self-signed CWT or in a CCS.
The signature of the authentication credential needs to be verified
with the public key of the issuer. X.509 and C509 certificates
includes the “Issuer” field. In CWT and CCS, the “iss” claim has a
similar meaning. The public key is either a trust anchor or the
public key in another valid and trusted credential in a certification
path from trust anchor to authentication credential.
Similar verifications as made with the authentication credential (see
Appendix D.1) are also needed for the other credentials in the
certification path.
When PKI is not used (CCS, self-signed certificate/CWT), the trust
anchor is the authentication key of the other party, in which case
there is no certification path.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 90]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
D.4. Revocation Status
The application may need to verify that the credentials are not
revoked, see Section 9.8. Some use cases may be served by short-
lived credentials, for example, where the validity of the credential
is on par with the interval between revocation checks. But, in
general, credential lifetime and revocation checking are
complementary measures to control credential status. Revocation
information may be transported as External Authentication Data (EAD),
see Appendix E.
D.5. Unauthenticated Operation
EDHOC might be used without authentication by allowing the Initiator
or Responder to communicate with any identity except its own. Note
that EDHOC without mutual authentication is vulnerable to active on-
path attacks and therefore unsafe for general use. However, it is
possible to later establish a trust relationship with an unknown or
not-yet-trusted endpoint. Some examples:
* The EDHOC authentication credential can be verified out-of-band at
a later stage.
* The EDHOC session key can be bound to an identity out-of-band at a
later stage.
* Trust on first use (TOFU) can be used to verify that several EDHOC
connections are made to the same identity. TOFU combined with
proximity is a common IoT deployment model which provides good
security if done correctly. Note that secure proximity based on
short range wireless technology requires very low signal strength
or very low latency.
Appendix E. Use of External Authorization Data
In order to reduce the number of messages and round trips, or to
simplify processing, external security applications may be integrated
into EDHOC by transporting related external authorization data (EAD)
in the messages.
The EAD format is specified in Section 3.8, this section contains
examples and further details of how EAD may be used with an
appropriate accompanying specification.
* One example is third party assisted authorization, requested with
EAD_1, and an authorization artifact (“voucher”, cf. [RFC8366])
returned in EAD_2, see [I-D.selander-lake-authz].
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 91]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
* Another example is remote attestation, requested in EAD_2, and an
Entity Attestation Token (EAT, [I-D.ietf-rats-eat]) returned in
EAD_3.
* A third example is certificate enrolment, where a Certificate
Signing Request (CSR, [RFC2986]) is included EAD_3, and the issued
public key certificate (X.509 [RFC5280], C509
[I-D.ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert]) or a reference thereof is
returned in EAD_4.
External authorization data should be considered unprotected by
EDHOC, and the protection of EAD is the responsibility of the
security application (third party authorization, remote attestation,
certificate enrolment, etc.). The security properties of the EAD
fields (after EDHOC processing) are discussed in Section 9.1.
The content of the EAD field may be used in the EDHOC processing of
the message in which they are contained. For example, authentication
related information like assertions and revocation information,
transported in EAD fields may provide input about trust anchors or
validity of credentials relevant to the authentication processing.
The EAD fields (like ID_CRED fields) are therefore made available to
the application before the message is verified, see details of
message processing in Section 5. In the first example above, a
voucher in EAD_2 made available to the application can enable the
Initiator to verify the identity or public key of the Responder
before verifying the signature. An application allowing EAD fields
containing authentication information thus may need to handle
authentication related verifications associated with EAD processing.
Conversely, the security application may need to wait for EDHOC
message verification to complete. In the third example above, the
validation of a CSR carried in EAD_3 is not started by the Responder
before EDHOC has successfully verified message_3 and proven the
possession of the private key of the Initiator.
The security application may reuse EDHOC protocol fields which
therefore need to be available to the application. For example, the
security application may use the same crypto algorithms as in the
EDHOC session and therefore needs access to the selected cipher suite
(or the whole SUITES_I). The application may use the ephemeral
public keys G_X and G_Y, as ephemeral keys or as nonces, see
[I-D.selander-lake-authz].
The processing of the EAD item (ead_label, ? ead_value) by the
security application needs to be described in the specification where
the ead_label is registered, see Section 10.5, including the optional
ead_value for each message and actions in case of errors. An
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 92]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
application may support multiple security applications that make use
of EAD, which may result in multiple EAD items in one EAD field, see
Section 3.8. Any dependencies on security applications with
previously registered EAD items needs to be documented, and the
processing needs to consider their simultaneous use.
Since data carried in EAD may not be protected, or be processed by
the application before the EDHOC message is verified, special
considerations need to be made such that it does not violate security
and privacy requirements of the service which uses this data, see
Section 9.5. The content in an EAD item may impact the security
properties provided by EDHOC. Security applications making use of
the EAD items must perform the necessary security analysis.
Appendix F. Application Profile Example
This appendix contains a rudimentary example of an application
profile, see Section 3.9.
For use of EDHOC with application X the following assumptions are
made:
1. Transfer in CoAP as specified in Appendix A.2 with requests
expected by the CoAP server (= Responder) at /app1-edh, no
Content-Format needed.
2. METHOD = 1 (I uses signature key, R uses static DH key.)
3. CRED_I is an IEEE 802.1AR IDevID encoded as a C509 certificate of
type 0 [I-D.ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert].
* R acquires CRED_I out-of-band, indicated in EAD_1.
* ID_CRED_I = {4: h''} is a 'kid' with value the empty CBOR byte
string.
4. CRED_R is a CCS of type OKP as specified in Section 3.5.2.
* The CBOR map has parameters 1 (kty), -1 (crv), and -2
(x-coordinate).
* ID_CRED_R is {TBD2 : CCS}. Editor's note: TBD2 is the COSE
header parameter value of 'kccs', see Section 10.6
5. External authorization data is defined and processed as specified
in [I-D.selander-lake-authz].
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 93]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
6. EUI-64 is used as the identity of the endpoint (see example in
Section 3.5.2).
7. No use of message_4: the application sends protected messages
from R to I.
Appendix G. Long PLAINTEXT_2
By the definition of encryption of PLAINTEXT_2 with KEYSTREAM_2, it
is limited to lengths of PLAINTEXT_2 not exceeding the output of
EDHOC_KDF, see Section 4.1.2. If the EDHOC hash algorithm is SHA-2
then HKDF-Expand is used, which limits the length of the EDHOC_KDF
output to 255 ⋅ hash_length, where hash_length is the length of the
output of the EDHOC hash algorithm given by the cipher suite. For
example, with SHA-256 as EDHOC hash algorithm, the length of the hash
output is 32 bytes and the maximum length of PLAINTEXT_2 is 255 ⋅ 32
= 8160 bytes.
While PLAINTEXT_2 is expected to be much shorter than 8 kB for the
intended use cases, it seems nevertheless prudent to specify a
solution for the event that this should turn out to be a limitation.
A potential work-around is to use a cipher suite with a different
hash function. In particular, the use of KMAC removes all practical
limitations in this respect.
This section specifies a solution which works with any hash function,
by making use of multiple invocations of HKDF-Expand and negative
values of info_label.
Consider the PLAINTEXT_2 partitioned in parts P(i) of length equal to
M = 255 ⋅ hash_length, except possibly the last part P(last) which
has 0 < length ≤ M.
PLAINTEXT_2 = P(0) | P(1) | ... | P(last)
where | indicates concatenation.
The object is to define a matching KEYSTREAM_2 of the same length and
perform the encryption in the same way as defined in Section 5.3.2:
CIPHERTEXT_2 = PLAINTEXT_2 XOR KEYSTREAM_2
Define the keystream as:
KEYSTREAM_2 = OKM(0) | OKM(1) | ... | OKM(last)
where
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 94]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
OKM(i) = EDHOC_KDF( PRK_2e, -i, TH_2, length(P(i)) )
Note that if length(PLAINTEXT_2) ≤ M then P(0) = PLAINTEXT_2 and the
definition of KEYSTREAM_2 = OKM(0) coincides with Figure 8.
This describes the processing of the Responder when sending
message_2. The Initiator makes the same calculations when receiving
message_2, but interchanging PLAINTEXT_2 and CIPHERTEXT_2.
An application profile may specify if it supports or not the method
described in this appendix.
Appendix H. EDHOC_KeyUpdate
To provide forward secrecy in an even more efficient way than re-
running EDHOC, this section specifies the optional function
EDHOC_KeyUpdate in terms of EDHOC_KDF and PRK_out.
When EDHOC_KeyUpdate is called, a new PRK_out is calculated as a
"hash" of the old PRK_out using the EDHOC_Expand function as
illustrated by the following pseudocode. The change of PRK_out
causes a change to PRK_exporter which enables the derivation of new
application keys superseding the old ones, using EDHOC_Exporter, see
Section 4.2.1.
EDHOC_KeyUpdate( context ):
new PRK_out = EDHOC_KDF( old PRK_out, 11, context, hash_length )
new PRK_exporter = EDHOC_KDF( new PRK_out, 10, h'', hash_length )
where hash_length denotes the output size in bytes of the EDHOC hash
algorithm of the selected cipher suite.
The EDHOC_KeyUpdate takes a context as input to enable binding of the
updated PRK_out to some event that triggered the key update. The
Initiator and the Responder need to agree on the context, which can,
e.g., be a counter, a pseudorandom number, or a hash. To provide
forward secrecy the old PRK_out and keys derived from it (old
PRK_exporter and old application keys) must be deleted as soon as
they are not needed. When to delete the old keys and how to verify
that they are not needed is up to the application.
An application using EDHOC_KeyUpdate needs to store PRK_out.
Compromise of PRK_out leads to compromise of all keying material
derived with the EDHOC_Exporter since the last invocation of the
EDHOC_KeyUpdate function.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 95]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
While this key update method provides forward secrecy it does not
give as strong security properties as re-running EDHOC.
EDHOC_KeyUpdate can be used to meet cryptographic limits and provide
partial protection against key leakage, but it provides significantly
weaker security properties than re-running EDHOC with ephemeral
Diffie-Hellman. Even with frequent use of EDHOC_KeyUpdate,
compromise of one session key compromises all future session keys,
and an attacker therefore only needs to perform static key
exfiltration [RFC7624], which is less complicated and has a lower
risk profile than the dynamic case, see Section 9.1.
A similar method to do key update for OSCORE is KUDOS, see
[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-key-update].
Appendix I. Example Protocol State Machine
This appendix describes an example protocol state machine for the
Initiator and for the Responder. States are denoted in all capitals
and parentheses denote actions taken only in some circumstances.
Note that this state machine is just an example, and that details of
processing are omitted, for example:
* When error messages are being sent (with one exception)
* How credentials and EAD are processed by EDHOC and the application
in the RCVD state
* What verifications are made, which includes not only MACs and
signatures
I.1. Initiator State Machine
The Initiator sends message_1, triggering the state machine to
transition from START to WAIT_M2, and waits for message_2.
If the incoming message is an error message then the Initiator
transitions from WAIT_M2 to ABORTED. In case of error code 2 (Wrong
Selected Cipher Suite), the Initiator remembers the supported cipher
suites for this particular Responder and transitions from ABORTED to
START. The message_1 that the Initiator subsequently sends takes
into account the cipher suites supported by the Responder.
Upon receiving a non-error message, the Initiator transitions from
WAIT_M2 to RCVD_M2 and processes the message. If a processing error
occurs on message_2, then the Initiator transitions from RCVD_M2 to
ABORTED. In case of successful processing of message_2, the
Initiator transitions from RCVD_M2 to VRFD_M2.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 96]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
The Initiator prepares and processes message_3 for sending. If any
processing error is encountered, the Initiator transitions from
VRFD_M2 to ABORTED. If message_3 is successfully sent, the Initiator
transitions from VRFD_M2 to COMPLETED.
If the application profile includes message_4, then the Initiator
waits for message_4. If the incoming message is an error message
then the Initiator transitions from COMPLETED to ABORTED. Upon
receiving a non-error message, the Initiator transitions from
COMPLETED (="WAIT_M4") to RCVD_M4 and processes the message. If a
processing error occurs on message_4, then the Initiator transitions
from RCVD_M4 to ABORTED. In case of successful processing of
message_4, the Initiator transitions from RCVD_M4 to PERSISTED
(="VRFD_M4").
If the application profile does not include message_4, then the
Initiator waits for an incoming application message. If the
decryption and verification of the application message is successful,
then the Initiator transitions from COMPLETED to PERSISTED.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 97]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
+- - - - - - - - - -> START
| |
| Send message_1
| |
Receive error v
ABORTED <---------------- WAIT_M2
^ |
| | Receive message_2
| |
| Processing error v
+-------------------- RCVD_M2
^ |
| | Verify message_2
| |
| Processing error v
+-------------------- VRFD_M2
^ |
| | Send message_3
| |
| (Receive error) v
+-------------------- COMPLETED ----------------+
^ | |
| | (Receive message_4) |
| | |
| (Processing error) v | (Verify
+------------------- (RCVD_M4) | application
| | message)
| (Verify message_4) |
| |
v |
PERSISTED <---------------+
I.2. Responder State Machine
Upon receiving message_1, the Responder transitions from START to
RCVD_M1.
If a processing error occurs on message_1, the Responder transitions
from RCVD_M1 to ABORTED. This includes sending error message with
error code 2 (Wrong Selected Cipher Suite) if the selected cipher
suite in message_1 is not supported. In case of successful
processing of message_1, the Responder transitions from RCVD_M1 to
VRFD_M1.
The Responder prepares and processes message_2 for sending. If any
processing error is encountered, the Responder transitions from
VRFD_M1 to ABORTED. If message_2 is successfully sent, the Initiator
transitions from VRFD_M2 to WAIT_M3, and waits for message_3.
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 98]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
If the incoming message is an error message then the Responder
transitions from WAIT_M3 to ABORTED.
Upon receiving message_3, the Responder transitions from WAIT_M3 to
RCVD_M3. If a processing error occurs on message_3, the Responder
transitions from RCVD_M3 to ABORTED. In case of successful
processing of message_3, the Responder transitions from RCVD_M3 to
COMPLETED (="VRFD_M3").
If the application profile includes message_4, the Responder prepares
and processes message_4 for sending. If any processing error is
encountered, the Responder transitions from COMPLETED to ABORTED.
If message_4 is successfully sent, or if the application profile does
not include message_4, the Responder transitions from COMPLETED to
PERSISTED.
START
|
| Receive message_1
|
Processing error v
ABORTED <---------------- RCVD_M1
^ |
| | Verify message_1
| |
| Processing error v
+-------------------- VRFD_M1
^ |
| | Send message_2
| |
| Receive error v
+-------------------- WAIT_M3
^ |
| | Receive message_3
| |
| Processing error v
+-------------------- RCVD_M3
^ |
| | Verify message_3
| |
| (Processing error) v
+------------------- COMPLETED
|
| (Send message_4)
|
v
PERSISTED
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 99]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
Appendix J. Change Log
RFC Editor: Please remove this appendix.
* From -21 to -22
- Normative text on transport capabilities.
* From -20 to -21
- Recommendation to use chain instead of bag
- Improved text about
o denial-of-service
o deriving secret and non-secret randomness from the same KDF
instance
o practical security against quantum computers
- Clarifications, including
o several updates section 3.4. Transport
o descriptions in COSE IANA registration
o encoding in Figure 5, reading of Figure 17
- Removed term "dummy"
- Harmonizing captions
- Updated references
- Acknowledgments
* From -19 to -20
- C_R encrypted in message_2
- C_R removed from TH_2
- Error code for unknown referenced credential
- Error code 0 (success) explicitly reserved
- Message deduplication section moved from appendix to body
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 100]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
- Terminology
o discontinued -> aborted
o protocol run / exchange -> session
- Clarifications, in particular
o when to derive application keys
o the role of the application for authentication
- Security considerations for kccs and kcwt
- Updated references
* From -18 to -19
- Clarifications:
o Relation to SIGMA
o Role of Static DH
o Initiator and Responder roles
o Transport properties
o Construction of SUITES_I
o Message correlation, new subsection 3.4.1, replacing former
appendix H
o Role of description about long PLAINTEXT_2
o ead_label and ead_value
o Message processing (Section 5)
o Padding
o Cipher suite negotiation example
- Other updates:
o Improved and stricter normative text in Appendix A
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 101]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
o Naming and separate sections for the two message flows in
Appendix A: Forward/Reverse message flow,
o Table index style captions
o Aligning with COSE terminology: header map -> header_map
o Aligning terminology, use of "_" instead of "-"
o Prefixing "EDHOC_" to functions
o Updated list of security analysis papers
o New appendix with example state machine
o Acknowledgements
o Language improvements by native English speakers
o Updated IANA section with registration procedures
o New and updated references
o Removed appendix H
* From -17 to -18
- Padding realised as EAD with ead_label = 0, PAD fields removed
- Revised EAD syntax; ead is now EAD item; ead_value is now
optional
- Clarifications of
o Identifier representation
o Authentication credentials
o RPK
o Encoding of ID_CRED with kid
o Representation of public keys, y-coordinate of ephemeral
keys and validation
o Processing after completed protocol
o Making verifications available to the application
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 102]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
o Relation between EDHOC and OSCORE identifiers
- Terminology alignment in particular session / protocol;
discontinue / terminate
- Updated CDDL
- Additional unicode encodings
- Large number of nits from WGLC
* From -16 to -17
- EDHOC-KeyUpdate moved to appendix
- Updated peer awareness properties based on SIGMA
- Clarify use of random connection identifiers
- Editorials related to appendix about messages with long
PLAINTEXT_2
- Updated acknowledgments (have we forgotten someone else? please
send email)
* From -15 to -16
- TH_2 used as salt in the derivation of PRK_2e
- CRED_R/CRED_I included in TH_3/TH_4
- Distinguish label used in info, exporter or elsewhere
- New appendix for optional handling arbitrarily large message_2
o info_label type changed to int to support this
- Updated security considerations
- Implementation note about identifiers which are bstr/int
- Clarifications, especifically about compact representation
- Type bug fix in CDDL section
* From -14 to -15
- Connection identifiers and key identifiers are now byte strings
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 103]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
o Represented as CBOR bstr in the EDHOC message
+ Unless they happen to encode a one-byte CBOR int
o More examples
- EAD updates and details
o Definition of EAD item
o Definition of critical / non-critical EAD item
- New section in Appendix D: Unauthenticated Operation
- Clarifications
o Lengths used in EDHOC-KDF
o Key derivation from PRK_out
+ EDHOC-KeyUpdate and EDHOC-Exporter
o Padding
- Security considerations
o When a change in a message is detected
o Confidentiality in case of active attacks
o Connection identifiers should be unpredictable
o Maximum length of message_2
- Minor bugs
* From -13 to -14
- Merge of section 1.1 and 1.2
- Connection and key identifiers restricted to be byte strings
- Representation of byte strings as one-byte CBOR ints (-24..23)
- Simplified mapping between EDHOC and OSCORE identifiers
- Rewrite of 3.5
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 104]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
o Clarification of authentication related operations performed
by EDHOC
o Authentication related verifications, including old section
3.5.1, moved to new appendix D
- Rewrite of 3.8
o Move content about use of EAD to new appendix E
o ead_value changed to bstr
- EDHOC-KDF updated
o transcript_hash argument removed
o TH included in context argument
o label argument is now type uint, all labels replaced
- Key schedule updated
o New salts derived to avoid reuse of same key with expand and
extract
o PRK_4x3m renamed PRK_4e3m
o K_4 and IV_4 derived from PRK_4e3m
o New PRK: PRK_out derived from PRK_4e3m and TH_4
o Clarified main output of EDHOC is the shared secret PRK_out
o Exporter defined by EDHOC-KDF and new PRK PRK_exporter
derived from PRK_out
o Key update defined by Expand instead of Extract
- All applications of EDHOC-KDF in one place
- Update of processing
o EAD and ID_CRED passed to application when available
o identity verification and credential retrieval omitted in
protocol description
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 105]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
o Transcript hash defined by plaintext messages instead of
ciphertext
o Changed order of input to TH_2
o Removed general G_X checking against selfie-attacks
- Support for padding of plaintext
- Updated compliance requirements
- Updated security considerations
o Updated and more clear requirements on MAC length
o Clarification of key confirmation
o Forbid use of same key for signature and static DH
- Updated appendix on message deduplication
- Clarifications of
o connection identifiers
o cipher suites, including negotiation
o EAD
o Error messages
- Updated media types
- Applicability template renamed application profile
- Editorials
* From -12 to -13
- no changes
* From -12:
- Shortened labels to derive OSCORE key and salt
- ead_value changed to bstr
- Removed general G_X checking against selfie-attacks
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 106]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
- Updated and more clear requirements on MAC length
- Clarifications from Kathleen, Stephen, Marco, Sean, Stefan,
- Authentication Related Verifications moved to appendix
- Updated MTI section and cipher suite
- Updated security considerations
* From -11 to -12:
- Clarified applicability to KEMs
- Clarified use of COSE header parameters
- Updates on MTI
- Updated security considerations
- New section on PQC
- Removed duplicate definition of cipher suites
- Explanations of use of COSE moved to Appendix C.3
- Updated internal references
* From -10 to -11:
- Restructured section on authentication parameters
- Changed UCCS to CCS
- Changed names and description of COSE header parameters for
CWT/CCS
- Changed several of the KDF and Exporter labels
- Removed edhoc_aead_id from info (already in transcript_hash)
- Added MTI section
- EAD: changed CDDL names and added value type to registry
- Updated Figures 1, 2, and 3
- Some correction and clarifications
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 107]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
- Added core.edhoc to CoRE Resource Type registry
* From -09 to -10:
- SUITES_I simplified to only contain the selected and more
preferred suites
- Info is a CBOR sequence and context is a bstr
- Added kid to UCCS example
- Separate header parameters for CWT and UCCS
- CWT Confirmation Method kid extended to bstr / int
* From -08 to -09:
- G_Y and CIPHERTEXT_2 are now included in one CBOR bstr
- MAC_2 and MAC_3 are now generated with EDHOC-KDF
- Info field “context” is now general and explicit in EDHOC-KDF
- Restructured Section 4, Key Derivation
- Added EDHOC MAC length to cipher suite for use with static DH
- More details on the use of CWT and UCCS
- Restructured and clarified Section 3.5, Authentication
Parameters
- Replaced 'kid2' with extension of 'kid'
- EAD encoding now supports multiple ead types in one message
- Clarified EAD type
- Updated message sizes
- Replaced “perfect forward secrecy” with “forward secrecy”
- Updated security considerations
- Replaced prepended 'null' with 'true' in the CoAP transport of
message_1
- Updated CDDL definitions
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 108]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
- Expanded on the use of COSE
* From -07 to -08:
- Prepended C_x moved from the EDHOC protocol itself to the
transport mapping
- METHOD_CORR renamed to METHOD, corr removed
- Removed bstr_identifier and use bstr / int instead; C_x can now
be int without any implied bstr semantics
- Defined COSE header parameter 'kid2' with value type bstr / int
for use with ID_CRED_x
- Updated message sizes
- New cipher suites with AES-GCM and ChaCha20 / Poly1305
- Changed from one- to two-byte identifier of CNSA compliant
suite
- Separate sections on transport and connection id with further
sub-structure
- Moved back key derivation for OSCORE from draft-ietf-core-
oscore-edhoc
- OSCORE and CoAP specific processing moved to new appendix
- Message 4 section moved to message processing section
* From -06 to -07:
- Changed transcript hash definition for TH_2 and TH_3
- Removed "EDHOC signature algorithm curve" from cipher suite
- New IANA registry "EDHOC Exporter Label"
- New application defined parameter "context" in EDHOC-Exporter
- Changed normative language for failure from MUST to SHOULD send
error
- Made error codes non-negative and 0 for success
- Added detail on success error code
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 109]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
- Aligned terminology "protocol instance" -> "session"
- New appendix on compact EC point representation
- Added detail on use of ephemeral public keys
- Moved key derivation for OSCORE to draft-ietf-core-oscore-edhoc
- Additional security considerations
- Renamed "Auxililary Data" as "External Authorization Data"
- Added encrypted EAD_4 to message_4
* From -05 to -06:
- New section 5.2 "Message Processing Outline"
- Optional inital byte C_1 = null in message_1
- New format of error messages, table of error codes, IANA
registry
- Change of recommendation transport of error in CoAP
- Merge of content in 3.7 and appendix C into new section 3.7
"Applicability Statement"
- Requiring use of deterministic CBOR
- New section on message deduplication
- New appendix containin all CDDL definitions
- New appendix with change log
- Removed section "Other Documents Referencing EDHOC"
- Clarifications based on review comments
* From -04 to -05:
- EDHOC-Rekey-FS -> EDHOC-KeyUpdate
- Clarification of cipher suite negotiation
- Updated security considerations
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 110]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
- Updated test vectors
- Updated applicability statement template
* From -03 to -04:
- Restructure of section 1
- Added references to C509 Certificates
- Change in CIPHERTEXT_2 -> plaintext XOR KEYSTREAM_2 (test
vector not updated)
- "K_2e", "IV_2e" -> KEYSTREAM_2
- Specified optional message 4
- EDHOC-Exporter-FS -> EDHOC-Rekey-FS
- Less constrained devices SHOULD implement both suite 0 and 2
- Clarification of error message
- Added exporter interface test vector
* From -02 to -03:
- Rearrangements of section 3 and beginning of section 4
- Key derivation new section 4
- Cipher suites 4 and 5 added
- EDHOC-EXPORTER-FS - generate a new PRK_4x3m from an old one
- Change in CIPHERTEXT_2 -> COSE_Encrypt0 without tag (no change
to test vector)
- Clarification of error message
- New appendix C applicability statement
* From -01 to -02:
- New section 1.2 Use of EDHOC
- Clarification of identities
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 111]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
- New section 4.3 clarifying bstr_identifier
- Updated security considerations
- Updated text on cipher suite negotiation and key confirmation
- Test vector for static DH
* From -00 to -01:
- Removed PSK method
- Removed references to certificate by value
Acknowledgments
The authors want to thank Christian Amsüss, Alessandro Bruni,
Karthikeyan Bhargavan, Carsten Bormann, Timothy Claeys, Baptiste
Cottier, Roman Danyliw, Martin Disch, Martin Duke, Donald Eastlake,
Lars Eggert, Stephen Farrell, Loïc Ferreira, Theis Grønbech Petersen,
Felix Günther, Dan Harkins, Klaus Hartke, Russ Housley, Stefan
Hristozov, Marc Ilunga, Charlie Jacomme, Elise Klein, Erik Kline,
Steve Kremer, Alexandros Krontiris, Ilari Liusvaara, Rafa Marín-
López, Kathleen Moriarty, David Navarro, Karl Norrman, Salvador
Pérez, Radia Perlman, David Pointcheval, Maïwenn Racouchot, Eric
Rescorla, Michael Richardson, Thorvald Sahl Jørgensen, Zaheduzzaman
Sarker, Jim Schaad, Michael Scharf, Carsten Schürmann, John Scudder,
Ludwig Seitz, Brian Sipos, Stanislav Smyshlyaev, Valery Smyslov,
Peter van der Stok, Rene Struik, Vaishnavi Sundararajan, Erik
Thormarker, Marco Tiloca, Sean Turner, Michel Veillette, Mališa
Vučinić, Paul Wouters, and Lei Yan for reviewing and commenting on
intermediate versions of the draft. We are especially indebted to
the late Jim Schaad for his continuous reviewing and implementation
of early versions of this and other drafts.
Work on this document has in part been supported by the H2020 project
SIFIS-Home (grant agreement 952652).
Authors' Addresses
Göran Selander
Ericsson AB
SE-164 80 Stockholm
Sweden
Email: goran.selander@ericsson.com
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 112]
Internet-Draft EDHOC January 2024
John Preuß Mattsson
Ericsson AB
SE-164 80 Stockholm
Sweden
Email: john.mattsson@ericsson.com
Francesca Palombini
Ericsson AB
SE-164 80 Stockholm
Sweden
Email: francesca.palombini@ericsson.com
Selander, et al. Expires 25 July 2024 [Page 113]
