Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design
draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design
Network Working Group D. Stebila
Internet-Draft University of Waterloo
Intended status: Informational S. Fluhrer
Expires: 31 August 2023 Cisco Systems
S. Gueron
U. Haifa, Amazon Web Services
27 February 2023
Hybrid key exchange in TLS 1.3
draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design-06
Abstract
Hybrid key exchange refers to using multiple key exchange algorithms
simultaneously and combining the result with the goal of providing
security even if all but one of the component algorithms is broken.
It is motivated by transition to post-quantum cryptography. This
document provides a construction for hybrid key exchange in the
Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol version 1.3.
Discussion of this work is encouraged to happen on the TLS IETF
mailing list tls@ietf.org or on the GitHub repository which contains
the draft: https://github.com/dstebila/draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design.
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 31 August 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Stebila, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ietf-tls-hybrid-design February 2023
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
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Revision history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Motivation for use of hybrid key exchange . . . . . . . . 5
1.4. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.5. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Key encapsulation mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Construction for hybrid key exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Transmitting public keys and ciphertexts . . . . . . . . 10
3.3. Shared secret calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Defined Hybrid Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. Kyber version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2. Details of kyber components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. Related work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction
This document gives a construction for hybrid key exchange in TLS
1.3. The overall design approach is a simple, "concatenation"-based
approach: each hybrid key exchange combination should be viewed as a
single new key exchange method, negotiated and transmitted using the
existing TLS 1.3 mechanisms.
This document does not propose specific post-quantum mechanisms; see
Section 1.4 for more on the scope of this document.
Stebila, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ietf-tls-hybrid-design February 2023
1.1. Revision history
*RFC Editor's Note:* Please remove this section prior to
publication of a final version of this document.
Earlier versions of this document categorized various design
decisions one could make when implementing hybrid key exchange in TLS
1.3.
* draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design-06:
- Bump to version -06 to avoid expiry
* draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design-05:
- Define four hybrid key exchange methods
- Updates to reflect NIST's selection of Kyber
- Clarifications and rewordings based on working group comments
* draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design-04:
- Some wording changes
- Remove design considerations appendix
* draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design-03:
- Remove specific code point examples and requested codepoint
range for hybrid private use
- Change "Open questions" to "Discussion"
- Some wording changes
* draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design-02:
- Bump to version -02 to avoid expiry
* draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design-01:
- Forbid variable-length secret keys
- Use fixed-length KEM public keys/ciphertexts
* draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design-00:
Stebila, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ietf-tls-hybrid-design February 2023
- Allow key_exchange values from the same algorithm to be reused
across multiple KeyShareEntry records in the same ClientHello.
* draft-stebila-tls-hybrid-design-03:
- Add requirement for KEMs to provide protection against key
reuse.
- Clarify FIPS-compliance of shared secret concatenation method.
* draft-stebila-tls-hybrid-design-02:
- Design considerations from draft-stebila-tls-hybrid-design-00
and draft-stebila-tls-hybrid-design-01 are moved to the
appendix.
- A single construction is given in the main body.
* draft-stebila-tls-hybrid-design-01:
- Add (Comb-KDF-1) and (Comb-KDF-2) options.
- Add two candidate instantiations.
* draft-stebila-tls-hybrid-design-00: Initial version.
1.2. Terminology
For the purposes of this document, it is helpful to be able to divide
cryptographic algorithms into two classes:
* "Traditional" algorithms: Algorithms which are widely deployed
today, but which may be deprecated in the future. In the context
of TLS 1.3, examples of traditional key exchange algorithms
include elliptic curve Diffie--Hellman using secp256r1 or x25519,
or finite-field Diffie--Hellman.
* "Next-generation" (or "next-gen") algorithms: Algorithms which are
not yet widely deployed, but which may eventually be widely
deployed. An additional facet of these algorithms may be that we
have less confidence in their security due to them being
relatively new or less studied. This includes "post-quantum"
algorithms.
"Hybrid" key exchange, in this context, means the use of two (or
more) key exchange algorithms based on different cryptographic
assumptions, e.g., one traditional algorithm and one next-gen
algorithm, with the purpose of the final session key being secure as
Stebila, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ietf-tls-hybrid-design February 2023
long as at least one of the component key exchange algorithms remains
unbroken. When one of the algorithms is traditional and one of them
is postquantum, this is a Post-Quantum Traditional Hybrid Scheme
[I-D.driscoll-pqt-hybrid-terminology]; while this is the initial use
case for this draft, we do not limit this draft to that case. We use
the term "component" algorithms to refer to the algorithms combined
in a hybrid key exchange.
We note that some authors prefer the phrase "composite" to refer to
the use of multiple algorithms, to distinguish from "hybrid public
key encryption" in which a key encapsulation mechanism and data
encapsulation mechanism are combined to create public key encryption.
It is intended that the composite algorithms within a hybrid key
exchange are to be performed, that is, negotiated and transmitted,
within the TLS 1.3 handshake. Any out-of-band method of exchanging
keying material is considered out-of-scope.
The primary motivation of this document is preparing for post-quantum
algorithms. However, it is possible that public key cryptography
based on alternative mathematical constructions will be desired to
mitigate risks independent of the advent of a quantum computer, for
example because of a cryptanalytic breakthrough. As such we opt for
the more generic term "next-generation" algorithms rather than
exclusively "post-quantum" algorithms.
Note that TLS 1.3 uses the phrase "groups" to refer to key exchange
algorithms -- for example, the supported_groups extension -- since
all key exchange algorithms in TLS 1.3 are Diffie--Hellman-based. As
a result, some parts of this document will refer to data structures
or messages with the term "group" in them despite using a key
exchange algorithm that is not Diffie--Hellman-based nor a group.
1.3. Motivation for use of hybrid key exchange
A hybrid key exchange algorithm allows early adopters eager for post-
quantum security to have the potential of post-quantum security
(possibly from a less-well-studied algorithm) while still retaining
at least the security currently offered by traditional algorithms.
They may even need to retain traditional algorithms due to regulatory
constraints, for example FIPS compliance.
Ideally, one would not use hybrid key exchange: one would have
confidence in a single algorithm and parameterization that will stand
the test of time. However, this may not be the case in the face of
quantum computers and cryptanalytic advances more generally.
Stebila, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ietf-tls-hybrid-design February 2023
Many (though not all) post-quantum algorithms currently under
consideration are relatively new; they have not been subject to the
same depth of study as RSA and finite-field or elliptic curve
Diffie--Hellman, and thus the security community does not necessarily
have as much confidence in their fundamental security, or the
concrete security level of specific parameterizations.
Moreover, it is possible that after next-generation algorithms are
defined, and for a period of time thereafter, conservative users may
not have full confidence in some algorithms.
Some users may want to accelerate adoption of post-quantum
cryptography due to the threat of retroactive decryption: if a
cryptographic assumption is broken due to the advent of a quantum
computer or some other cryptanalytic breakthrough, confidentiality of
information can be broken retroactively by any adversary who has
passively recorded handshakes and encrypted communications. Hybrid
key exchange enables potential security against retroactive
decryption while not fully abandoning traditional cryptosystems.
As such, there may be users for whom hybrid key exchange is an
appropriate step prior to an eventual transition to next-generation
algorithms. Users should consider the confidence they have in each
hybrid component to assess that the hybrid system meets the desired
motivation.
1.4. Scope
This document focuses on hybrid ephemeral key exchange in TLS 1.3
[TLS13]. It intentionally does not address:
* Selecting which next-generation algorithms to use in TLS 1.3, or
algorithm identifiers or encoding mechanisms for next-generation
algorithms. This selection will be based on the recommendations
by the Crypto Forum Research Group (CFRG), which is currently
waiting for the results of the NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography
Standardization Project [NIST].
* Authentication using next-generation algorithms. While quantum
computers could retroactively decrypt previous sessions, session
authentication cannot be retroactively broken.
1.5. Goals
The primary goal of a hybrid key exchange mechanism is to facilitate
the establishment of a shared secret which remains secure as long as
as one of the component key exchange mechanisms remains unbroken.
Stebila, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ietf-tls-hybrid-design February 2023
In addition to the primary cryptographic goal, there may be several
additional goals in the context of TLS 1.3:
* *Backwards compatibility:* Clients and servers who are "hybrid-
aware", i.e., compliant with whatever hybrid key exchange standard
is developed for TLS, should remain compatible with endpoints and
middle-boxes that are not hybrid-aware. The three scenarios to
consider are:
1. Hybrid-aware client, hybrid-aware server: These parties should
establish a hybrid shared secret.
2. Hybrid-aware client, non-hybrid-aware server: These parties
should establish a traditional shared secret (assuming the
hybrid-aware client is willing to downgrade to traditional-
only).
3. Non-hybrid-aware client, hybrid-aware server: These parties
should establish a traditional shared secret (assuming the
hybrid-aware server is willing to downgrade to traditional-
only).
Ideally backwards compatibility should be achieved without extra
round trips and without sending duplicate information; see below.
* *High performance:* Use of hybrid key exchange should not be
prohibitively expensive in terms of computational performance. In
general this will depend on the performance characteristics of the
specific cryptographic algorithms used, and as such is outside the
scope of this document. See [PST] for preliminary results about
performance characteristics.
* *Low latency:* Use of hybrid key exchange should not substantially
increase the latency experienced to establish a connection.
Factors affecting this may include the following.
- The computational performance characteristics of the specific
algorithms used. See above.
- The size of messages to be transmitted. Public key and
ciphertext sizes for post-quantum algorithms range from
hundreds of bytes to over one hundred kilobytes, so this impact
can be substantial. See [PST] for preliminary results in a
laboratory setting, and [LANGLEY] for preliminary results on
more realistic networks.
- Additional round trips added to the protocol. See below.
Stebila, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ietf-tls-hybrid-design February 2023
* *No extra round trips:* Attempting to negotiate hybrid key
exchange should not lead to extra round trips in any of the three
hybrid-aware/non-hybrid-aware scenarios listed above.
* *Minimal duplicate information:* Attempting to negotiate hybrid
key exchange should not mean having to send multiple public keys
of the same type.
2. Key encapsulation mechanisms
This document models key agreement as key encapsulation mechanisms
(KEMs), which consist of three algorithms:
* KeyGen() -> (pk, sk): A probabilistic key generation algorithm,
which generates a public key pk and a secret key sk.
* Encaps(pk) -> (ct, ss): A probabilistic encapsulation algorithm,
which takes as input a public key pk and outputs a ciphertext ct
and shared secret ss.
* Decaps(sk, ct) -> ss: A decapsulation algorithm, which takes as
input a secret key sk and ciphertext ct and outputs a shared
secret ss, or in some cases a distinguished error value.
The main security property for KEMs is indistinguishability under
adaptive chosen ciphertext attack (IND-CCA2), which means that shared
secret values should be indistinguishable from random strings even
given the ability to have other arbitrary ciphertexts decapsulated.
IND-CCA2 corresponds to security against an active attacker, and the
public key / secret key pair can be treated as a long-term key or
reused. A common design pattern for obtaining security under key
reuse is to apply the Fujisaki--Okamoto (FO) transform [FO] or a
variant thereof [HHK].
A weaker security notion is indistinguishability under chosen
plaintext attack (IND-CPA), which means that the shared secret values
should be indistinguishable from random strings given a copy of the
public key. IND-CPA roughly corresponds to security against a
passive attacker, and sometimes corresponds to one-time key exchange.
Key exchange in TLS 1.3 is phrased in terms of Diffie--Hellman key
exchange in a group. DH key exchange can be modeled as a KEM, with
KeyGen corresponding to selecting an exponent x as the secret key and
computing the public key g^x; encapsulation corresponding to
selecting an exponent y, computing the ciphertext g^y and the shared
secret g^(xy), and decapsulation as computing the shared secret
g^(xy). See [HPKE] for more details of such Diffie--Hellman-based
key encapsulation mechanisms. Diffie--Hellman key exchange, when
Stebila, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ietf-tls-hybrid-design February 2023
viewed as a KEM, does not formally satisfy IND-CCA2 security, but is
still safe to use for ephemeral key exchange in TLS 1.3, see e.g.
[DOWLING].
TLS 1.3 does not require that ephemeral public keys be used only in a
single key exchange session; some implementations may reuse them, at
the cost of limited forward secrecy. As a result, any KEM used in
the manner described in this document MUST explicitly be designed to
be secure in the event that the public key is reused. Finite-field
and elliptic-curve Diffie--Hellman key exchange methods used in TLS
1.3 satisfy this criteria. For generic KEMs, this means satisfying
IND-CCA2 security or having a transform like the Fujisaki--Okamoto
transform [FO] [HHK] applied. While it is recommended that
implementations avoid reuse of KEM public keys, implementations that
do reuse KEM public keys MUST ensure that the number of reuses of a
KEM public key abides by any bounds in the specification of the KEM
or subsequent security analyses. Implementations MUST NOT reuse
randomness in the generation of KEM ciphertexts.
3. Construction for hybrid key exchange
3.1. Negotiation
Each particular combination of algorithms in a hybrid key exchange
will be represented as a NamedGroup and sent in the supported_groups
extension. No internal structure or grammar is implied or required
in the value of the identifier; they are simply opaque identifiers.
Each value representing a hybrid key exchange will correspond to an
ordered pair of two or more algorithms. For example, a future
document could specify that one identifier corresponds to
secp256r1+Kyber512, and another corresponds to x25519+Kyber512. (We
note that this is independent from future documents standardizing
solely post-quantum key exchange methods, which would have to be
assigned their own identifier.)
Specific values shall be standardized by IANA in the TLS Supported
Groups registry.
Stebila, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ietf-tls-hybrid-design February 2023
enum {
/* Elliptic Curve Groups (ECDHE) */
secp256r1(0x0017), secp384r1(0x0018), secp521r1(0x0019),
x25519(0x001D), x448(0x001E),
/* Finite Field Groups (DHE) */
ffdhe2048(0x0100), ffdhe3072(0x0101), ffdhe4096(0x0102),
ffdhe6144(0x0103), ffdhe8192(0x0104),
/* Hybrid Key Exchange Methods */
x25519_kyber768(TBD), secp384r1_kyber768(TBD),
x25519_kyber512(TBD), secp256r1_kyber512(TBD), ...,
/* Reserved Code Points */
ffdhe_private_use(0x01FC..0x01FF),
ecdhe_private_use(0xFE00..0xFEFF),
(0xFFFF)
} NamedGroup;
3.2. Transmitting public keys and ciphertexts
We take the relatively simple "concatenation approach": the messages
from the two or more algorithms being hybridized will be concatenated
together and transmitted as a single value, to avoid having to change
existing data structures. The values are directly concatenated,
without any additional encoding or length fields; this assumes that
the representation and length of elements is fixed once the algorithm
is fixed. If concatenation were to be used with values that are not
fixed-length, a length prefix or other unambiguous encoding must be
used to ensure that the composition of the two values is injective
and requires a mechanism different from that specified in this
document.
Recall that in TLS 1.3 a KEM public key or KEM ciphertext is
represented as a KeyShareEntry:
struct {
NamedGroup group;
opaque key_exchange<1..2^16-1>;
} KeyShareEntry;
These are transmitted in the extension_data fields of
KeyShareClientHello and KeyShareServerHello extensions:
Stebila, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ietf-tls-hybrid-design February 2023
struct {
KeyShareEntry client_shares<0..2^16-1>;
} KeyShareClientHello;
struct {
KeyShareEntry server_share;
} KeyShareServerHello;
The client's shares are listed in descending order of client
preference; the server selects one algorithm and sends its
corresponding share.
For a hybrid key exchange, the key_exchange field of a KeyShareEntry
is the concatenation of the key_exchange field for each of the
constituent algorithms. The order of shares in the concatenation is
the same as the order of algorithms indicated in the definition of
the NamedGroup.
For the client's share, the key_exchange value contains the
concatenation of the pk outputs of the corresponding KEMs' KeyGen
algorithms, if that algorithm corresponds to a KEM; or the (EC)DH
ephemeral key share, if that algorithm corresponds to an (EC)DH
group. For the server's share, the key_exchange value contains
concatenation of the ct outputs of the corresponding KEMs' Encaps
algorithms, if that algorithm corresponds to a KEM; or the (EC)DH
ephemeral key share, if that algorithm corresponds to an (EC)DH
group.
[TLS13] requires that ``The key_exchange values for each
KeyShareEntry MUST be generated independently.'' In the context of
this document, since the same algorithm may appear in multiple named
groups, we relax the above requirement to allow the same key_exchange
value for the same algorithm to be reused in multiple KeyShareEntry
records sent in within the same ClientHello. However, key_exchange
values for different algorithms MUST be generated independently.
3.3. Shared secret calculation
Here we also take a simple "concatenation approach": the two shared
secrets are concatenated together and used as the shared secret in
the existing TLS 1.3 key schedule. Again, we do not add any
additional structure (length fields) in the concatenation procedure:
for both the traditional groups and Kyber, the shared secret output
length is fixed for a specific elliptic curve or parameter set.
In other words, the shared secret is calculated as
concatenated_shared_secret = shared_secret_1 || shared_secret_2
Stebila, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ietf-tls-hybrid-design February 2023
and inserted into the TLS 1.3 key schedule in place of the (EC)DHE
shared secret:
0
|
v
PSK -> HKDF-Extract = Early Secret
|
+-----> Derive-Secret(...)
+-----> Derive-Secret(...)
+-----> Derive-Secret(...)
|
v
Derive-Secret(., "derived", "")
|
v
concatenated_shared_secret -> HKDF-Extract = Handshake Secret
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |
+-----> Derive-Secret(...)
+-----> Derive-Secret(...)
|
v
Derive-Secret(., "derived", "")
|
v
0 -> HKDF-Extract = Master Secret
|
+-----> Derive-Secret(...)
+-----> Derive-Secret(...)
+-----> Derive-Secret(...)
+-----> Derive-Secret(...)
*FIPS-compliance of shared secret concatenation.* [NIST-SP-800-56C]
or [NIST-SP-800-135] give NIST recommendations for key derivation
methods in key exchange protocols. Some hybrid combinations may
combine the shared secret from a NIST-approved algorithm (e.g., ECDH
using the nistp256/secp256r1 curve) with a shared secret from a non-
approved algorithm (e.g., post-quantum). [NIST-SP-800-56C] lists
simple concatenation as an approved method for generation of a hybrid
shared secret in which one of the constituent shared secret is from
an approved method.
Stebila, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ietf-tls-hybrid-design February 2023
4. Discussion
*Larger public keys and/or ciphertexts.* The HybridKeyExchange struct
in Section 3.2 limits public keys and ciphertexts to 2^16-1 bytes;
this is bounded by the same (2^16-1)-byte limit on the key_exchange
field in the KeyShareEntry struct. Some post-quantum KEMs have
larger public keys and/or ciphertexts; for example, Classic
McEliece's smallest parameter set has public key size 261,120 bytes.
However, all defined parameter sets for Kyber have public keys and
ciphertexts that fall within the TLS constraints.
*Duplication of key shares.* Concatenation of public keys in the
HybridKeyExchange struct as described in Section 3.2 can result in
sending duplicate key shares. For example, if a client wanted to
offer support for two combinations, say "secp256r1+kyber512" and
"x25519+kyber512", it would end up sending two kyber512 public keys,
since the KeyShareEntry for each combination contains its own copy of
a kyber512 key. This duplication may be more problematic for post-
quantum algorithms which have larger public keys. On the other hand,
if the client wants to offer, for example "secp256r1+kyber512" and
"secp256r1" (for backwards compatibility), there is relatively little
duplicated data (as the secp256r1 keys are comparatively small).
*Failures.* Some post-quantum key exchange algorithms, including
Kyber, have non-zero probability of failure, meaning two honest
parties may derive different shared secrets. This would cause a
handshake failure. Kyber has a cryptographically small failure rate;
if other algorithms are used, implementers should be aware of the
potential of handshake failure. Clients can retry if a failure is
encountered.
5. Defined Hybrid Groups
This document defines four initial hybrids for use within TLS 1.3
+--------------------+---------------------|-------------|
| Hybrid name | Hybrid components | Named Group |
+--------------------+---------------------|-------------|
| x25519_kyber768 | x25519, kyber768 | TBD |
| secp384r1_kyber768 | secp384r1, kyber768 | TBD |
| x25519_kyber512 | x25519, kyber512 | TBD |
| secp256r1_kyber512 | secp256r1, kyber512 | TBD |
+--------------------+---------------------|-------------|
where the components x25519, secp384r1, secp256r1 are the existing
named groups.
Stebila, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ietf-tls-hybrid-design February 2023
The intention is that the first two combinations (using kyber768) are
for normal TLS sessions, while the latter two (using kyber512) are
for sessions that have limits in record size or it is important to
limit the total amount of communication.
5.1. Kyber version
For kyber512 and kyber768, this document refers to the same named
parameter sets defined in the Round 3 submission of Kyber to NIST.
That submission defines two variants for each parameter set based on
the symmetric primitives used. This document uses the FIPS 202
varient (and not the "90s" varient); the FIPS 202 varient uses SHA-3
and SHAKE as its internal symmetric primitives.
The Kyber team has updated their documentation twice since submitting
to Round 3 (these updates are labeled as version 3.0.1 and 3.0.2),
however neither modifies the FIPS 202 variant of Kyber.
5.2. Details of kyber components
The listed kyber512, kyber768 components are the named parameter sets
of the key exchange method kyber [Kyber]. When it is used, the
client selects an ephemeral private key, generates the corresponding
public key, and transmits that (as a component) within its keyshare.
When the server receives this keyshare, it extracts the kyber public
key, generates a ciphertext and shared secret. It then transmits the
ciphertext (as a component) within its keyshare. When the client
receives this keyshare, it extracts the kyber ciphertext, and uses
its private key to generate the shared secret. Both sides uses their
copy of the shared secret as a component within the hybrid shared
secret. where the client's key share is the Kyber public key, and the
server's key share is the
6. IANA Considerations
IANA will assign identifiers from the TLS TLS Supported Groups
section for the hybrid combinations defined in this document. These
assignments should be made in a range that is distinct from the
Elliptic Curve Groups and the Finite Field Groups ranges.
7. Security Considerations
The shared secrets computed in the hybrid key exchange should be
computed in a way that achieves the "hybrid" property: the resulting
secret is secure as long as at least one of the component key
exchange algorithms is unbroken. See [GIACON] and [BINDEL] for an
investigation of these issues. Under the assumption that shared
secrets are fixed length once the combination is fixed, the
Stebila, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ietf-tls-hybrid-design February 2023
construction from Section 3.3 corresponds to the dual-PRF combiner of
[BINDEL] which is shown to preserve security under the assumption
that the hash function is a dual-PRF.
As noted in Section 2, KEMs used in the manner described in this
document MUST explicitly be designed to be secure in the event that
the public key is reused, such as achieving IND-CCA2 security or
having a transform like the Fujisaki--Okamoto transform applied.
Kyber has such security properties. However, some other post-quantum
KEMs are designed to be IND-CPA-secure (i.e., without countermeasures
such as the FO transform) are completely insecure under public key
reuse; for example, some lattice-based IND-CPA-secure KEMs are
vulnerable to attacks that recover the private key after just a few
thousand samples [FLUHRER].
*Public keys, ciphertexts, and secrets should be constant length.*
This document assumes that the length of each public key, ciphertext,
and shared secret is fixed once the algorithm is fixed. This is the
case for Kyber.
Note that variable-length secrets are, generally speaking, dangerous.
In particular, when using key material of variable length and
processing it using hash functions, a timing side channel may arise.
In broad terms, when the secret is longer, the hash function may need
to process more blocks internally. In some unfortunate
circumstances, this has led to timing attacks, e.g. the Lucky
Thirteen [LUCKY13] and Raccoon [RACCOON] attacks.
Furthermore, [AVIRAM] identified a risk of using variable-length
secrets when the hash function used in the key derivation function is
no longer collision-resistant.
Therefore, this specification MUST only be used with algorithms which
have fixed-length shared secrets (after the variant has been fixed by
the algorithm identifier in the NamedGroup negotiation in
Section 3.1).
8. Acknowledgements
These ideas have grown from discussions with many colleagues,
including Christopher Wood, Matt Campagna, Eric Crockett, authors of
the various hybrid Internet-Drafts and implementations cited in this
document, and members of the TLS working group. The immediate
impetus for this document came from discussions with attendees at the
Workshop on Post-Quantum Software in Mountain View, California, in
January 2019. Daniel J. Bernstein and Tanja Lange commented on the
risks of reuse of ephemeral public keys. Matt Campagna and the team
at Amazon Web Services provided additional suggestions. Nimrod
Stebila, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ietf-tls-hybrid-design February 2023
Aviram proposed restricting to fixed-length secrets.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[TLS13] 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>.
9.2. Informative References
[AVIRAM] Nimrod Aviram, Benjamin Dowling, Ilan Komargodski, Kenny
Paterson, Eyal Ronen, and Eylon Yogev, "[TLS] Combining
Secrets in Hybrid Key Exchange in TLS 1.3", 1 September
2021, <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/
F4SVeL2xbGPaPB2GW_GkBbD_a5M/>.
[BCNS15] Bos, J., Costello, C., Naehrig, M., and D. Stebila, "Post-
Quantum Key Exchange for the TLS Protocol from the Ring
Learning with Errors Problem", 2015 IEEE Symposium on
Security and Privacy, DOI 10.1109/sp.2015.40, May 2015,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/sp.2015.40>.
[BERNSTEIN]
"Post-Quantum Cryptography", Springer Berlin
Heidelberg book, DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-88702-7, 2009,
<https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88702-7>.
[BINDEL] Bindel, N., Brendel, J., Fischlin, M., Goncalves, B., and
D. Stebila, "Hybrid Key Encapsulation Mechanisms and
Authenticated Key Exchange", Post-Quantum Cryptography pp.
206-226, DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-25510-7_12, 2019,
<https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25510-7_12>.
[CAMPAGNA] Campagna, M. and E. Crockett, "Hybrid Post-Quantum Key
Encapsulation Methods (PQ KEM) for Transport Layer
Security 1.2 (TLS)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-campagna-tls-bike-sike-hybrid-07, 2 September 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-campagna-tls-
bike-sike-hybrid-07>.
[CECPQ1] Braithwaite, M., "Experimenting with Post-Quantum
Cryptography", 7 July 2016,
<https://security.googleblog.com/2016/07/experimenting-
with-post-quantum.html>.
Stebila, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ietf-tls-hybrid-design February 2023
[CECPQ2] Langley, A., "CECPQ2", 12 December 2018,
<https://www.imperialviolet.org/2018/12/12/cecpq2.html>.
[DODIS] Dodis, Y. and J. Katz, "Chosen-Ciphertext Security of
Multiple Encryption", Theory of Cryptography pp. 188-209,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-30576-7_11, 2005,
<https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30576-7_11>.
[DOWLING] Dowling, B., Fischlin, M., Günther, F., and D. Stebila, "A
Cryptographic Analysis of the TLS 1.3 Handshake Protocol",
Journal of Cryptology vol. 34, no. 4,
DOI 10.1007/s00145-021-09384-1, July 2021,
<https://doi.org/10.1007/s00145-021-09384-1>.
[ETSI] Campagna, M., Ed. and others, "Quantum safe cryptography
and security: An introduction, benefits, enablers and
challengers", ETSI White Paper No. 8 , June 2015,
<https://www.etsi.org/images/files/ETSIWhitePapers/
QuantumSafeWhitepaper.pdf>.
[EVEN] Even, S. and O. Goldreich, "On the Power of Cascade
Ciphers", Advances in Cryptology pp. 43-50,
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4684-4730-9_4, 1984,
<https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-4730-9_4>.
[EXTERN-PSK]
Housley, R., "TLS 1.3 Extension for Certificate-Based
Authentication with an External Pre-Shared Key", RFC 8773,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8773, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8773>.
[FLUHRER] Fluhrer, S., "Cryptanalysis of ring-LWE based key exchange
with key share reuse", Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report
2016/085 , January 2016,
<https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/085>.
[FO] Fujisaki, E. and T. Okamoto, "Secure Integration of
Asymmetric and Symmetric Encryption Schemes", Journal of
Cryptology vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 80-101,
DOI 10.1007/s00145-011-9114-1, December 2011,
<https://doi.org/10.1007/s00145-011-9114-1>.
Stebila, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ietf-tls-hybrid-design February 2023
[FRODO] Bos, J., Costello, C., Ducas, L., Mironov, I., Naehrig,
M., Nikolaenko, V., Raghunathan, A., and D. Stebila,
"Frodo: Take off the Ring! Practical, Quantum-Secure Key
Exchange from LWE", Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC
Conference on Computer and Communications Security,
DOI 10.1145/2976749.2978425, October 2016,
<https://doi.org/10.1145/2976749.2978425>.
[GIACON] Giacon, F., Heuer, F., and B. Poettering, "KEM Combiners",
Public-Key Cryptography - PKC 2018 pp. 190-218,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-76578-5_7, 2018,
<https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76578-5_7>.
[HARNIK] Harnik, D., Kilian, J., Naor, M., Reingold, O., and A.
Rosen, "On Robust Combiners for Oblivious Transfer and
Other Primitives", Lecture Notes in Computer Science pp.
96-113, DOI 10.1007/11426639_6, 2005,
<https://doi.org/10.1007/11426639_6>.
[HHK] Hofheinz, D., Hövelmanns, K., and E. Kiltz, "A Modular
Analysis of the Fujisaki-Okamoto Transformation", Theory
of Cryptography pp. 341-371,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-70500-2_12, 2017,
<https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70500-2_12>.
[HOFFMAN] Hoffman, P. E., "The Transition from Classical to Post-
Quantum Cryptography", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-hoffman-c2pq-07, 26 May 2020,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hoffman-c2pq-
07>.
[HPKE] Barnes, R., Bhargavan, K., Lipp, B., and C. Wood, "Hybrid
Public Key Encryption", RFC 9180, DOI 10.17487/RFC9180,
February 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9180>.
[I-D.driscoll-pqt-hybrid-terminology]
D, F., "Terminology for Post-Quantum Traditional Hybrid
Schemes", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
driscoll-pqt-hybrid-terminology-01, 20 October 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-driscoll-pqt-
hybrid-terminology-01>.
[IKE-HYBRID]
Tjhai, C., Tomlinson, M., grbartle@cisco.com, Fluhrer, S.,
Van Geest, D., Garcia-Morchon, O., and V. Smyslov,
"Framework to Integrate Post-quantum Key Exchanges into
Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-tjhai-ipsecme-hybrid-qske-
Stebila, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft ietf-tls-hybrid-design February 2023
ikev2-04, 9 July 2019,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-tjhai-
ipsecme-hybrid-qske-ikev2-04>.
[IKE-PSK] Fluhrer, S., Kampanakis, P., McGrew, D., and V. Smyslov,
"Mixing Preshared Keys in the Internet Key Exchange
Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) for Post-quantum Security",
RFC 8784, DOI 10.17487/RFC8784, June 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8784>.
[KIEFER] Kiefer, F. and K. Kwiatkowski, "Hybrid ECDHE-SIDH Key
Exchange for TLS", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-kiefer-tls-ecdhe-sidh-00, 5 November 2018,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kiefer-tls-
ecdhe-sidh-00>.
[Kyber] Roberto Avanzi, Joppe Bos, Léo Ducas, Eike Kiltz, Tancrède
Lepoint, Vadim Lyubashevsky, John M Schanck, Peter
Schwabe, Gregor Seiler, Damien Stehlé, "Crystals-Kyber
NIST Round 3 submission", 1 October 2020,
<https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/Projects/post-quantum-
cryptography/documents/round-3/submissions/Kyber-
Round3.zip>.
[LANGLEY] Langley, A., "Post-quantum confidentiality for TLS", 11
April 2018, <https://www.imperialviolet.org/2018/04/11/
pqconftls.html>.
[LUCKY13] Al Fardan, N. J. and K. G. Paterson, "Lucky Thirteen:
Breaking the TLS and DTLS record protocols", n.d.,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/
iel7/6547086/6547088/06547131.pdf>.
[NIELSEN] Nielsen, M. A. and I. L. Chuang, "Quantum Computation and
Quantum Information", Cambridge University Press , 2000.
[NIST] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
"Post-Quantum Cryptography", n.d.,
<https://www.nist.gov/pqcrypto>.
[NIST-SP-800-135]
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
"Recommendation for Existing Application-Specific Key
Derivation Functions", December 2011,
<https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-135r1>.
Stebila, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft ietf-tls-hybrid-design February 2023
[NIST-SP-800-56C]
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
"Recommendation for Key-Derivation Methods in Key-
Establishment Schemes", August 2020,
<https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-56Cr2>.
[OQS-102] Open Quantum Safe Project, "OQS-OpenSSL-1-0-2_stable",
November 2018, <https://github.com/open-quantum-
safe/openssl/tree/OQS-OpenSSL_1_0_2-stable>.
[OQS-111] Open Quantum Safe Project, "OQS-OpenSSL-1-1-1_stable",
January 2022, <https://github.com/open-quantum-
safe/openssl/tree/OQS-OpenSSL_1_1_1-stable>.
[PST] Paquin, C., Stebila, D., and G. Tamvada, "Benchmarking
Post-quantum Cryptography in TLS", Post-Quantum
Cryptography pp. 72-91, DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-44223-1_5,
2020, <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44223-1_5>.
[RACCOON] Merget, R., Brinkmann, M., Aviram, N., Somorovsky, J.,
Mittmann, J., and J. Schwenk, "Raccoon Attack: Finding and
Exploiting Most-Significant-Bit-Oracles in TLS-DH(E)",
September 2020, <https://raccoon-attack.com/>.
[S2N] Amazon Web Services, "Post-quantum TLS now supported in
AWS KMS", 4 November 2019,
<https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/post-quantum-tls-
now-supported-in-aws-kms/>.
[SCHANCK] Schanck, J. M. and D. Stebila, "A Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Extension For Establishing An Additional Shared
Secret", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-schanck-
tls-additional-keyshare-00, 17 April 2017,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-schanck-tls-
additional-keyshare-00>.
[WHYTE12] Schanck, J. M., Whyte, W., and Z. Zhang, "Quantum-Safe
Hybrid (QSH) Ciphersuite for Transport Layer Security
(TLS) version 1.2", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-whyte-qsh-tls12-02, 22 July 2016,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-whyte-qsh-
tls12-02>.
Stebila, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft ietf-tls-hybrid-design February 2023
[WHYTE13] Whyte, W., Zhang, Z., Fluhrer, S., and O. Garcia-Morchon,
"Quantum-Safe Hybrid (QSH) Key Exchange for Transport
Layer Security (TLS) version 1.3", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-whyte-qsh-tls13-06, 3 October 2017,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-whyte-qsh-
tls13-06>.
[XMSS] Huelsing, A., Butin, D., Gazdag, S., Rijneveld, J., and A.
Mohaisen, "XMSS: eXtended Merkle Signature Scheme",
RFC 8391, DOI 10.17487/RFC8391, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8391>.
[ZHANG] Zhang, R., Hanaoka, G., Shikata, J., and H. Imai, "On the
Security of Multiple Encryption or CCA-security+CCA-
security=CCA-security?", Public Key Cryptography - PKC
2004 pp. 360-374, DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-24632-9_26, 2004,
<https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24632-9_26>.
Appendix A. Related work
Quantum computing and post-quantum cryptography in general are
outside the scope of this document. For a general introduction to
quantum computing, see a standard textbook such as [NIELSEN]. For an
overview of post-quantum cryptography as of 2009, see [BERNSTEIN].
For the current status of the NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography
Standardization Project, see [NIST]. For additional perspectives on
the general transition from traditional to post-quantum cryptography,
see for example [ETSI] and [HOFFMAN], among others.
There have been several Internet-Drafts describing mechanisms for
embedding post-quantum and/or hybrid key exchange in TLS:
* Internet-Drafts for TLS 1.2: [WHYTE12], [CAMPAGNA]
* Internet-Drafts for TLS 1.3: [KIEFER], [SCHANCK], [WHYTE13]
There have been several prototype implementations for post-quantum
and/or hybrid key exchange in TLS:
* Experimental implementations in TLS 1.2: [BCNS15], [CECPQ1],
[FRODO], [OQS-102], [S2N]
* Experimental implementations in TLS 1.3: [CECPQ2], [OQS-111],
[PST]
These experimental implementations have taken an ad hoc approach and
not attempted to implement one of the drafts listed above.
Stebila, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft ietf-tls-hybrid-design February 2023
Unrelated to post-quantum but still related to the issue of combining
multiple types of keying material in TLS is the use of pre-shared
keys, especially the recent TLS working group document on including
an external pre-shared key [EXTERN-PSK].
Considering other IETF standards, there is work on post-quantum
preshared keys in IKEv2 [IKE-PSK] and a framework for hybrid key
exchange in IKEv2 [IKE-HYBRID]. The XMSS hash-based signature scheme
has been published as an informational RFC by the IRTF [XMSS].
In the academic literature, [EVEN] initiated the study of combining
multiple symmetric encryption schemes; [ZHANG], [DODIS], and [HARNIK]
examined combining multiple public key encryption schemes, and
[HARNIK] coined the term "robust combiner" to refer to a compiler
that constructs a hybrid scheme from individual schemes while
preserving security properties. [GIACON] and [BINDEL] examined
combining multiple key encapsulation mechanisms.
Authors' Addresses
Douglas Stebila
University of Waterloo
Email: dstebila@uwaterloo.ca
Scott Fluhrer
Cisco Systems
Email: sfluhrer@cisco.com
Shay Gueron
University of Haifa and Amazon Web Services
Email: shay.gueron@gmail.com
Stebila, et al. Expires 31 August 2023 [Page 22]
