summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorSimon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>2007-07-09 22:50:29 +0200
committerSimon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>2007-07-09 22:50:29 +0200
commita9b17febc03c20fcc570c1e97f72e67f15f6883b (patch)
tree499b39a88bdd0484c5f3b6a4547a058b4d0bf7d9 /doc
parent95870a132d8ede43d2509ae2e2cd43ce121881e3 (diff)
downloadgnutls-a9b17febc03c20fcc570c1e97f72e67f15f6883b.tar.gz
Add.
Diffstat (limited to 'doc')
-rw-r--r--doc/protocol/draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt5184
-rw-r--r--doc/protocol/draft-santesson-tls-gssapi-02.txt504
2 files changed, 5688 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/protocol/draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt b/doc/protocol/draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..8952fbe826
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/protocol/draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,5184 @@
+
+INTERNET-DRAFT Tim Dierks
+Obsoletes (if approved): 4346 Independent
+Intended status: Proposed Standard Eric Rescorla
+ Network Resonance, Inc.
+<draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt> July 2007 (Expires January 2008)
+
+ The TLS Protocol
+ Version 1.2
+
+Status of this Memo
+ By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
+ applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
+ have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
+ aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
+
+ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
+ Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
+ other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
+ Drafts.
+
+ Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
+ and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
+ time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
+ material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
+
+ The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
+ http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
+
+ The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
+ http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+ Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
+
+Abstract
+
+ This document specifies Version 1.2 of the Transport Layer Security
+ (TLS) protocol. The TLS protocol provides communications security
+ over the Internet. The protocol allows client/server applications to
+ communicate in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping,
+ tampering, or message forgery.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+ 1. Introduction 3
+ 1.1 Requirements Terminology 5
+ 1.2 Major Differences from TLS 1.1 5
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 1] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ 2. Goals 5
+ 3. Goals of This Document 6
+ 4. Presentation Language 6
+ 4.1. Basic Block Size 7
+ 4.2. Miscellaneous 7
+ 4.3. Vectors 7
+ 4.4. Numbers 8
+ 4.5. Enumerateds 9
+ 4.6. Constructed Types 9
+ 4.6.1. Variants 10
+ 4.7. Cryptographic Attributes 11
+ 4.8. Constants 12
+ 5. HMAC and the Pseudorandom fFunction 13
+ 6. The TLS Record Protocol 14
+ 6.1. Connection States 14
+ 6.2. Record layer 17
+ 6.2.1. Fragmentation 17
+ 6.2.2. Record Compression and Decompression 18
+ 6.2.3. Record Payload Protection 19
+ 6.2.3.1. Null or Standard Stream Cipher 20
+ 6.2.3.2. CBC Block Cipher 20
+ 6.2.3.3. AEAD ciphers 22
+ 6.3. Key Calculation 23
+ 7. The TLS Handshaking Protocols 24
+ 7.1. Change Cipher Spec Protocol 25
+ 7.2. Alert Protocol 26
+ 7.2.1. Closure Alerts 27
+ 7.2.2. Error Alerts 27
+ 7.3. Handshake Protocol Overview 31
+ 7.4. Handshake Protocol 35
+ 7.4.1. Hello Messages 36
+ 7.4.1.1. Hello Request 36
+ 7.4.1.2. Client Hello 37
+ 7.4.1.3. Server Hello 40
+ 7.4.1.4 Hello Extensions 41
+ 7.4.1.4.1 Cert Hash Types 43
+ 7.4.2. Server Certificate 43
+ 7.4.3. Server Key Exchange Message 45
+ 7.4.4. Certificate Request 47
+ 7.4.5 Server hello done 49
+ 7.4.6. Client Certificate 49
+ 7.4.7. Client Key Exchange Message 49
+ 7.4.7.1. RSA Encrypted Premaster Secret Message 50
+ 7.4.7.1. Client Diffie-Hellman Public Value 53
+ 7.4.8. Certificate verify 53
+ 7.4.9. Finished 54
+ 8. Cryptographic Computations 55
+ 8.1. Computing the Master Secret 55
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 2] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ 8.1.1. RSA 56
+ 8.1.2. Diffie-Hellman 56
+ 9. Mandatory Cipher Suites 56
+ 10. Application Data Protocol 56
+ 11. Security Considerations 56
+ 12. IANA Considerations 57
+ A. Protocol Constant Values 59
+ A.1. Record Layer 59
+ A.2. Change Cipher Specs Message 60
+ A.3. Alert Messages 60
+ A.4. Handshake Protocol 62
+ A.4.1. Hello Messages 62
+ A.4.2. Server Authentication and Key Exchange Messages 63
+ A.4.3. Client Authentication and Key Exchange Messages 65
+ A.4.4. Handshake Finalization Message 65
+ A.5. The CipherSuite 65
+ A.6. The Security Parameters 68
+ B. Glossary 70
+ C. CipherSuite Definitions 74
+ D. Implementation Notes 76
+ D.1 Random Number Generation and Seeding 76
+ D.2 Certificates and Authentication 76
+ D.3 CipherSuites 76
+ E. Backward Compatibility 77
+ E.1 Compatibility with TLS 1.0/1.1 and SSL 3.0 77
+ E.2 Compatibility with SSL 2.0 78
+ E.2. Avoiding Man-in-the-Middle Version Rollback 80
+ F. Security Analysis 81
+ F.1. Handshake Protocol 81
+ F.1.1. Authentication and Key Exchange 81
+ F.1.1.1. Anonymous Key Exchange 81
+ F.1.1.2. RSA Key Exchange and Authentication 82
+ F.1.1.3. Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange with Authentication 82
+ F.1.2. Version Rollback Attacks 83
+ F.1.3. Detecting Attacks Against the Handshake Protocol 84
+ F.1.4. Resuming Sessions 84
+ F.1.5 Extensions 85
+ F.2. Protecting Application Data 85
+ F.3. Explicit IVs 85
+ F.4. Security of Composite Cipher Modes 86
+ F.5 Denial of Service 87
+ F.6. Final Notes 87
+
+
+1. Introduction
+
+ The primary goal of the TLS Protocol is to provide privacy and data
+ integrity between two communicating applications. The protocol is
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 3] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ composed of two layers: the TLS Record Protocol and the TLS Handshake
+ Protocol. At the lowest level, layered on top of some reliable
+ transport protocol (e.g., TCP[TCP]), is the TLS Record Protocol. The
+ TLS Record Protocol provides connection security that has two basic
+ properties:
+
+ - The connection is private. Symmetric cryptography is used for
+ data encryption (e.g., DES [DES], RC4 [SCH] etc.). The keys for
+ this symmetric encryption are generated uniquely for each
+ connection and are based on a secret negotiated by another
+ protocol (such as the TLS Handshake Protocol). The Record
+ Protocol can also be used without encryption.
+
+ - The connection is reliable. Message transport includes a message
+ integrity check using a keyed MAC. Secure hash functions (e.g.,
+ SHA, MD5, etc.) are used for MAC computations. The Record
+ Protocol can operate without a MAC, but is generally only used in
+ this mode while another protocol is using the Record Protocol as
+ a transport for negotiating security parameters.
+
+ The TLS Record Protocol is used for encapsulation of various higher-
+ level protocols. One such encapsulated protocol, the TLS Handshake
+ Protocol, allows the server and client to authenticate each other and
+ to negotiate an encryption algorithm and cryptographic keys before
+ the application protocol transmits or receives its first byte of
+ data. The TLS Handshake Protocol provides connection security that
+ has three basic properties:
+
+ - The peer's identity can be authenticated using asymmetric, or
+ public key, cryptography (e.g., RSA [RSA], DSS [DSS], etc.). This
+ authentication can be made optional, but is generally required
+ for at least one of the peers.
+
+ - The negotiation of a shared secret is secure: the negotiated
+ secret is unavailable to eavesdroppers, and for any authenticated
+ connection the secret cannot be obtained, even by an attacker who
+ can place himself in the middle of the connection.
+
+ - The negotiation is reliable: no attacker can modify the
+ negotiation communication without being detected by the parties
+ to the communication.
+
+ One advantage of TLS is that it is application protocol independent.
+ Higher-level protocols can layer on top of the TLS Protocol
+ transparently. The TLS standard, however, does not specify how
+ protocols add security with TLS; the decisions on how to initiate TLS
+ handshaking and how to interpret the authentication certificates
+ exchanged are left to the judgment of the designers and implementors
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 4] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ of protocols that run on top of TLS.
+
+1.1 Requirements Terminology
+
+ The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+ "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+ document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
+
+1.2 Major Differences from TLS 1.1
+ This document is a revision of the TLS 1.1 [TLS1.1] protocol which
+ contains improved flexibility, particularly for negotiation of
+ cryptographic algorithms. The major changes are:
+
+ - Merged in TLS Extensions definition and AES Cipher Suites from
+ external documents.
+
+ - Replacement of MD5/SHA-1 combination in the PRF. Addition
+ of cipher-suite specified PRFs.
+
+ - Replacement of MD5/SHA-1 combination in the digitally-signed
+ element.
+
+ - Allow the client to indicate which hash functions it supports
+ for digital signature.
+
+ - Allow the server to indicate which hash functions it supports
+ for digital signature.
+
+ - Addition of support for authenticated encryption with additional
+ data modes.
+
+ - Tightened up a number of requirements.
+
+ - The usual clarifications and editorial work.
+
+ - Added some guidance that DH groups should be checked.
+
+ - Cleaned up description of Bleichenbacher/Klima attack defenses.
+
+ - Tighter checking of EncryptedPreMasterSecret version numbers.
+
+ - Stronger language about when alerts MUST be sent.
+
+
+2. Goals
+
+ The goals of TLS Protocol, in order of their priority, are as
+ follows:
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 5] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ 1. Cryptographic security: TLS should be used to establish a secure
+ connection between two parties.
+
+ 2. Interoperability: Independent programmers should be able to
+ develop applications utilizing TLS that can successfully exchange
+ cryptographic parameters without knowledge of one another's code.
+
+ 3. Extensibility: TLS seeks to provide a framework into which new
+ public key and bulk encryption methods can be incorporated as
+ necessary. This will also accomplish two sub-goals: preventing
+ the need to create a new protocol (and risking the introduction
+ of possible new weaknesses) and avoiding the need to implement an
+ entire new security library.
+
+ 4. Relative efficiency: Cryptographic operations tend to be highly
+ CPU intensive, particularly public key operations. For this
+ reason, the TLS protocol has incorporated an optional session
+ caching scheme to reduce the number of connections that need to
+ be established from scratch. Additionally, care has been taken to
+ reduce network activity.
+
+3. Goals of This Document
+
+ This document and the TLS protocol itself are based on the SSL 3.0
+ Protocol Specification as published by Netscape. The differences
+ between this protocol and SSL 3.0 are not dramatic, but they are
+ significant enough that the various versions of TLS and SSL 3.0 do
+ not interoperate (although each protocol incorporates a mechanism by
+ which an implementation can back down to prior versions). This
+ document is intended primarily for readers who will be implementing
+ the protocol and for those doing cryptographic analysis of it. The
+ specification has been written with this in mind, and it is intended
+ to reflect the needs of those two groups. For that reason, many of
+ the algorithm-dependent data structures and rules are included in the
+ body of the text (as opposed to in an appendix), providing easier
+ access to them.
+
+ This document is not intended to supply any details of service
+ definition or of interface definition, although it does cover select
+ areas of policy as they are required for the maintenance of solid
+ security.
+
+4. Presentation Language
+
+ This document deals with the formatting of data in an external
+ representation. The following very basic and somewhat casually
+ defined presentation syntax will be used. The syntax draws from
+ several sources in its structure. Although it resembles the
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 6] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ programming language "C" in its syntax and XDR [XDR] in both its
+ syntax and intent, it would be risky to draw too many parallels. The
+ purpose of this presentation language is to document TLS only; it has
+ no general application beyond that particular goal.
+
+4.1. Basic Block Size
+
+ The representation of all data items is explicitly specified. The
+ basic data block size is one byte (i.e., 8 bits). Multiple byte data
+ items are concatenations of bytes, from left to right, from top to
+ bottom. From the bytestream, a multi-byte item (a numeric in the
+ example) is formed (using C notation) by:
+
+ value = (byte[0] << 8*(n-1)) | (byte[1] << 8*(n-2)) |
+ ... | byte[n-1];
+
+ This byte ordering for multi-byte values is the commonplace network
+ byte order or big endian format.
+
+4.2. Miscellaneous
+
+ Comments begin with "/*" and end with "*/".
+
+ Optional components are denoted by enclosing them in "[[ ]]" double
+ brackets.
+
+ Single-byte entities containing uninterpreted data are of type
+ opaque.
+
+4.3. Vectors
+
+ A vector (single dimensioned array) is a stream of homogeneous data
+ elements. The size of the vector may be specified at documentation
+ time or left unspecified until runtime. In either case, the length
+ declares the number of bytes, not the number of elements, in the
+ vector. The syntax for specifying a new type, T', that is a fixed-
+ length vector of type T is
+
+ T T'[n];
+
+ Here, T' occupies n bytes in the data stream, where n is a multiple
+ of the size of T. The length of the vector is not included in the
+ encoded stream.
+
+ In the following example, Datum is defined to be three consecutive
+ bytes that the protocol does not interpret, while Data is three
+ consecutive Datum, consuming a total of nine bytes.
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 7] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ opaque Datum[3]; /* three uninterpreted bytes */
+ Datum Data[9]; /* 3 consecutive 3 byte vectors */
+
+ Variable-length vectors are defined by specifying a subrange of legal
+ lengths, inclusively, using the notation <floor..ceiling>. When
+ these are encoded, the actual length precedes the vector's contents
+ in the byte stream. The length will be in the form of a number
+ consuming as many bytes as required to hold the vector's specified
+ maximum (ceiling) length. A variable-length vector with an actual
+ length field of zero is referred to as an empty vector.
+
+ T T'<floor..ceiling>;
+
+ In the following example, mandatory is a vector that must contain
+ between 300 and 400 bytes of type opaque. It can never be empty. The
+ actual length field consumes two bytes, a uint16, sufficient to
+ represent the value 400 (see Section 4.4). On the other hand, longer
+ can represent up to 800 bytes of data, or 400 uint16 elements, and it
+ may be empty. Its encoding will include a two-byte actual length
+ field prepended to the vector. The length of an encoded vector must
+ be an even multiple of the length of a single element (for example, a
+ 17-byte vector of uint16 would be illegal).
+
+ opaque mandatory<300..400>;
+ /* length field is 2 bytes, cannot be empty */
+ uint16 longer<0..800>;
+ /* zero to 400 16-bit unsigned integers */
+
+4.4. Numbers
+
+ The basic numeric data type is an unsigned byte (uint8). All larger
+ numeric data types are formed from fixed-length series of bytes
+ concatenated as described in Section 4.1 and are also unsigned. The
+ following numeric types are predefined.
+
+ uint8 uint16[2];
+ uint8 uint24[3];
+ uint8 uint32[4];
+ uint8 uint64[8];
+
+ All values, here and elsewhere in the specification, are stored in
+ "network" or "big-endian" order; the uint32 represented by the hex
+ bytes 01 02 03 04 is equivalent to the decimal value 16909060.
+
+ Note that in some cases (e.g., DH parameters) it is necessary to
+ represent integers as opaque vectors. In such cases, they are
+ represented as unsigned integers (i.e., leading zero octets are not
+ required even if the most significant bit is set).
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 8] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+4.5. Enumerateds
+
+ An additional sparse data type is available called enum. A field of
+ type enum can only assume the values declared in the definition.
+ Each definition is a different type. Only enumerateds of the same
+ type may be assigned or compared. Every element of an enumerated must
+ be assigned a value, as demonstrated in the following example. Since
+ the elements of the enumerated are not ordered, they can be assigned
+ any unique value, in any order.
+
+ enum { e1(v1), e2(v2), ... , en(vn) [[, (n)]] } Te;
+
+ Enumerateds occupy as much space in the byte stream as would its
+ maximal defined ordinal value. The following definition would cause
+ one byte to be used to carry fields of type Color.
+
+ enum { red(3), blue(5), white(7) } Color;
+
+ One may optionally specify a value without its associated tag to
+ force the width definition without defining a superfluous element.
+ In the following example, Taste will consume two bytes in the data
+ stream but can only assume the values 1, 2, or 4.
+
+ enum { sweet(1), sour(2), bitter(4), (32000) } Taste;
+
+ The names of the elements of an enumeration are scoped within the
+ defined type. In the first example, a fully qualified reference to
+ the second element of the enumeration would be Color.blue. Such
+ qualification is not required if the target of the assignment is well
+ specified.
+
+ Color color = Color.blue; /* overspecified, legal */
+ Color color = blue; /* correct, type implicit */
+
+ For enumerateds that are never converted to external representation,
+ the numerical information may be omitted.
+
+ enum { low, medium, high } Amount;
+
+4.6. Constructed Types
+
+ Structure types may be constructed from primitive types for
+ convenience. Each specification declares a new, unique type. The
+ syntax for definition is much like that of C.
+
+ struct {
+ T1 f1;
+ T2 f2;
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 9] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ ...
+ Tn fn;
+ } [[T]];
+
+ The fields within a structure may be qualified using the type's name,
+ with a syntax much like that available for enumerateds. For example,
+ T.f2 refers to the second field of the previous declaration.
+ Structure definitions may be embedded.
+
+4.6.1. Variants
+
+ Defined structures may have variants based on some knowledge that is
+ available within the environment. The selector must be an enumerated
+ type that defines the possible variants the structure defines. There
+ must be a case arm for every element of the enumeration declared in
+ the select. The body of the variant structure may be given a label
+ for reference. The mechanism by which the variant is selected at
+ runtime is not prescribed by the presentation language.
+
+ struct {
+ T1 f1;
+ T2 f2;
+ ....
+ Tn fn;
+ select (E) {
+ case e1: Te1;
+ case e2: Te2;
+ ....
+ case en: Ten;
+ } [[fv]];
+ } [[Tv]];
+
+ For example:
+
+ enum { apple, orange } VariantTag;
+ struct {
+ uint16 number;
+ opaque string<0..10>; /* variable length */
+ } V1;
+ struct {
+ uint32 number;
+ opaque string[10]; /* fixed length */
+ } V2;
+ struct {
+ select (VariantTag) { /* value of selector is implicit */
+ case apple: V1; /* VariantBody, tag = apple */
+ case orange: V2; /* VariantBody, tag = orange */
+ } variant_body; /* optional label on variant */
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 10] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ } VariantRecord;
+
+ Variant structures may be qualified (narrowed) by specifying a value
+ for the selector prior to the type. For example, an
+
+ orange VariantRecord
+
+ is a narrowed type of a VariantRecord containing a variant_body of
+ type V2.
+
+4.7. Cryptographic Attributes
+
+ The five cryptographic operations digital signing, stream cipher
+ encryption, block cipher encryption, authenticated encryption with
+ additional data (AEAD) encryption and public key encryption are
+ designated digitally-signed, stream-ciphered, block-ciphered, aead-
+ ciphered, and public-key-encrypted, respectively. A field's
+ cryptographic processing is specified by prepending an appropriate
+ key word designation before the field's type specification.
+ Cryptographic keys are implied by the current session state (see
+ Section 6.1).
+
+ In digital signing, one-way hash functions are used as input for a
+ signing algorithm. A digitally-signed element is encoded as an opaque
+ vector <0..2^16-1>, where the length is specified by the signing
+ algorithm and key.
+
+ In RSA signing, the opaque vector contains the signature generated
+ using the RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 signature scheme defined in [PKCS1]. As
+ discussed in [PKCS1], the DigestInfo MUST be DER encoded and for
+ digest algorithms without parameters (which include SHA-1) the
+ DigestInfo.AlgorithmIdentifier.parameters field MUST be NULL but
+ implementations MUST accept both without parameters and with NULL
+ parameters. Note that earlier versions of TLS used a different RSA
+ signature scheme which did not include a DigestInfo encoding.
+
+ In DSS, the 20 bytes of the SHA-1 hash are run directly through the
+ Digital Signing Algorithm with no additional hashing. This produces
+ two values, r and s. The DSS signature is an opaque vector, as above,
+ the contents of which are the DER encoding of:
+
+ Dss-Sig-Value ::= SEQUENCE {
+ r INTEGER,
+ s INTEGER
+ }
+
+ In stream cipher encryption, the plaintext is exclusive-ORed with an
+ identical amount of output generated from a cryptographically secure
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 11] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ keyed pseudorandom number generator.
+
+ In block cipher encryption, every block of plaintext encrypts to a
+ block of ciphertext. All block cipher encryption is done in CBC
+ (Cipher Block Chaining) mode, and all items that are block-ciphered
+ will be an exact multiple of the cipher block length.
+
+ In AEAD encryption, the plaintext is simultaneously encrypted and
+ integrity protected. The input may be of any length and the output is
+ generally larger than the input in order to accomodate the integrity
+ check value.
+
+ In public key encryption, a public key algorithm is used to encrypt
+ data in such a way that it can be decrypted only with the matching
+ private key. A public-key-encrypted element is encoded as an opaque
+ vector <0..2^16-1>, where the length is specified by the signing
+ algorithm and key.
+
+ RSA encryption is done using the RSAES-PKCS1-v1_5 encryption scheme
+ defined in [PKCS1].
+
+ In the following example
+
+ stream-ciphered struct {
+ uint8 field1;
+ uint8 field2;
+ digitally-signed opaque hash[20];
+ } UserType;
+
+ the contents of hash are used as input for the signing algorithm, and
+ then the entire structure is encrypted with a stream cipher. The
+ length of this structure, in bytes, would be equal to two bytes for
+ field1 and field2, plus two bytes for the length of the signature,
+ plus the length of the output of the signing algorithm. This is known
+ because the algorithm and key used for the signing are known prior to
+ encoding or decoding this structure.
+
+4.8. Constants
+
+ Typed constants can be defined for purposes of specification by
+ declaring a symbol of the desired type and assigning values to it.
+ Under-specified types (opaque, variable length vectors, and
+ structures that contain opaque) cannot be assigned values. No fields
+ of a multi-element structure or vector may be elided.
+
+ For example:
+
+ struct {
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 12] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ uint8 f1;
+ uint8 f2;
+ } Example1;
+
+ Example1 ex1 = {1, 4}; /* assigns f1 = 1, f2 = 4 */
+
+5. HMAC and the Pseudorandom fFunction
+
+ A number of operations in the TLS record and handshake layer requires
+ a keyed MAC; this is a secure digest of some data protected by a
+ secret. Forging the MAC is infeasible without knowledge of the MAC
+ secret. The construction TLS provides for this operation is known as
+ HMAC and is described in [HMAC]. Cipher suites MAY define their own
+ MACs.
+
+ In addition, a construction is required to do expansion of secrets
+ into blocks of data for the purposes of key generation or validation.
+ This pseudo-random function (PRF) takes as input a secret, a seed,
+ and an identifying label and produces an output of arbitrary length.
+ We define one PRF, based on HMAC, which is used for all cipher suites
+ in this document. Cipher suites MAY define their own PRFs.
+
+ First, we define a data expansion function, P_hash(secret, data) that
+ uses a single hash function to expand a secret and seed into an
+ arbitrary quantity of output:
+
+ P_hash(secret, seed) = HMAC_hash(secret, A(1) + seed) +
+ HMAC_hash(secret, A(2) + seed) +
+ HMAC_hash(secret, A(3) + seed) + ...
+
+ Where + indicates concatenation.
+
+ A() is defined as:
+ A(0) = seed
+ A(i) = HMAC_hash(secret, A(i-1))
+
+ P_hash can be iterated as many times as is necessary to produce the
+ required quantity of data. For example, if P_SHA-1 is being used to
+ create 64 bytes of data, it will have to be iterated 4 times (through
+ A(4)), creating 80 bytes of output data; the last 16 bytes of the
+ final iteration will then be discarded, leaving 64 bytes of output
+ data.
+
+ TLS's PRF is created by applying P_hash to the secret S as:
+
+ PRF(secret, label, seed) = P_<hash>(secret, label + seed)
+
+ All the cipher suites defined in this document and in TLS documents
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 13] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ prior to this document MUST use SHA-256 as the basis for their PRF.
+ New cipher suites MUST specify a PRF and in general SHOULD use the
+ TLS PRF with SHA-256 or a stronger standard hash function.
+
+ The label is an ASCII string. It should be included in the exact form
+ it is given without a length byte or trailing null character. For
+ example, the label "slithy toves" would be processed by hashing the
+ following bytes:
+
+ 73 6C 69 74 68 79 20 74 6F 76 65 73
+
+
+6. The TLS Record Protocol
+
+ The TLS Record Protocol is a layered protocol. At each layer,
+ messages may include fields for length, description, and content.
+ The Record Protocol takes messages to be transmitted, fragments the
+ data into manageable blocks, optionally compresses the data, applies
+ a MAC, encrypts, and transmits the result. Received data is
+ decrypted, verified, decompressed, reassembled, and then delivered to
+ higher-level clients.
+
+ Four record protocol clients are described in this document: the
+ handshake protocol, the alert protocol, the change cipher spec
+ protocol, and the application data protocol. In order to allow
+ extension of the TLS protocol, additional record types can be
+ supported by the record protocol. New record type values are assigned
+ by IANA as described in Section 11.
+
+
+ If a TLS implementation receives a record type it does not
+ understand, it SHOULD just ignore it. Any protocol designed for use
+ over TLS MUST be carefully designed to deal with all possible attacks
+ against it. Note that because the type and length of a record are
+ not protected by encryption, care SHOULD be taken to minimize the
+ value of traffic analysis of these values. Implementations MUST not
+ send record types not defined in this document unless negotiated by
+ some extension.
+
+6.1. Connection States
+
+ A TLS connection state is the operating environment of the TLS Record
+ Protocol. It specifies a compression algorithm, an encryption
+ algorithm, and MAC algorithm. In addition, the parameters for these
+ algorithms are known: the MAC secret and the bulk encryption keys for
+ the connection in both the read and the write directions. Logically,
+ there are always four connection states outstanding: the current read
+ and write states, and the pending read and write states. All records
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 14] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ are processed under the current read and write states. The security
+ parameters for the pending states can be set by the TLS Handshake
+ Protocol, and the Change Cipher Spec can selectively make either of
+ the pending states current, in which case the appropriate current
+ state is disposed of and replaced with the pending state; the pending
+ state is then reinitialized to an empty state. It is illegal to make
+ a state that has not been initialized with security parameters a
+ current state. The initial current state always specifies that no
+ encryption, compression, or MAC will be used.
+
+ The security parameters for a TLS Connection read and write state are
+ set by providing the following values:
+
+ connection end
+ Whether this entity is considered the "client" or the "server" in
+ this connection.
+
+ bulk encryption algorithm
+ An algorithm to be used for bulk encryption. This specification
+ includes the key size of this algorithm, how much of that key is
+ secret, whether it is a block, stream, or AEAD cipher, and the
+ block size of the cipher (if appropriate).
+
+ MAC algorithm
+ An algorithm to be used for message authentication. This
+ specification includes the size of the value returned by the MAC
+ algorithm.
+
+ compression algorithm
+ An algorithm to be used for data compression. This specification
+ must include all information the algorithm requires to do
+ compression.
+
+ master secret
+ A 48-byte secret shared between the two peers in the connection.
+
+ client random
+ A 32-byte value provided by the client.
+
+ server random
+ A 32-byte value provided by the server.
+
+ These parameters are defined in the presentation language as:
+
+ enum { server, client } ConnectionEnd;
+
+ enum { null, rc4, rc2, des, 3des, des40, idea, aes } BulkCipherAlgorithm;
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 15] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ enum { stream, block, aead } CipherType;
+
+ enum { null, md5, sha, sha256, sha384, sha512} MACAlgorithm;
+
+ /* The use of "sha" above is historical and denotes SHA-1 */
+
+ enum { null(0), (255) } CompressionMethod;
+
+ /* The algorithms specified in CompressionMethod,
+ BulkCipherAlgorithm, and MACAlgorithm may be added to. */
+
+ struct {
+ ConnectionEnd entity;
+ BulkCipherAlgorithm bulk_cipher_algorithm;
+ CipherType cipher_type;
+ uint8 enc_key_length;
+ uint8 block_length;
+ uint8 iv_length;
+ MACAlgorithm mac_algorithm;
+ uint8 mac_length;
+ uint8 mac_key_length;
+ CompressionMethod compression_algorithm;
+ opaque master_secret[48];
+ opaque client_random[32];
+ opaque server_random[32];
+ } SecurityParameters;
+
+ The record layer will use the security parameters to generate the
+ following four items:
+
+ client write MAC secret
+ server write MAC secret
+ client write key
+ server write key
+
+ The client write parameters are used by the server when receiving and
+ processing records and vice-versa. The algorithm used for generating
+ these items from the security parameters is described in Section 6.3.
+
+ Once the security parameters have been set and the keys have been
+ generated, the connection states can be instantiated by making them
+ the current states. These current states MUST be updated for each
+ record processed. Each connection state includes the following
+ elements:
+
+ compression state
+ The current state of the compression algorithm.
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 16] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ cipher state
+ The current state of the encryption algorithm. This will consist
+ of the scheduled key for that connection. For stream ciphers,
+ this will also contain whatever state information is necessary to
+ allow the stream to continue to encrypt or decrypt data.
+
+ MAC secret
+ The MAC secret for this connection, as generated above.
+
+ sequence number
+ Each connection state contains a sequence number, which is
+ maintained separately for read and write states. The sequence
+ number MUST be set to zero whenever a connection state is made
+ the active state. Sequence numbers are of type uint64 and may not
+ exceed 2^64-1. Sequence numbers do not wrap. If a TLS
+ implementation would need to wrap a sequence number, it must
+ renegotiate instead. A sequence number is incremented after each
+ record: specifically, the first record transmitted under a
+ particular connection state MUST use sequence number 0.
+
+6.2. Record layer
+
+ The TLS Record Layer receives uninterpreted data from higher layers
+ in non-empty blocks of arbitrary size.
+
+6.2.1. Fragmentation
+
+ The record layer fragments information blocks into TLSPlaintext
+ records carrying data in chunks of 2^14 bytes or less. Client message
+ boundaries are not preserved in the record layer (i.e., multiple
+ client messages of the same ContentType MAY be coalesced into a
+ single TLSPlaintext record, or a single message MAY be fragmented
+ across several records).
+
+
+ struct {
+ uint8 major, minor;
+ } ProtocolVersion;
+
+ enum {
+ change_cipher_spec(20), alert(21), handshake(22),
+ application_data(23), (255)
+ } ContentType;
+
+ struct {
+ ContentType type;
+ ProtocolVersion version;
+ uint16 length;
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 17] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ opaque fragment[TLSPlaintext.length];
+ } TLSPlaintext;
+
+ type
+ The higher-level protocol used to process the enclosed fragment.
+
+ version
+ The version of the protocol being employed. This document
+ describes TLS Version 1.2, which uses the version { 3, 3 }. The
+ version value 3.3 is historical, deriving from the use of 3.1 for
+ TLS 1.0. (See Appendix A.1). Note that a client that supports
+ multiple versions of TLS may not know what version will be
+ employed before it receives ServerHello. See Appendix E for
+ discussion about what record layer version number should be
+ employed for ClientHello.
+
+ length
+ The length (in bytes) of the following TLSPlaintext.fragment.
+ The length MUST not exceed 2^14.
+
+ fragment
+ The application data. This data is transparent and treated as an
+ independent block to be dealt with by the higher-level protocol
+ specified by the type field.
+
+ Implementations MUST not send zero-length fragments of Handshake,
+ Alert, or Change Cipher Spec content types. Zero-length fragments
+ of Application data MAY be sent as they are potentially useful as
+ a traffic analysis countermeasure.
+
+ Note: Data of different TLS Record layer content types MAY be
+ interleaved. Application data is generally of lower precedence
+ for transmission than other content types. However, records MUST
+ be delivered to the network in the same order as they are
+ protected by the record layer. Recipients MUST receive and
+ process interleaved application layer traffic during handshakes
+ subsequent to the first one on a connection.
+
+
+6.2.2. Record Compression and Decompression
+
+ All records are compressed using the compression algorithm defined in
+ the current session state. There is always an active compression
+ algorithm; however, initially it is defined as
+ CompressionMethod.null. The compression algorithm translates a
+ TLSPlaintext structure into a TLSCompressed structure. Compression
+ functions are initialized with default state information whenever a
+ connection state is made active.
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 18] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ Compression must be lossless and may not increase the content length
+ by more than 1024 bytes. If the decompression function encounters a
+ TLSCompressed.fragment that would decompress to a length in excess of
+ 2^14 bytes, it MUST report a fatal decompression failure error.
+
+ struct {
+ ContentType type; /* same as TLSPlaintext.type */
+ ProtocolVersion version;/* same as TLSPlaintext.version */
+ uint16 length;
+ opaque fragment[TLSCompressed.length];
+ } TLSCompressed;
+
+ length
+ The length (in bytes) of the following TLSCompressed.fragment.
+ The length should not exceed 2^14 + 1024.
+
+ fragment
+ The compressed form of TLSPlaintext.fragment.
+
+ Note: A CompressionMethod.null operation is an identity operation; no
+ fields are altered.
+
+ Implementation note:
+ Decompression functions are responsible for ensuring that
+ messages cannot cause internal buffer overflows.
+
+6.2.3. Record Payload Protection
+
+ The encryption and MAC functions translate a TLSCompressed structure
+ into a TLSCiphertext. The decryption functions reverse the process.
+ The MAC of the record also includes a sequence number so that
+ missing, extra, or repeated messages are detectable.
+
+ struct {
+ ContentType type;
+ ProtocolVersion version;
+ uint16 length;
+ select (SecurityParameters.cipher_type) {
+ case stream: GenericStreamCipher;
+ case block: GenericBlockCipher;
+ case aead: GenericAEADCipher;
+ } fragment;
+ } TLSCiphertext;
+
+ type
+ The type field is identical to TLSCompressed.type.
+
+ version
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 19] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ The version field is identical to TLSCompressed.version.
+
+ length
+ The length (in bytes) of the following TLSCiphertext.fragment.
+ The length may not exceed 2^14 + 2048.
+
+ fragment
+ The encrypted form of TLSCompressed.fragment, with the MAC.
+
+6.2.3.1. Null or Standard Stream Cipher
+
+ Stream ciphers (including BulkCipherAlgorithm.null, see Appendix A.6)
+ convert TLSCompressed.fragment structures to and from stream
+ TLSCiphertext.fragment structures.
+
+ stream-ciphered struct {
+ opaque content[TLSCompressed.length];
+ opaque MAC[SecurityParameters.mac_length];
+ } GenericStreamCipher;
+
+ The MAC is generated as:
+
+ HMAC_hash(MAC_write_secret, seq_num + TLSCompressed.type +
+ TLSCompressed.version + TLSCompressed.length +
+ TLSCompressed.fragment));
+
+ where "+" denotes concatenation.
+
+ seq_num
+ The sequence number for this record.
+
+ hash
+ The hashing algorithm specified by
+ SecurityParameters.mac_algorithm.
+
+ Note that the MAC is computed before encryption. The stream cipher
+ encrypts the entire block, including the MAC. For stream ciphers that
+ do not use a synchronization vector (such as RC4), the stream cipher
+ state from the end of one record is simply used on the subsequent
+ packet. If the CipherSuite is TLS_NULL_WITH_NULL_NULL, encryption
+ consists of the identity operation (i.e., the data is not encrypted,
+ and the MAC size is zero, implying that no MAC is used).
+ TLSCiphertext.length is TLSCompressed.length plus
+ SecurityParameters.mac_length.
+
+6.2.3.2. CBC Block Cipher
+
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 20] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ For block ciphers (such as RC2, DES, or AES), the encryption and MAC
+ functions convert TLSCompressed.fragment structures to and from block
+ TLSCiphertext.fragment structures.
+
+ block-ciphered struct {
+ opaque IV[SecurityParameters.block_length];
+ opaque content[TLSCompressed.length];
+ opaque MAC[SecurityParameters.mac_length];
+ uint8 padding[GenericBlockCipher.padding_length];
+ uint8 padding_length;
+ } GenericBlockCipher;
+
+ The MAC is generated as described in Section 6.2.3.1.
+
+ IV
+ TLS 1.2 uses an explicit IV in order to prevent the attacks
+ described by [CBCATT]. The IV SHOULD be chosen at random and MUST
+ be unpredictable. In order to decrypt, thereceiver decrypts the
+ entire GenericBlockCipher structure and then discards the first
+ cipher block, corresponding to the IV component.
+
+ padding
+ Padding that is added to force the length of the plaintext to be
+ an integral multiple of the block cipher's block length. The
+ padding MAY be any length up to 255 bytes, as long as it results
+ in the TLSCiphertext.length being an integral multiple of the
+ block length. Lengths longer than necessary might be desirable to
+ frustrate attacks on a protocol that are based on analysis of the
+ lengths of exchanged messages. Each uint8 in the padding data
+ vector MUST be filled with the padding length value. The receiver
+ MUST check this padding and SHOULD use the bad_record_mac alert
+ to indicate padding errors.
+
+ padding_length
+ The padding length MUST be such that the total size of the
+ GenericBlockCipher structure is a multiple of the cipher's block
+ length. Legal values range from zero to 255, inclusive. This
+ length specifies the length of the padding field exclusive of the
+ padding_length field itself.
+
+ The encrypted data length (TLSCiphertext.length) is one more than the
+ sum of TLSCompressed.length, SecurityParameters.mac_length, and
+ padding_length.
+
+ Example: If the block length is 8 bytes, the content length
+ (TLSCompressed.length) is 61 bytes, and the MAC length is 20
+ bytes, then the length before padding is 82 bytes (this does
+ not include the IV, which may or may not be encrypted, as
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 21] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ discussed above). Thus, the padding length modulo 8 must be
+ equal to 6 in order to make the total length an even multiple
+ of 8 bytes (the block length). The padding length can be 6,
+ 14, 22, and so on, through 254. If the padding length were the
+ minimum necessary, 6, the padding would be 6 bytes, each
+ containing the value 6. Thus, the last 8 octets of the
+ GenericBlockCipher before block encryption would be xx 06 06
+ 06 06 06 06 06, where xx is the last octet of the MAC.
+
+ Note: With block ciphers in CBC mode (Cipher Block Chaining),
+ it is critical that the entire plaintext of the record be known
+ before any ciphertext is transmitted. Otherwise, it is possible
+ for the attacker to mount the attack described in [CBCATT].
+
+ Implementation Note: Canvel et al. [CBCTIME] have demonstrated a timing
+ attack on CBC padding based on the time required to compute the
+ MAC. In order to defend against this attack, implementations MUST
+ ensure that record processing time is essentially the same
+ whether or not the padding is correct. In general, the best way
+ to do this is to compute the MAC even if the padding is
+ incorrect, and only then reject the packet. For instance, if the
+ pad appears to be incorrect, the implementation might assume a
+ zero-length pad and then compute the MAC. This leaves a small
+ timing channel, since MAC performance depends to some extent on
+ the size of the data fragment, but it is not believed to be large
+ enough to be exploitable, due to the large block size of existing
+ MACs and the small size of the timing signal.
+
+6.2.3.3. AEAD ciphers
+
+ For AEAD [AEAD] ciphers (such as [CCM] or [GCM]) the AEAD function
+ converts TLSCompressed.fragment structures to and from AEAD
+ TLSCiphertext.fragment structures.
+
+ aead-ciphered struct {
+ opaque IV[SecurityParameters.iv_length];
+ opaque aead_output[AEADEncrypted.length];
+ } GenericAEADCipher;
+
+ AEAD ciphers take as input a single key, a nonce, a plaintext, and
+ "additional data" to be included in the authentication check, as
+ described in Section 2.1 of [AEAD]. These inputs are as follows.
+
+ The key is either the client_write_key or the server_write_key. The
+ MAC key will be of length zero.
+
+ The nonce supplied to the AEAD operations is determined by the IV in
+ aead-ciphered struct. Each IV used in distinct invocations of the
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 22] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ AEAD encryption operation MUST be distinct, for any fixed value of
+ the key. Implementations SHOULD use the recommended nonce formation
+ method of [AEAD] to generate IVs, and MAY use any other method that
+ meets this requirement. The length of the IV depends on the AEAD
+ cipher; that length MAY be zero. Note that in many cases it is
+ appropriate to use the partially implicit nonce technique of S 3.2.1
+ of AEAD, in which case the client_write_iv and server_write_iv should
+ be used as the "fixed-common".
+
+ The plaintext is the TLSCompressed.fragment.
+
+ The additional authenticated data, which we denote as
+ additional_data, is defined as follows:
+
+ additional_data = seq_num + TLSCompressed.type +
+ TLSCompressed.version + TLSCompressed.length;
+
+ The aead_output consists of the ciphertext output by the AEAD
+ encryption operation. AEADEncrypted.length will generally be larger
+ than TLSCompressed.length, but by an amount that varies with the AEAD
+ cipher. Since the ciphers might incorporate padding, the amount of
+ overhead could vary with different TLSCompressed.length values. Each
+ AEAD cipher MUST NOT produce an expansion of greater than 1024 bytes.
+ Symbolically,
+
+ AEADEncrypted = AEAD-Encrypt(key, IV, plaintext,
+ additional_data)
+
+ Where "+" denotes concatenation.
+
+
+ In order to decrypt and verify, the cipher takes as input the key,
+ IV, the "additional_data", and the AEADEncrypted value. The output is
+ either the plaintext or an error indicating that the decryption
+ failed. There is no separate integrity check. I.e.,
+
+ TLSCompressed.fragment = AEAD-Decrypt(write_key, IV, AEADEncrypted,
+ TLSCiphertext.type + TLSCiphertext.version +
+ TLSCiphertext.length);
+
+ If the decryption fails, a fatal bad_record_mac alert MUST be
+ generated.
+
+6.3. Key Calculation
+
+ The Record Protocol requires an algorithm to generate keys, and MAC
+ secrets from the security parameters provided by the handshake
+ protocol.
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 23] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ The master secret is hashed into a sequence of secure bytes, which
+ are assigned to the MAC secrets and keys required by the current
+ connection state (see Appendix A.6). CipherSpecs require a client
+ write MAC secret, a server write MAC secret, a client write key, and
+ a server write key, each of which is generated from the master secret
+ in that order. Unused values are empty.
+
+ When keys and MAC secrets are generated, the master secret is used as
+ an entropy source.
+
+ To generate the key material, compute
+
+ key_block = PRF(SecurityParameters.master_secret,
+ "key expansion",
+ SecurityParameters.server_random +
+ SecurityParameters.client_random);
+
+ until enough output has been generated. Then the key_block is
+ partitioned as follows:
+
+ client_write_MAC_secret[SecurityParameters.mac_key_length]
+ server_write_MAC_secret[SecurityParameters.mac_key_length]
+ client_write_key[SecurityParameters.enc_key_length]
+ server_write_key[SecurityParameters.enc_key_length]
+
+
+ Implementation note:
+ The currently defined cipher suite which requires the most
+ material is AES_256_CBC_SHA, defined in [TLSAES]. It requires 2 x
+ 32 byte keys and 2 x 20 byte MAC secrets, for a total 104 bytes
+ of key material.
+
+7. The TLS Handshaking Protocols
+
+ TLS has three subprotocols that are used to allow peers to agree
+ upon security parameters for the record layer, to authenticate
+ themselves, to instantiate negotiated security parameters, and to
+ report error conditions to each other.
+
+ The Handshake Protocol is responsible for negotiating a session,
+ which consists of the following items:
+
+ session identifier
+ An arbitrary byte sequence chosen by the server to identify an
+ active or resumable session state.
+
+ peer certificate
+ X509v3 [X509] certificate of the peer. This element of the
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 24] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ state may be null.
+
+ compression method
+ The algorithm used to compress data prior to encryption.
+
+ cipher spec
+ Specifies the bulk data encryption algorithm (such as null,
+ DES, etc.) and a MAC algorithm (such as MD5 or SHA). It also
+ defines cryptographic attributes such as the mac_length. (See
+ Appendix A.6 for formal definition.)
+
+ master secret
+ 48-byte secret shared between the client and server.
+
+ is resumable
+ A flag indicating whether the session can be used to initiate
+ new connections.
+
+ These items are then used to create security parameters for use by
+ the Record Layer when protecting application data. Many connections
+ can be instantiated using the same session through the resumption
+ feature of the TLS Handshake Protocol.
+
+7.1. Change Cipher Spec Protocol
+
+ The change cipher spec protocol exists to signal transitions in
+ ciphering strategies. The protocol consists of a single message,
+ which is encrypted and compressed under the current (not the pending)
+ connection state. The message consists of a single byte of value 1.
+
+ struct {
+ enum { change_cipher_spec(1), (255) } type;
+ } ChangeCipherSpec;
+
+ The change cipher spec message is sent by both the client and the
+ server to notify the receiving party that subsequent records will be
+ protected under the newly negotiated CipherSpec and keys. Reception
+ of this message causes the receiver to instruct the Record Layer to
+ immediately copy the read pending state into the read current state.
+ Immediately after sending this message, the sender MUST instruct the
+ record layer to make the write pending state the write active state.
+ (See Section 6.1.) The change cipher spec message is sent during the
+ handshake after the security parameters have been agreed upon, but
+ before the verifying finished message is sent (see Section 7.4.11
+
+ Note: If a rehandshake occurs while data is flowing on a connection,
+ the communicating parties may continue to send data using the old
+ CipherSpec. However, once the ChangeCipherSpec has been sent, the new
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 25] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ CipherSpec MUST be used. The first side to send the ChangeCipherSpec
+ does not know that the other side has finished computing the new
+ keying material (e.g., if it has to perform a time consuming public
+ key operation). Thus, a small window of time, during which the
+ recipient must buffer the data, MAY exist. In practice, with modern
+ machines this interval is likely to be fairly short.
+
+7.2. Alert Protocol
+
+ One of the content types supported by the TLS Record layer is the
+ alert type. Alert messages convey the severity of the message and a
+ description of the alert. Alert messages with a level of fatal result
+ in the immediate termination of the connection. In this case, other
+ connections corresponding to the session may continue, but the
+ session identifier MUST be invalidated, preventing the failed session
+ from being used to establish new connections. Like other messages,
+ alert messages are encrypted and compressed, as specified by the
+ current connection state.
+
+ enum { warning(1), fatal(2), (255) } AlertLevel;
+
+ enum {
+ close_notify(0),
+ unexpected_message(10),
+ bad_record_mac(20),
+ decryption_failed_RESERVED(21),
+ record_overflow(22),
+ decompression_failure(30),
+ handshake_failure(40),
+ no_certificate_RESERVED(41),
+ bad_certificate(42),
+ unsupported_certificate(43),
+ certificate_revoked(44),
+ certificate_expired(45),
+ certificate_unknown(46),
+ illegal_parameter(47),
+ unknown_ca(48),
+ access_denied(49),
+ decode_error(50),
+ decrypt_error(51),
+ export_restriction_RESERVED(60),
+ protocol_version(70),
+ insufficient_security(71),
+ internal_error(80),
+ user_canceled(90),
+ no_renegotiation(100),
+ unsupported_extension(110), /* new */
+ (255)
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 26] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ } AlertDescription;
+
+ struct {
+ AlertLevel level;
+ AlertDescription description;
+ } Alert;
+
+7.2.1. Closure Alerts
+
+ The client and the server must share knowledge that the connection is
+ ending in order to avoid a truncation attack. Either party may
+ initiate the exchange of closing messages.
+
+ close_notify
+ This message notifies the recipient that the sender will not send
+ any more messages on this connection. Note that as of TLS 1.1,
+ failure to properly close a connection no longer requires that a
+ session not be resumed. This is a change from TLS 1.0 to conform
+ with widespread implementation practice.
+
+ Either party may initiate a close by sending a close_notify alert.
+ Any data received after a closure alert is ignored.
+
+ Unless some other fatal alert has been transmitted, each party is
+ required to send a close_notify alert before closing the write side
+ of the connection. The other party MUST respond with a close_notify
+ alert of its own and close down the connection immediately,
+ discarding any pending writes. It is not required for the initiator
+ of the close to wait for the responding close_notify alert before
+ closing the read side of the connection.
+
+ If the application protocol using TLS provides that any data may be
+ carried over the underlying transport after the TLS connection is
+ closed, the TLS implementation must receive the responding
+ close_notify alert before indicating to the application layer that
+ the TLS connection has ended. If the application protocol will not
+ transfer any additional data, but will only close the underlying
+ transport connection, then the implementation MAY choose to close the
+ transport without waiting for the responding close_notify. No part of
+ this standard should be taken to dictate the manner in which a usage
+ profile for TLS manages its data transport, including when
+ connections are opened or closed.
+
+ Note: It is assumed that closing a connection reliably delivers
+ pending data before destroying the transport.
+
+7.2.2. Error Alerts
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 27] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ Error handling in the TLS Handshake protocol is very simple. When an
+ error is detected, the detecting party sends a message to the other
+ party. Upon transmission or receipt of a fatal alert message, both
+ parties immediately close the connection. Servers and clients MUST
+ forget any session-identifiers, keys, and secrets associated with a
+ failed connection. Thus, any connection terminated with a fatal alert
+ MUST NOT be resumed.
+
+ Whenever an implementation encounters a condition which is defined as
+ a fatal alert, it MUST send the appropriate alert prior to closing
+ the connection. In cases where an implementation chooses to send an
+ alert which MAY be a warning alert but intends to close the
+ connection immediately afterwards, it MUST send that alert at the
+ fatal alert level.
+
+ If an alert with a level of warning is sent and received, generally
+ the connection can continue normally. If the receiving party decides
+ not to proceed with the connection (e.g., after having received a
+ no_renegotiation alert that it is not willing to accept), it SHOULD
+ send a fatal alert to terminate the connection.
+
+
+ The following error alerts are defined:
+
+ unexpected_message
+ An inappropriate message was received. This alert is always fatal
+ and should never be observed in communication between proper
+ implementations.
+
+ bad_record_mac
+ This alert is returned if a record is received with an incorrect
+ MAC. This alert also MUST be returned if an alert is sent because
+ a TLSCiphertext decrypted in an invalid way: either it wasn't an
+ even multiple of the block length, or its padding values, when
+ checked, weren't correct. This message is always fatal.
+
+ decryption_failed_RESERVED
+ This alert was used in some earlier versions of TLS, and may have
+ permitted certain attacks against the CBC mode [CBCATT]. It MUST
+ NOT be sent by compliant implementations.
+
+ record_overflow
+ A TLSCiphertext record was received that had a length more than
+ 2^14+2048 bytes, or a record decrypted to a TLSCompressed record
+ with more than 2^14+1024 bytes. This message is always fatal.
+
+ decompression_failure
+ The decompression function received improper input (e.g., data
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 28] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ that would expand to excessive length). This message is always
+ fatal.
+
+ handshake_failure
+ Reception of a handshake_failure alert message indicates that the
+ sender was unable to negotiate an acceptable set of security
+ parameters given the options available. This is a fatal error.
+
+ no_certificate_RESERVED
+ This alert was used in SSLv3 but not any version of TLS. It MUST
+ NOT be sent by compliant implementations.
+
+ bad_certificate
+ A certificate was corrupt, contained signatures that did not
+ verify correctly, etc.
+
+ unsupported_certificate
+ A certificate was of an unsupported type.
+
+ certificate_revoked
+ A certificate was revoked by its signer.
+
+ certificate_expired
+ A certificate has expired or is not currently valid.
+
+ certificate_unknown
+ Some other (unspecified) issue arose in processing the
+ certificate, rendering it unacceptable.
+
+ illegal_parameter
+ A field in the handshake was out of range or inconsistent with
+ other fields. This is always fatal.
+
+ unknown_ca
+ A valid certificate chain or partial chain was received, but the
+ certificate was not accepted because the CA certificate could not
+ be located or couldn't be matched with a known, trusted CA. This
+ message is always fatal.
+
+ access_denied
+ A valid certificate was received, but when access control was
+ applied, the sender decided not to proceed with negotiation.
+ This message is always fatal.
+
+ decode_error
+ A message could not be decoded because some field was out of the
+ specified range or the length of the message was incorrect. This
+ message is always fatal.
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 29] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ decrypt_error
+ A handshake cryptographic operation failed, including being
+ unable to correctly verify a signature, decrypt a key exchange,
+ or validate a finished message.
+
+ export_restriction_RESERVED
+ This alert was used in some earlier versions of TLS. It MUST NOT
+ be sent by compliant implementations.
+
+ protocol_version
+ The protocol version the client has attempted to negotiate is
+ recognized but not supported. (For example, old protocol versions
+ might be avoided for security reasons). This message is always
+ fatal.
+
+ insufficient_security
+ Returned instead of handshake_failure when a negotiation has
+ failed specifically because the server requires ciphers more
+ secure than those supported by the client. This message is always
+ fatal.
+
+ internal_error
+ An internal error unrelated to the peer or the correctness of the
+ protocol (such as a memory allocation failure) makes it
+ impossible to continue. This message is always fatal.
+
+ user_canceled
+ This handshake is being canceled for some reason unrelated to a
+ protocol failure. If the user cancels an operation after the
+ handshake is complete, just closing the connection by sending a
+ close_notify is more appropriate. This alert should be followed
+ by a close_notify. This message is generally a warning.
+
+ no_renegotiation
+ Sent by the client in response to a hello request or by the
+ server in response to a client hello after initial handshaking.
+ Either of these would normally lead to renegotiation; when that
+ is not appropriate, the recipient should respond with this alert.
+ At that point, the original requester can decide whether to
+ proceed with the connection. One case where this would be
+ appropriate is where a server has spawned a process to satisfy a
+ request; the process might receive security parameters (key
+ length, authentication, etc.) at startup and it might be
+ difficult to communicate changes to these parameters after that
+ point. This message is always a warning.
+
+ unsupported_extension
+ sent by clients that receive an extended server hello containing
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 30] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ an extension that they did not put in the corresponding client
+ hello (see Section 2.3). This message is always fatal.
+
+ For all errors where an alert level is not explicitly specified, the
+ sending party MAY determine at its discretion whether this is a fatal
+ error or not; if an alert with a level of warning is received, the
+ receiving party MAY decide at its discretion whether to treat this as
+ a fatal error or not. However, all messages that are transmitted
+ with a level of fatal MUST be treated as fatal messages.
+
+ New Alert values are assigned by IANA as described in Section 11.
+
+7.3. Handshake Protocol Overview
+
+ The cryptographic parameters of the session state are produced by the
+ TLS Handshake Protocol, which operates on top of the TLS Record
+ Layer. When a TLS client and server first start communicating, they
+ agree on a protocol version, select cryptographic algorithms,
+ optionally authenticate each other, and use public-key encryption
+ techniques to generate shared secrets.
+
+ The TLS Handshake Protocol involves the following steps:
+
+ - Exchange hello messages to agree on algorithms, exchange random
+ values, and check for session resumption.
+
+ - Exchange the necessary cryptographic parameters to allow the
+ client and server to agree on a premaster secret.
+
+ - Exchange certificates and cryptographic information to allow the
+ client and server to authenticate themselves.
+
+ - Generate a master secret from the premaster secret and exchanged
+ random values.
+
+ - Provide security parameters to the record layer.
+
+ - Allow the client and server to verify that their peer has
+ calculated the same security parameters and that the handshake
+ occurred without tampering by an attacker.
+
+ Note that higher layers should not be overly reliant on whether TLS
+ always negotiates the strongest possible connection between two
+ peers. There are a number of ways in which a man in the middle
+ attacker can attempt to make two entities drop down to the least
+ secure method they support. The protocol has been designed to
+ minimize this risk, but there are still attacks available: for
+ example, an attacker could block access to the port a secure service
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 31] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ runs on, or attempt to get the peers to negotiate an unauthenticated
+ connection. The fundamental rule is that higher levels must be
+ cognizant of what their security requirements are and never transmit
+ information over a channel less secure than what they require. The
+ TLS protocol is secure in that any cipher suite offers its promised
+ level of security: if you negotiate 3DES with a 1024 bit RSA key
+ exchange with a host whose certificate you have verified, you can
+ expect to be that secure.
+
+ These goals are achieved by the handshake protocol, which can be
+ summarized as follows: The client sends a client hello message to
+ which the server must respond with a server hello message, or else a
+ fatal error will occur and the connection will fail. The client hello
+ and server hello are used to establish security enhancement
+ capabilities between client and server. The client hello and server
+ hello establish the following attributes: Protocol Version, Session
+ ID, Cipher Suite, and Compression Method. Additionally, two random
+ values are generated and exchanged: ClientHello.random and
+ ServerHello.random.
+
+ The actual key exchange uses up to four messages: the server
+ certificate, the server key exchange, the client certificate, and the
+ client key exchange. New key exchange methods can be created by
+ specifying a format for these messages and by defining the use of the
+ messages to allow the client and server to agree upon a shared
+ secret. This secret MUST be quite long; currently defined key
+ exchange methods exchange secrets that range from 48 to 128 bytes in
+ length.
+
+ Following the hello messages, the server will send its certificate,
+ if it is to be authenticated. Additionally, a server key exchange
+ message may be sent, if it is required (e.g., if their server has no
+ certificate, or if its certificate is for signing only). If the
+ server is authenticated, it may request a certificate from the
+ client, if that is appropriate to the cipher suite selected. Next,
+ the server will send the server hello done message, indicating that
+ the hello-message phase of the handshake is complete. The server will
+ then wait for a client response. If the server has sent a certificate
+ request message, the client must send the certificate message. The
+ client key exchange message is now sent, and the content of that
+ message will depend on the public key algorithm selected between the
+ client hello and the server hello. If the client has sent a
+ certificate with signing ability, a digitally-signed certificate
+ verify message is sent to explicitly verify possession of the private
+ key in the certificate.
+
+ At this point, a change cipher spec message is sent by the client,
+ and the client copies the pending Cipher Spec into the current Cipher
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 32] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ Spec. The client then immediately sends the finished message under
+ the new algorithms, keys, and secrets. In response, the server will
+ send its own change cipher spec message, transfer the pending to the
+ current Cipher Spec, and send its finished message under the new
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 33] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ Cipher Spec. At this point, the handshake is complete, and the client
+ and server may begin to exchange application layer data. (See flow
+ chart below.) Application data MUST NOT be sent prior to the
+ completion of the first handshake (before a cipher suite other
+ TLS_NULL_WITH_NULL_NULL is established).
+
+ Client Server
+
+ ClientHello -------->
+ ServerHello
+ Certificate*
+ CertificateStatus*
+ ServerKeyExchange*
+ CertificateRequest*
+ <-------- ServerHelloDone
+ Certificate*
+ ClientKeyExchange
+ CertificateVerify*
+ [ChangeCipherSpec]
+ Finished -------->
+ [ChangeCipherSpec]
+ <-------- Finished
+ Application Data <-------> Application Data
+
+ Fig. 1. Message flow for a full handshake
+
+ * Indicates optional or situation-dependent messages that are not
+ always sent.
+
+ Note: To help avoid pipeline stalls, ChangeCipherSpec is an
+ independent TLS Protocol content type, and is not actually a TLS
+ handshake message.
+
+ When the client and server decide to resume a previous session or
+ duplicate an existing session (instead of negotiating new security
+ parameters), the message flow is as follows:
+
+ The client sends a ClientHello using the Session ID of the session to
+ be resumed. The server then checks its session cache for a match. If
+ a match is found, and the server is willing to re-establish the
+ connection under the specified session state, it will send a
+ ServerHello with the same Session ID value. At this point, both
+ client and server MUST send change cipher spec messages and proceed
+ directly to finished messages. Once the re-establishment is complete,
+ the client and server MAY begin to exchange application layer data.
+ (See flow chart below.) If a Session ID match is not found, the
+ server generates a new session ID and the TLS client and server
+ perform a full handshake.
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 34] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ Client Server
+
+ ClientHello -------->
+ ServerHello
+ [ChangeCipherSpec]
+ <-------- Finished
+ [ChangeCipherSpec]
+ Finished -------->
+ Application Data <-------> Application Data
+
+ Fig. 2. Message flow for an abbreviated handshake
+
+ The contents and significance of each message will be presented in
+ detail in the following sections.
+
+7.4. Handshake Protocol
+
+ The TLS Handshake Protocol is one of the defined higher-level clients
+ of the TLS Record Protocol. This protocol is used to negotiate the
+ secure attributes of a session. Handshake messages are supplied to
+ the TLS Record Layer, where they are encapsulated within one or more
+ TLSPlaintext structures, which are processed and transmitted as
+ specified by the current active session state.
+
+ enum {
+ hello_request(0), client_hello(1), server_hello(2),
+ certificate(11), server_key_exchange (12),
+ certificate_request(13), server_hello_done(14),
+ certificate_verify(15), client_key_exchange(16),
+ finished(20)
+ (255)
+ } HandshakeType;
+
+ struct {
+ HandshakeType msg_type; /* handshake type */
+ uint24 length; /* bytes in message */
+ select (HandshakeType) {
+ case hello_request: HelloRequest;
+ case client_hello: ClientHello;
+ case server_hello: ServerHello;
+ case certificate: Certificate;
+ case server_key_exchange: ServerKeyExchange;
+ case certificate_request: CertificateRequest;
+ case server_hello_done: ServerHelloDone;
+ case certificate_verify: CertificateVerify;
+ case client_key_exchange: ClientKeyExchange;
+ case finished: Finished;
+ } body;
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 35] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ } Handshake;
+
+ The handshake protocol messages are presented below in the order they
+ MUST be sent; sending handshake messages in an unexpected order
+ results in a fatal error. Unneeded handshake messages can be omitted,
+ however. Note one exception to the ordering: the Certificate message
+ is used twice in the handshake (from server to client, then from
+ client to server), but described only in its first position. The one
+ message that is not bound by these ordering rules is the Hello
+ Request message, which can be sent at any time, but which should be
+ ignored by the client if it arrives in the middle of a handshake.
+
+ New Handshake message types are assigned by IANA as described in
+ Section 11.
+
+7.4.1. Hello Messages
+
+ The hello phase messages are used to exchange security enhancement
+ capabilities between the client and server. When a new session
+ begins, the Record Layer's connection state encryption, hash, and
+ compression algorithms are initialized to null. The current
+ connection state is used for renegotiation messages.
+
+7.4.1.1. Hello Request
+
+ When this message will be sent:
+ The hello request message MAY be sent by the server at any time.
+
+ Meaning of this message:
+ Hello request is a simple notification that the client should
+ begin the negotiation process anew by sending a client hello
+ message when convenient. This message is not intended to
+ establish which side is the client or server but merely to
+ initiate a new negotiation. Servers SHOULD not send a
+ HelloRequest immediately upon the client's initial connection.
+ It is the client's job to send a ClientHello at that time.
+
+ This message will be ignored by the client if the client is
+ currently negotiating a session. This message may be ignored by
+ the client if it does not wish to renegotiate a session, or the
+ client may, if it wishes, respond with a no_renegotiation alert.
+ Since handshake messages are intended to have transmission
+ precedence over application data, it is expected that the
+ negotiation will begin before no more than a few records are
+ received from the client. If the server sends a hello request but
+ does not receive a client hello in response, it may close the
+ connection with a fatal alert.
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 36] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ After sending a hello request, servers SHOULD not repeat the request
+ until the subsequent handshake negotiation is complete.
+
+ Structure of this message:
+ struct { } HelloRequest;
+
+ Note: This message MUST NOT be included in the message hashes that are
+ maintained throughout the handshake and used in the finished
+ messages and the certificate verify message.
+
+7.4.1.2. Client Hello
+
+ When this message will be sent:
+ When a client first connects to a server it is required to send
+ the client hello as its first message. The client can also send a
+ client hello in response to a hello request or on its own
+ initiative in order to renegotiate the security parameters in an
+ existing connection.
+
+ Structure of this message:
+ The client hello message includes a random structure, which is
+ used later in the protocol.
+
+ struct {
+ uint32 gmt_unix_time;
+ opaque random_bytes[28];
+ } Random;
+
+ gmt_unix_time
+ The current time and date in standard UNIX 32-bit format (seconds
+ since the midnight starting Jan 1, 1970, GMT, ignoring leap
+ seconds) according to the sender's internal clock. Clocks are not
+ required to be set correctly by the basic TLS Protocol; higher-
+ level or application protocols may define additional
+ requirements.
+
+ random_bytes
+ 28 bytes generated by a secure random number generator.
+
+ The client hello message includes a variable-length session
+ identifier. If not empty, the value identifies a session between the
+ same client and server whose security parameters the client wishes to
+ reuse. The session identifier MAY be from an earlier connection, this
+ connection, or from another currently active connection. The second
+ option is useful if the client only wishes to update the random
+ structures and derived values of a connection, and the third option
+ makes it possible to establish several independent secure connections
+ without repeating the full handshake protocol. These independent
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 37] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ connections may occur sequentially or simultaneously; a SessionID
+ becomes valid when the handshake negotiating it completes with the
+ exchange of Finished messages and persists until it is removed due to
+ aging or because a fatal error was encountered on a connection
+ associated with the session. The actual contents of the SessionID are
+ defined by the server.
+
+ opaque SessionID<0..32>;
+
+ Warning:
+ Because the SessionID is transmitted without encryption or
+ immediate MAC protection, servers MUST not place confidential
+ information in session identifiers or let the contents of fake
+ session identifiers cause any breach of security. (Note that the
+ content of the handshake as a whole, including the SessionID, is
+ protected by the Finished messages exchanged at the end of the
+ handshake.)
+
+ The CipherSuite list, passed from the client to the server in the
+ client hello message, contains the combinations of cryptographic
+ algorithms supported by the client in order of the client's
+ preference (favorite choice first). Each CipherSuite defines a key
+ exchange algorithm, a bulk encryption algorithm (including secret key
+ length), a MAC algorithm, and a PRF. The server will select a cipher
+ suite or, if no acceptable choices are presented, return a handshake
+ failure alert and close the connection.
+
+ uint8 CipherSuite[2]; /* Cryptographic suite selector */
+
+ The client hello includes a list of compression algorithms supported
+ by the client, ordered according to the client's preference.
+
+ enum { null(0), (255) } CompressionMethod;
+
+ struct {
+ ProtocolVersion client_version;
+ Random random;
+ SessionID session_id;
+ CipherSuite cipher_suites<2..2^16-1>;
+ CompressionMethod compression_methods<1..2^8-1>;
+ select (extensions_present) {
+ case false:
+ struct {};
+ case true:
+ Extension extensions<0..2^16-1>;
+ }
+ } ClientHello;
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 38] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ TLS allows extensions to follow the compression_methods field in an
+ extensions block. The presence of extensions can be detected by
+ determining whether there are bytes following the compression_methods
+ at the end of the ClientHello. Note that this method of detecting
+ optional data differs from the normal TLS method of having a
+ variable-length field but is used for compatibility with TLS before
+ extensions were defined.
+
+ client_version
+ The version of the TLS protocol by which the client wishes to
+ communicate during this session. This SHOULD be the latest
+ (highest valued) version supported by the client. For this
+ version of the specification, the version will be 3.3 (See
+ Appendix E for details about backward compatibility).
+
+ random
+ A client-generated random structure.
+
+ session_id
+ The ID of a session the client wishes to use for this connection.
+ This field should be empty if no session_id is available, or it
+ the client wishes to generate new security parameters.
+
+ cipher_suites
+ This is a list of the cryptographic options supported by the
+ client, with the client's first preference first. If the
+ session_id field is not empty (implying a session resumption
+ request) this vector MUST include at least the cipher_suite from
+ that session. Values are defined in Appendix A.5.
+
+ compression_methods
+ This is a list of the compression methods supported by the
+ client, sorted by client preference. If the session_id field is
+ not empty (implying a session resumption request) it MUST include
+ the compression_method from that session. This vector MUST
+ contain, and all implementations MUST support,
+ CompressionMethod.null. Thus, a client and server will always be
+ able to agree on a compression method.
+
+ client_hello_extension_list
+ Clients MAY request extended functionality from servers by
+ sending data in the client_hello_extension_list. Here the new
+ "client_hello_extension_list" field contains a list of
+ extensions. The actual "Extension" format is defined in Section
+ 7.4.1.4.
+
+ In the event that a client requests additional functionality using
+ extensions, and this functionality is not supplied by the server, the
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 39] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ client MAY abort the handshake. A server that supports the
+ extensions mechanism MUST accept only client hello messages in either
+ the original (TLS 1.0/TLS 1.1) ClientHello or the extended
+ ClientHello format defined in this document, and (as for all other
+ messages) MUST check that the amount of data in the message precisely
+ matches one of these formats; if not then it MUST send a fatal
+ "decode_error" alert.
+
+ After sending the client hello message, the client waits for a server
+ hello message. Any other handshake message returned by the server
+ except for a hello request is treated as a fatal error.
+
+
+7.4.1.3. Server Hello
+
+
+ When this message will be sent:
+ The server will send this message in response to a client hello
+ message when it was able to find an acceptable set of algorithms.
+ If it cannot find such a match, it will respond with a handshake
+ failure alert.
+
+ Structure of this message:
+ struct {
+ ProtocolVersion server_version;
+ Random random;
+ SessionID session_id;
+ CipherSuite cipher_suite;
+ CompressionMethod compression_method;
+ select (extensions_present) {
+ case false:
+ struct {};
+ case true:
+ Extension extensions<0..2^16-1>;
+ }
+ } ServerHello;
+
+ The presence of extensions can be detected by determining whether
+ there are bytes following the compression_method field at the end of
+ the ServerHello.
+
+ server_version
+ This field will contain the lower of that suggested by the client
+ in the client hello and the highest supported by the server. For
+ this version of the specification, the version is 3.3. (See
+ Appendix E for details about backward compatibility.)
+
+ random
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 40] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ This structure is generated by the server and MUST be
+ independently generated from the ClientHello.random.
+
+ session_id
+ This is the identity of the session corresponding to this
+ connection. If the ClientHello.session_id was non-empty, the
+ server will look in its session cache for a match. If a match is
+ found and the server is willing to establish the new connection
+ using the specified session state, the server will respond with
+ the same value as was supplied by the client. This indicates a
+ resumed session and dictates that the parties must proceed
+ directly to the finished messages. Otherwise this field will
+ contain a different value identifying the new session. The server
+ may return an empty session_id to indicate that the session will
+ not be cached and therefore cannot be resumed. If a session is
+ resumed, it must be resumed using the same cipher suite it was
+ originally negotiated with. Note that there is no requirement
+ that the server resume any session even if it had formerly
+ provided a session_id. Client MUST be prepared to do a full
+ negotiation -- including negotiating new cipher suites -- during
+ any handshake.
+
+ cipher_suite
+ The single cipher suite selected by the server from the list in
+ ClientHello.cipher_suites. For resumed sessions, this field is
+ the value from the state of the session being resumed.
+
+ compression_method
+ The single compression algorithm selected by the server from the
+ list in ClientHello.compression_methods. For resumed sessions
+ this field is the value from the resumed session state.
+
+ server_hello_extension_list
+ A list of extensions. Note that only extensions offered by the
+ client can appear in the server's list.
+
+7.4.1.4 Hello Extensions
+
+ The extension format is:
+
+ struct {
+ ExtensionType extension_type;
+ opaque extension_data<0..2^16-1>;
+ } Extension;
+
+ enum {
+ signature_hash_types(TBD-BY-IANA), (65535)
+ } ExtensionType;
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 41] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ Here:
+
+ - "extension_type" identifies the particular extension type.
+
+ - "extension_data" contains information specific to the particular
+ extension type.
+
+ The list of extension types, as defined in Section 2.3, is maintained
+ by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Thus an
+ application needs to be made to the IANA in order to obtain a new
+ extension type value. Since there are subtle (and not so subtle)
+ interactions that may occur in this protocol between new features and
+ existing features which may result in a significant reduction in
+ overall security, new values SHALL be defined only through the IETF
+ Consensus process specified in [IANA]. (This means that new
+ assignments can be made only via RFCs approved by the IESG.) The
+ initial set of extensions is defined in a companion document [TBD].
+
+ The following considerations should be taken into account when
+ designing new extensions:
+
+ - Some cases where a server does not agree to an extension are
+ error
+ conditions, and some simply a refusal to support a particular
+ feature. In general error alerts should be used for the former,
+ and a field in the server extension response for the latter.
+
+ - Extensions should as far as possible be designed to prevent any
+ attack that forces use (or non-use) of a particular feature by
+ manipulation of handshake messages. This principle should be
+ followed regardless of whether the feature is believed to cause a
+ security problem.
+
+ Often the fact that the extension fields are included in the
+ inputs to the Finished message hashes will be sufficient, but
+ extreme care is needed when the extension changes the meaning of
+ messages sent in the handshake phase. Designers and implementors
+ should be aware of the fact that until the handshake has been
+ authenticated, active attackers can modify messages and insert,
+ remove, or replace extensions.
+
+ - It would be technically possible to use extensions to change
+ major aspects of the design of TLS; for example the design of
+ cipher suite negotiation. This is not recommended; it would be
+ more appropriate to define a new version of TLS - particularly
+ since the TLS handshake algorithms have specific protection
+ against version rollback attacks based on the version number, and
+ the possibility of version rollback should be a significant
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 42] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ consideration in any major design change.
+
+7.4.1.4.1 Cert Hash Types
+
+ The client MAY use the "signature_hash_types" to indicate to the
+ server which hash functions may be used in digital signatures.
+ The "extension_data" field of this extension contains:
+
+ enum{
+ md5(0), sha1(1), sha256(2), sha384(3), sha512(4), (255)
+ } HashType;
+
+ struct {
+ HashType types<1..255>;
+ } SignatureHashTypes;
+
+ These values indicate support for MD5 [MD5], SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-384,
+ and SHA-512 [SHA] respectively. The server MUST NOT send this
+ extension. The values are indicated in descending order of
+ preference.
+
+ Clients SHOULD send this extension if they support any algorithm
+ other than SHA-1. If this extension is not used, servers SHOULD
+ assume that the client supports only SHA-1. Note: this is a change
+ from TLS 1.1 where there are no explicit rules but as a practical
+ matter one can assume that the peer supports MD5 and SHA-1.
+
+7.4.2. Server Certificate
+
+ When this message will be sent:
+ The server MUST send a certificate whenever the agreed-upon key
+ exchange method uses certificates for authentication (this
+ includes all key exchange methods defined in this document except
+ DH_anon). This message will always immediately follow the server
+ hello message.
+
+ Meaning of this message:
+ The certificate type MUST be appropriate for the selected cipher
+ suite's key exchange algorithm, and is generally an X.509v3
+ certificate. It MUST contain a key that matches the key exchange
+ method, as follows. Unless otherwise specified, the signing
+ algorithm for the certificate MUST be the same as the algorithm
+ for the certificate key. Unless otherwise specified, the public
+ key MAY be of any length.
+
+ Key Exchange Algorithm Certificate Key Type
+
+ RSA RSA public key; the certificate MUST
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 43] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ allow the key to be used for encryption.
+
+ DHE_DSS DSS public key.
+
+ DHE_RSA RSA public key that can be used for
+ signing.
+
+ DH_DSS Diffie-Hellman key. The algorithm used
+ to sign the certificate MUST be DSS.
+
+ DH_RSA Diffie-Hellman key. The algorithm used
+ to sign the certificate MUST be RSA.
+
+ All certificate profiles and key and cryptographic formats are
+ defined by the IETF PKIX working group [PKIX]. When a key usage
+ extension is present, the digitalSignature bit MUST be set for the
+ key to be eligible for signing, as described above, and the
+ keyEncipherment bit MUST be present to allow encryption, as described
+ above. The keyAgreement bit must be set on Diffie-Hellman
+ certificates.
+
+ As CipherSuites that specify new key exchange methods are specified
+ for the TLS Protocol, they will imply certificate format and the
+ required encoded keying information.
+
+ Structure of this message:
+ opaque ASN.1Cert<1..2^24-1>;
+
+ struct {
+ ASN.1Cert certificate_list<0..2^24-1>;
+ } Certificate;
+
+ certificate_list
+ This is a sequence (chain) of X.509v3 certificates. The sender's
+ certificate must come first in the list. Each following
+ certificate must directly certify the one preceding it. Because
+ certificate validation requires that root keys be distributed
+ independently, the self-signed certificate that specifies the
+ root certificate authority may optionally be omitted from the
+ chain, under the assumption that the remote end must already
+ possess it in order to validate it in any case.
+
+ The same message type and structure will be used for the client's
+ response to a certificate request message. Note that a client MAY
+ send no certificates if it does not have an appropriate certificate
+ to send in response to the server's authentication request.
+
+ Note: PKCS #7 [PKCS7] is not used as the format for the certificate
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 44] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ vector because PKCS #6 [PKCS6] extended certificates are not
+ used. Also, PKCS #7 defines a SET rather than a SEQUENCE, making
+ the task of parsing the list more difficult.
+
+7.4.3. Server Key Exchange Message
+
+ When this message will be sent:
+ This message will be sent immediately after the server
+ certificate message (or the server hello message, if this is an
+ anonymous negotiation).
+
+ The server key exchange message is sent by the server only when
+ the server certificate message (if sent) does not contain enough
+ data to allow the client to exchange a premaster secret. This is
+ true for the following key exchange methods:
+
+ DHE_DSS
+ DHE_RSA
+ DH_anon
+
+ It is not legal to send the server key exchange message for the
+ following key exchange methods:
+
+ RSA
+ DH_DSS
+ DH_RSA
+
+ Meaning of this message:
+ This message conveys cryptographic information to allow the
+ client to communicate the premaster secret: a Diffie-Hellman
+ public key with which the client can complete a key exchange
+ (with the result being the premaster secret) or a public key for
+ some other algorithm.
+
+ As additional CipherSuites are defined for TLS that include new key
+ exchange algorithms, the server key exchange message will be sent if
+ and only if the certificate type associated with the key exchange
+ algorithm does not provide enough information for the client to
+ exchange a premaster secret.
+
+ If the client has offered the SignatureHashTypes extension, the hash
+ function MUST be one of those listed in that extension. Otherwise it
+ MUST be assumed that only SHA-1 is supported.
+
+ If the SignatureAlgorithm being used to sign the ServerKeyExchange
+ message is DSA, the hash algorithm MUST be SHA-1. [TODO: This is
+ incorrect. What it should say is that it must be specified in the
+ SPKI of the cert. However, I don't believe this is actually defined.
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 45] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ Rather, the DSA certs just say dsa. We need new certs to say
+ dsaWithSHAXXX.]
+
+ If the SignatureAlgorithm is RSA, then any hash function accepted by
+ the client MAY be used. The selected hash function MUST be indicated
+ in the digest_algorithm field of the signature structure.
+
+ The hash algorithm is denoted Hash below. Hash.length is the length
+ of the output of that algorithm.
+
+ Structure of this message:
+ enum { diffie_hellman } KeyExchangeAlgorithm;
+
+ struct {
+ opaque dh_p<1..2^16-1>;
+ opaque dh_g<1..2^16-1>;
+ opaque dh_Ys<1..2^16-1>;
+ } ServerDHParams; /* Ephemeral DH parameters */
+
+ dh_p
+ The prime modulus used for the Diffie-Hellman operation.
+
+ dh_g
+ The generator used for the Diffie-Hellman operation.
+
+ dh_Ys
+ The server's Diffie-Hellman public value (g^X mod p).
+
+ struct {
+ select (KeyExchangeAlgorithm) {
+ case diffie_hellman:
+ ServerDHParams params;
+ Signature signed_params;
+ };
+ } ServerKeyExchange;
+
+ struct {
+ select (KeyExchangeAlgorithm) {
+ case diffie_hellman:
+ ServerDHParams params;
+ };
+ } ServerParams;
+
+ params
+ The server's key exchange parameters.
+
+ signed_params
+ For non-anonymous key exchanges, a hash of the corresponding
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 46] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ params value, with the signature appropriate to that hash
+ applied.
+
+ hash
+ Hash(ClientHello.random + ServerHello.random + ServerParams)
+
+ sha_hash
+ SHA1(ClientHello.random + ServerHello.random + ServerParams)
+
+ enum { anonymous, rsa, dsa } SignatureAlgorithm;
+
+
+ struct {
+ select (SignatureAlgorithm) {
+ case anonymous: struct { };
+ case rsa:
+ HashType digest_algorithm; // NEW
+ digitally-signed struct {
+ opaque hash[Hash.length];
+ };
+ case dsa:
+ digitally-signed struct {
+ opaque sha_hash[20];
+ };
+ };
+ };
+ } Signature;
+
+7.4.4. Certificate Request
+
+ When this message will be sent:
+ A non-anonymous server can optionally request a certificate from
+ the client, if appropriate for the selected cipher suite. This
+ message, if sent, will immediately follow the Server Key Exchange
+ message (if it is sent; otherwise, the Server Certificate
+ message).
+
+ Structure of this message:
+ enum {
+ rsa_sign(1), dss_sign(2), rsa_fixed_dh(3), dss_fixed_dh(4),
+ rsa_ephemeral_dh_RESERVED(5), dss_ephemeral_dh_RESERVED(6),
+ fortezza_dms_RESERVED(20),
+ (255)
+ } ClientCertificateType;
+
+
+ opaque DistinguishedName<1..2^16-1>;
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 47] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ struct {
+ ClientCertificateType certificate_types<1..2^8-1>;
+ HashType certificate_hash<1..2^8-1>;
+ DistinguishedName certificate_authorities<0..2^16-1>;
+ } CertificateRequest;
+
+ certificate_types
+ This field is a list of the types of certificates requested,
+ sorted in order of the server's preference.
+
+ certificate_types
+ A list of the types of certificate types which the client may
+ offer.
+ rsa_sign a certificate containing an RSA key
+ dss_sign a certificate containing a DSS key
+ rsa_fixed_dh a certificate signed with RSA and containing
+ a static DH key.
+ dss_fixed_dh a certificate signed with DSS and containing
+ a static DH key
+
+ Certificate types rsa_sign and dss_sign SHOULD contain
+ certificates signed with the same algorithm. However, this is
+ not required. This is a holdover from TLS 1.0 and 1.1.
+
+
+ certificate_hash
+ A list of acceptable hash algorithms to be used in signatures
+ in both the client certificate and the CertificateVerify.
+ These algorithms are listed in descending order of
+ preference.
+
+
+ certificate_authorities
+ A list of the distinguished names of acceptable certificate
+ authorities. These distinguished names may specify a desired
+ distinguished name for a root CA or for a subordinate CA;
+ thus, this message can be used both to describe known roots
+ and a desired authorization space. If the
+ certificate_authorities list is empty then the client MAY
+ send any certificate of the appropriate
+ ClientCertificateType, unless there is some external
+ arrangement to the contrary.
+
+ New ClientCertificateType values are assigned by IANA as described in
+ Section 11.
+
+ Note: Values listed as RESERVED may not be used. They were
+ used in SSLv3.
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 48] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ Note: DistinguishedName is derived from [X501]. DistinguishedNames are
+ represented in DER-encoded format.
+
+ Note: It is a fatal handshake_failure alert for an anonymous server to
+ request client authentication.
+
+7.4.5 Server hello done
+
+ When this message will be sent:
+ The server hello done message is sent by the server to indicate
+ the end of the server hello and associated messages. After
+ sending this message, the server will wait for a client response.
+
+ Meaning of this message:
+ This message means that the server is done sending messages to
+ support the key exchange, and the client can proceed with its
+ phase of the key exchange.
+
+ Upon receipt of the server hello done message, the client SHOULD
+ verify that the server provided a valid certificate, if required
+ and check that the server hello parameters are acceptable.
+
+ Structure of this message:
+ struct { } ServerHelloDone;
+
+7.4.6. Client Certificate
+
+ When this message will be sent:
+ This is the first message the client can send after receiving a
+ server hello done message. This message is only sent if the
+ server requests a certificate. If no suitable certificate is
+ available, the client SHOULD send a certificate message
+ containing no certificates. That is, the certificate_list
+ structure has a length of zero. If client authentication is
+ required by the server for the handshake to continue, it may
+ respond with a fatal handshake failure alert. Client certificates
+ are sent using the Certificate structure defined in Section
+ 7.4.2.
+
+
+ Note: When using a static Diffie-Hellman based key exchange method
+ (DH_DSS or DH_RSA), if client authentication is requested, the
+ Diffie-Hellman group and generator encoded in the client's
+ certificate MUST match the server specified Diffie-Hellman
+ parameters if the client's parameters are to be used for the key
+ exchange.
+
+7.4.7. Client Key Exchange Message
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 49] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ When this message will be sent:
+ This message is always sent by the client. It MUST immediately
+ follow the client certificate message, if it is sent. Otherwise
+ it MUST be the first message sent by the client after it receives
+ the server hello done message.
+
+ Meaning of this message:
+ With this message, the premaster secret is set, either though
+ direct transmission of the RSA-encrypted secret, or by the
+ transmission of Diffie-Hellman parameters that will allow each
+ side to agree upon the same premaster secret. When the key
+ exchange method is DH_RSA or DH_DSS, client certification has
+ been requested, and the client was able to respond with a
+ certificate that contained a Diffie-Hellman public key whose
+ parameters (group and generator) matched those specified by the
+ server in its certificate, this message MUST not contain any
+ data.
+
+ Structure of this message:
+ The choice of messages depends on which key exchange method has
+ been selected. See Section 7.4.3 for the KeyExchangeAlgorithm
+ definition.
+
+ struct {
+ select (KeyExchangeAlgorithm) {
+ case rsa: EncryptedPreMasterSecret;
+ case diffie_hellman: ClientDiffieHellmanPublic;
+ } exchange_keys;
+ } ClientKeyExchange;
+
+7.4.7.1. RSA Encrypted Premaster Secret Message
+
+ Meaning of this message:
+ If RSA is being used for key agreement and authentication, the
+ client generates a 48-byte premaster secret, encrypts it using
+ the public key from the server's certificate and sends the result
+ in an encrypted premaster secret message. This structure is a
+ variant of the client key exchange message and is not a message
+ in itself.
+
+ Structure of this message:
+ struct {
+ ProtocolVersion client_version;
+ opaque random[46];
+ } PreMasterSecret;
+
+ client_version
+ The latest (newest) version supported by the client. This is
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 50] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ used to detect version roll-back attacks. Upon receiving the
+ premaster secret, the server SHOULD check that this value
+ matches the value transmitted by the client in the client
+ hello message.
+
+ random
+ 46 securely-generated random bytes.
+
+ struct {
+ public-key-encrypted PreMasterSecret pre_master_secret;
+ } EncryptedPreMasterSecret;
+
+ pre_master_secret
+ This random value is generated by the client and is used to
+ generate the master secret, as specified in Section 8.1.
+
+ Note: The version number in the PreMasterSecret is the version offered
+ by the client in the ClientHello.client_version, not the
+ version negotiated for the connection. This feature is
+ designed to prevent rollback attacks. Unfortunately, some
+ old implementations use the negotiated version instead and
+ therefore checking the version number may lead to failure to
+ interoperate with such incorrect client implementations.
+
+ Client implementations MUST always send the correct version
+ number in PreMasterSecret. If ClientHello.client_version is
+ TLS 1.1 or higher, server implementations MUST check the
+ version number as described in the note below. If the version
+ number is earlier than 1.0, server implementations SHOULD
+ check the version number, but MAY have a configuration option
+ to disable the check. Note that if the check fails, the
+ PreMasterSecret SHOULD be randomized as described below.
+
+ Note: Attacks discovered by Bleichenbacher [BLEI] and Klima et al.
+ [KPR03] can be used to attack a TLS server that reveals whether a
+ particular message, when decrypted, is properly PKCS#1 formatted,
+ contains a valid PreMasterSecret structure, or has the correct
+ version number.
+
+ The best way to avoid these vulnerabilities is to treat incorrectly
+ formatted messages in a manner indistinguishable from correctly
+ formatted RSA blocks. In other words:
+
+ 1. Generate a string R of 46 random bytes
+
+ 2. Decrypt the message M
+
+ 3. If the PKCS#1 padding is not correct, or the length of
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 51] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ message M is not exactly 48 bytes:
+ premaster secret = ClientHello.client_version || R
+ else If ClientHello.client_version <= TLS 1.0, and
+ version number check is explicitly disabled:
+ premaster secret = M
+ else:
+ premaster secret = ClientHello.client_version || M[2..47]
+
+ In any case, a TLS server MUST NOT generate an alert if processing an
+ RSA-encrypted premaster secret message fails, or the version number
+ is not as expected. Instead, it MUST continue the handshake with a
+ randomly generated premaster secret. It may be useful to log the
+ real cause of failure for troubleshooting purposes; however, care
+ must be taken to avoid leaking the information to an attacker
+ (though, e.g., timing, log files, or other channels.
+
+ The RSAES-OAEP encryption scheme defined in [PKCS1] is more secure
+ against the Bleichenbacher attack. However, for maximal compatibility
+ with earlier versions of TLS, this specification uses the RSAES-
+ PKCS1-v1_5 scheme. No variants of the Bleichenbacher attack are known
+ to exist provided that the above recommendations are followed.
+
+ Implementation Note: Public-key-encrypted data is represented as an
+ opaque vector <0..2^16-1> (see Section 4.7). Thus, the RSA-encrypted
+ PreMasterSecret in a ClientKeyExchange is preceded by two length
+ bytes. These bytes are redundant in the case of RSA because the
+ EncryptedPreMasterSecret is the only data in the ClientKeyExchange
+ and its length can therefore be unambiguously determined. The SSLv3
+ specification was not clear about the encoding of public-key-
+ encrypted data, and therefore many SSLv3 implementations do not
+ include the the length bytes, encoding the RSA encrypted data
+ directly in the ClientKeyExchange message.
+
+ This specification requires correct encoding of the
+ EncryptedPreMasterSecret complete with length bytes. The resulting
+ PDU is incompatible with many SSLv3 implementations. Implementors
+ upgrading from SSLv3 MUST modify their implementations to generate
+ and accept the correct encoding. Implementors who wish to be
+ compatible with both SSLv3 and TLS should make their implementation's
+ behavior dependent on the protocol version.
+
+ Implementation Note: It is now known that remote timing-based attacks
+ on SSL are possible, at least when the client and server are on the
+ same LAN. Accordingly, implementations that use static RSA keys MUST
+ use RSA blinding or some other anti-timing technique, as described in
+ [TIMING].
+
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 52] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+7.4.7.1. Client Diffie-Hellman Public Value
+
+ Meaning of this message:
+ This structure conveys the client's Diffie-Hellman public value
+ (Yc) if it was not already included in the client's certificate.
+ The encoding used for Yc is determined by the enumerated
+ PublicValueEncoding. This structure is a variant of the client
+ key exchange message, and not a message in itself.
+
+ Structure of this message:
+ enum { implicit, explicit } PublicValueEncoding;
+
+ implicit
+ If the client certificate already contains a suitable Diffie-
+ Hellman key, then Yc is implicit and does not need to be sent
+ again. In this case, the client key exchange message will be
+ sent, but it MUST be empty.
+
+ explicit
+ Yc needs to be sent.
+
+ struct {
+ select (PublicValueEncoding) {
+ case implicit: struct { };
+ case explicit: opaque dh_Yc<1..2^16-1>;
+ } dh_public;
+ } ClientDiffieHellmanPublic;
+
+ dh_Yc
+ The client's Diffie-Hellman public value (Yc).
+
+7.4.8. Certificate verify
+
+ When this message will be sent:
+ This message is used to provide explicit verification of a client
+ certificate. This message is only sent following a client
+ certificate that has signing capability (i.e. all certificates
+ except those containing fixed Diffie-Hellman parameters). When
+ sent, it MUST immediately follow the client key exchange message.
+
+ Structure of this message:
+ struct {
+ Signature signature;
+ } CertificateVerify;
+
+ The Signature type is defined in 7.4.3.
+
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 53] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ The hash function MUST be one of the algorithms offered in the
+ CertificateRequest message.
+
+ If the SignatureAlgorithm being used to sign the ServerKeyExchange
+ message is DSA, the hash function used MUST be SHA-1.
+ [TODO: This is incorrect. What it should say is that it must
+ be specified in the SPKI of the cert. However, I don't believe
+ this is actually defined. Rather, the DSA certs just say
+ dsa. We need new certs to say dsaWithSHAXXX]
+
+ If the SignatureAlgorithm is RSA, then any of the functions offered
+ by the server may be used. The selected hash function MUST be
+ indicated in the digest_algorithm field of the signature structure.
+
+ The hash algorithm is denoted Hash below.
+
+ CertificateVerify.signature.hash
+ Hash(handshake_messages);
+
+ CertificateVerify.signature.sha_hash
+ SHA(handshake_messages);
+
+ Here handshake_messages refers to all handshake messages sent or
+ received starting at client hello up to but not including this
+ message, including the type and length fields of the handshake
+ messages. This is the concatenation of all the Handshake structures
+ as defined in 7.4 exchanged thus far.
+
+7.4.9. Finished
+
+ When this message will be sent:
+ A finished message is always sent immediately after a change
+ cipher spec message to verify that the key exchange and
+ authentication processes were successful. It is essential that a
+ change cipher spec message be received between the other
+ handshake messages and the Finished message.
+
+ Meaning of this message:
+ The finished message is the first protected with the just-
+ negotiated algorithms, keys, and secrets. Recipients of finished
+ messages MUST verify that the contents are correct. Once a side
+ has sent its Finished message and received and validated the
+ Finished message from its peer, it may begin to send and receive
+ application data over the connection.
+
+ struct {
+ opaque verify_data[12];
+ } Finished;
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 54] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ verify_data
+ PRF(master_secret, finished_label, Hash(handshake_messages))[0..11];
+
+ finished_label
+ For Finished messages sent by the client, the string "client
+ finished". For Finished messages sent by the server, the
+ string "server finished".
+
+ Hash denotes the negotiated hash used for the PRF. If a new
+ PRF is defined, then this hash MUST be specified.
+
+ handshake_messages
+ All of the data from all messages in this handshake (not
+ including any HelloRequest messages) up to but not including
+ this message. This is only data visible at the handshake
+ layer and does not include record layer headers. This is the
+ concatenation of all the Handshake structures as defined in
+ 7.4, exchanged thus far.
+
+ It is a fatal error if a finished message is not preceded by a change
+ cipher spec message at the appropriate point in the handshake.
+
+ The value handshake_messages includes all handshake messages starting
+ at client hello up to, but not including, this finished message. This
+ may be different from handshake_messages in Section 7.4.9 because it
+ would include the certificate verify message (if sent). Also, the
+ handshake_messages for the finished message sent by the client will
+ be different from that for the finished message sent by the server,
+ because the one that is sent second will include the prior one.
+
+ Note: Change cipher spec messages, alerts and, any other record types
+ are not handshake messages and are not included in the hash
+ computations. Also, Hello Request messages are omitted from
+ handshake hashes.
+
+8. Cryptographic Computations
+
+ In order to begin connection protection, the TLS Record Protocol
+ requires specification of a suite of algorithms, a master secret, and
+ the client and server random values. The authentication, encryption,
+ and MAC algorithms are determined by the cipher_suite selected by the
+ server and revealed in the server hello message. The compression
+ algorithm is negotiated in the hello messages, and the random values
+ are exchanged in the hello messages. All that remains is to calculate
+ the master secret.
+
+8.1. Computing the Master Secret
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 55] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ For all key exchange methods, the same algorithm is used to convert
+ the pre_master_secret into the master_secret. The pre_master_secret
+ should be deleted from memory once the master_secret has been
+ computed.
+
+ master_secret = PRF(pre_master_secret, "master secret",
+ ClientHello.random + ServerHello.random)
+ [0..47];
+
+ The master secret is always exactly 48 bytes in length. The length of
+ the premaster secret will vary depending on key exchange method.
+
+8.1.1. RSA
+
+ When RSA is used for server authentication and key exchange, a
+ 48-byte pre_master_secret is generated by the client, encrypted under
+ the server's public key, and sent to the server. The server uses its
+ private key to decrypt the pre_master_secret. Both parties then
+ convert the pre_master_secret into the master_secret, as specified
+ above.
+
+8.1.2. Diffie-Hellman
+
+ A conventional Diffie-Hellman computation is performed. The
+ negotiated key (Z) is used as the pre_master_secret, and is converted
+ into the master_secret, as specified above. Leading bytes of Z that
+ contain all zero bits are stripped before it is used as the
+ pre_master_secret.
+
+ Note: Diffie-Hellman parameters are specified by the server and may
+ be either ephemeral or contained within the server's certificate.
+
+9. Mandatory Cipher Suites
+
+ In the absence of an application profile standard specifying
+ otherwise, a TLS compliant application MUST implement the cipher
+ suite TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA.
+
+10. Application Data Protocol
+
+ Application data messages are carried by the Record Layer and are
+ fragmented, compressed, and encrypted based on the current connection
+ state. The messages are treated as transparent data to the record
+ layer.
+
+11. Security Considerations
+
+ Security issues are discussed throughoutthis memo, especially in
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 56] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ Appendices D, E, and F.
+
+12. IANA Considerations
+
+ This document uses several registries that were originally created in
+ [RFC4346]. IANA is requested to update (has updated) these to
+ reference this document. The registries and their allocation policies
+ (unchanged from [RFC4346]) are listed below.
+
+ o TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers Registry: Future
+ values in the range 0-63 (decimal) inclusive are assigned via
+ Standards Action [RFC2434]. Values in the range 64-223
+ (decimal) inclusive are assigned Specification Required
+ [RFC2434]. Values from 224-255 (decimal) inclusive are
+ reserved for Private Use [RFC2434].
+
+ o TLS Cipher Suite Registry: Future values with the first byte
+ in the range 0-191 (decimal) inclusive are assigned via
+ Standards Action [RFC2434]. Values with the first byte in
+ the range 192-254 (decimal) are assigned via Specification
+ Required [RFC2434]. Values with the first byte 255 (decimal)
+ are reserved for Private Use [RFC2434].
+
+ o TLS ContentType Registry: Future values are allocated via
+ Standards Action [RFC2434].
+
+ o TLS Alert Registry: Future values are allocated via
+ Standards Action [RFC2434].
+
+ o TLS HandshakeType Registry: Future values are allocated via
+ Standards Action [RFC2434].
+
+ This document also uses a registry originally created in [RFC4366].
+ IANA is requested to update (has updated) it to reference this
+ document. The registry and its allocation policy (unchanged from
+ [RFC4366]) is listed below:.
+
+ o TLS ExtensionType Registry: Future values are allocated
+ via IETF Consensus [RFC2434]
+
+ In addition, this document defines one new registry to be maintained
+ by IANA:
+
+ o TLS HashType Registry: The registry will be initially
+ populated with the values described in Section 7.4.1.4.7.
+ Future values in the range 0-63 (decimal) inclusive are
+ assigned via Standards Action [RFC2434]. Values in the
+ range 64-223 (decimal) inclusive are assigned via
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 57] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ Specification Required [RFC2434]. Values from 224-255
+ (decimal) inclusive are reserved for Private Use [RFC2434].
+
+ This document defines one new TLS extension, cert_hash_type, which is
+ to be (has been) allocated value TBD-BY-IANA in the TLS ExtensionType
+ registry.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 58] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+Appendix A. Protocol Constant Values
+
+ This section describes protocol types and constants.
+
+A.1. Record Layer
+
+ struct {
+ uint8 major, minor;
+ } ProtocolVersion;
+
+ ProtocolVersion version = { 3, 3 }; /* TLS v1.2*/
+
+ enum {
+ change_cipher_spec(20), alert(21), handshake(22),
+ application_data(23), (255)
+ } ContentType;
+
+ struct {
+ ContentType type;
+ ProtocolVersion version;
+ uint16 length;
+ opaque fragment[TLSPlaintext.length];
+ } TLSPlaintext;
+
+ struct {
+ ContentType type;
+ ProtocolVersion version;
+ uint16 length;
+ opaque fragment[TLSCompressed.length];
+ } TLSCompressed;
+
+ struct {
+ ContentType type;
+ ProtocolVersion version;
+ uint16 length;
+ select (SecurityParameters.cipher_type) {
+ case stream: GenericStreamCipher;
+ case block: GenericBlockCipher;
+ case aead: GenericAEADCipher;
+ } fragment;
+ } TLSCiphertext;
+
+ stream-ciphered struct {
+ opaque content[TLSCompressed.length];
+ opaque MAC[SecurityParameters.mac_length];
+ } GenericStreamCipher;
+
+ block-ciphered struct {
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 59] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ opaque IV[SecurityParameters.block_length];
+ opaque content[TLSCompressed.length];
+ opaque MAC[SecurityParameters.mac_length];
+ uint8 padding[GenericBlockCipher.padding_length];
+ uint8 padding_length;
+ } GenericBlockCipher;
+
+ aead-ciphered struct {
+ opaque IV[SecurityParameters.iv_length];
+ opaque aead_output[AEADEncrypted.length];
+ } GenericAEADCipher;
+
+A.2. Change Cipher Specs Message
+
+ struct {
+ enum { change_cipher_spec(1), (255) } type;
+ } ChangeCipherSpec;
+
+A.3. Alert Messages
+
+ enum { warning(1), fatal(2), (255) } AlertLevel;
+
+ enum {
+ close_notify(0),
+ unexpected_message(10),
+ bad_record_mac(20),
+ decryption_failed_RESERVED(21),
+ record_overflow(22),
+ decompression_failure(30),
+ handshake_failure(40),
+ no_certificate_RESERVED(41),
+ bad_certificate(42),
+ unsupported_certificate(43),
+ certificate_revoked(44),
+ certificate_expired(45),
+ certificate_unknown(46),
+ illegal_parameter(47),
+ unknown_ca(48),
+ access_denied(49),
+ decode_error(50),
+ decrypt_error(51),
+ export_restriction_RESERVED(60),
+ protocol_version(70),
+ insufficient_security(71),
+ internal_error(80),
+ user_canceled(90),
+ no_renegotiation(100),
+ unsupported_extension(110), /* new */
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 60] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ (255)
+ } AlertDescription;
+
+ struct {
+ AlertLevel level;
+ AlertDescription description;
+ } Alert;
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 61] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+A.4. Handshake Protocol
+
+ enum {
+ hello_request(0), client_hello(1), server_hello(2),
+ certificate(11), server_key_exchange (12),
+ certificate_request(13), server_hello_done(14),
+ certificate_verify(15), client_key_exchange(16),
+ finished(20)
+ (255)
+ } HandshakeType;
+
+ struct {
+ HandshakeType msg_type;
+ uint24 length;
+ select (HandshakeType) {
+ case hello_request: HelloRequest;
+ case client_hello: ClientHello;
+ case server_hello: ServerHello;
+ case certificate: Certificate;
+ case server_key_exchange: ServerKeyExchange;
+ case certificate_request: CertificateRequest;
+ case server_hello_done: ServerHelloDone;
+ case certificate_verify: CertificateVerify;
+ case client_key_exchange: ClientKeyExchange;
+ case finished: Finished;
+ } body;
+ } Handshake;
+
+A.4.1. Hello Messages
+
+ struct { } HelloRequest;
+
+ struct {
+ uint32 gmt_unix_time;
+ opaque random_bytes[28];
+ } Random;
+
+ opaque SessionID<0..32>;
+
+ uint8 CipherSuite[2];
+
+ enum { null(0), (255) } CompressionMethod;
+
+ struct {
+ ProtocolVersion client_version;
+ Random random;
+ SessionID session_id;
+ CipherSuite cipher_suites<2..2^16-1>;
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 62] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ CompressionMethod compression_methods<1..2^8-1>;
+ select (extensions_present) {
+ case false:
+ struct {};
+ case true:
+ Extension extensions<0..2^16-1>;
+ }
+ } ClientHello;
+
+ struct {
+ ProtocolVersion server_version;
+ Random random;
+ SessionID session_id;
+ CipherSuite cipher_suite;
+ CompressionMethod compression_method;
+ select (extensions_present) {
+ case false:
+ struct {};
+ case true:
+ Extension extensions<0..2^16-1>;
+ }
+ } ServerHello;
+
+ struct {
+ ExtensionType extension_type;
+ opaque extension_data<0..2^16-1>;
+ } Extension;
+
+ enum {
+ signature_hash_types(TBD-BY-IANA), (65535)
+ } ExtensionType;
+
+A.4.2. Server Authentication and Key Exchange Messages
+
+ opaque ASN.1Cert<2^24-1>;
+
+ struct {
+ ASN.1Cert certificate_list<0..2^24-1>;
+ } Certificate;
+
+ enum { diffie_hellman } KeyExchangeAlgorithm;
+
+ struct {
+ opaque dh_p<1..2^16-1>;
+ opaque dh_g<1..2^16-1>;
+ opaque dh_Ys<1..2^16-1>;
+ } ServerDHParams;
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 63] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ struct {
+ select (KeyExchangeAlgorithm) {
+ case diffie_hellman:
+ ServerDHParams params;
+ Signature signed_params;
+ } ServerKeyExchange;
+
+ enum { anonymous, rsa, dsa } SignatureAlgorithm;
+
+ struct {
+ select (KeyExchangeAlgorithm) {
+ case diffie_hellman:
+ ServerDHParams params;
+ };
+ } ServerParams;
+
+ struct {
+ select (SignatureAlgorithm) {
+ case anonymous: struct { };
+ case rsa:
+ HashType digest_algorithm; // NEW
+ digitally-signed struct {
+ opaque hash[Hash.length];
+ };
+ case dsa:
+ digitally-signed struct {
+ opaque sha_hash[20];
+ };
+ };
+ };
+ } Signature;
+
+ enum {
+ rsa_sign(1), dss_sign(2), rsa_fixed_dh(3), dss_fixed_dh(4),
+ rsa_ephemeral_dh_RESERVED(5), dss_ephemeral_dh_RESERVED(6),
+ fortezza_dms_RESERVED(20),
+ (255)
+ } ClientCertificateType;
+
+ opaque DistinguishedName<1..2^16-1>;
+
+ struct {
+ ClientCertificateType certificate_types<1..2^8-1>;
+ DistinguishedName certificate_authorities<0..2^16-1>;
+ } CertificateRequest;
+
+ struct { } ServerHelloDone;
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 64] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+A.4.3. Client Authentication and Key Exchange Messages
+
+ struct {
+ select (KeyExchangeAlgorithm) {
+ case rsa: EncryptedPreMasterSecret;
+ case diffie_hellman: ClientDiffieHellmanPublic;
+ } exchange_keys;
+ } ClientKeyExchange;
+
+ struct {
+ ProtocolVersion client_version;
+ opaque random[46];
+ } PreMasterSecret;
+
+ struct {
+ public-key-encrypted PreMasterSecret pre_master_secret;
+ } EncryptedPreMasterSecret;
+
+ enum { implicit, explicit } PublicValueEncoding;
+
+ struct {
+ select (PublicValueEncoding) {
+ case implicit: struct {};
+ case explicit: opaque DH_Yc<1..2^16-1>;
+ } dh_public;
+ } ClientDiffieHellmanPublic;
+
+ struct {
+ Signature signature;
+ } CertificateVerify;
+
+A.4.4. Handshake Finalization Message
+
+ struct {
+ opaque verify_data[12];
+ } Finished;
+
+A.5. The CipherSuite
+
+ The following values define the CipherSuite codes used in the client
+ hello and server hello messages.
+
+ A CipherSuite defines a cipher specification supported in TLS Version
+ 1.1.
+
+ TLS_NULL_WITH_NULL_NULL is specified and is the initial state of a
+ TLS connection during the first handshake on that channel, but MUST
+ not be negotiated, as it provides no more protection than an
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 65] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ unsecured connection.
+
+ CipherSuite TLS_NULL_WITH_NULL_NULL = { 0x00,0x00 };
+
+ The following CipherSuite definitions require that the server provide
+ an RSA certificate that can be used for key exchange. The server may
+ request either an RSA or a DSS signature-capable certificate in the
+ certificate request message.
+
+ CipherSuite TLS_RSA_WITH_NULL_MD5 = { 0x00,0x01 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_RSA_WITH_NULL_SHA = { 0x00,0x02 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 = { 0x00,0x04 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA = { 0x00,0x05 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_RSA_WITH_IDEA_CBC_SHA = { 0x00,0x07 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_RSA_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA = { 0x00,0x09 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA = { 0x00,0x0A };
+ CipherSuite TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA = { 0x00, 0x2F };
+ CipherSuite TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA = { 0x00, 0x35 };
+
+ The following CipherSuite definitions are used for server-
+ authenticated (and optionally client-authenticated) Diffie-Hellman.
+ DH denotes cipher suites in which the server's certificate contains
+ the Diffie-Hellman parameters signed by the certificate authority
+ (CA). DHE denotes ephemeral Diffie-Hellman, where the Diffie-Hellman
+ parameters are signed by a DSS or RSA certificate, which has been
+ signed by the CA. The signing algorithm used is specified after the
+ DH or DHE parameter. The server can request an RSA or DSS signature-
+ capable certificate from the client for client authentication or it
+ may request a Diffie-Hellman certificate. Any Diffie-Hellman
+ certificate provided by the client must use the parameters (group and
+ generator) described by the server.
+
+ CipherSuite TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA = { 0x00,0x0C };
+ CipherSuite TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA = { 0x00,0x0D };
+ CipherSuite TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA = { 0x00,0x0F };
+ CipherSuite TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA = { 0x00,0x10 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA = { 0x00,0x12 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA = { 0x00,0x13 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA = { 0x00,0x15 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA = { 0x00,0x16 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA = { 0x00, 0x30 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA = { 0x00, 0x31 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA = { 0x00, 0x32 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA = { 0x00, 0x33 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA = { 0x00, 0x36 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA = { 0x00, 0x37 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA = { 0x00, 0x38 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA = { 0x00, 0x39 };
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 66] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ The following cipher suites are used for completely anonymous Diffie-
+ Hellman communications in which neither party is authenticated. Note
+ that this mode is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks. Using
+ this mode therefore is of limited use: These ciphersuites MUST NOT be
+ used by TLS 1.2 implementations unless the application layer has
+ specifically requested to allow anonymous key exchange. (Anonymous
+ key exchange may sometimes be acceptable, for example, to support
+ opportunistic encryption when no set-up for authentication is in
+ place, or when TLS is used as part of more complex security protocols
+ that have other means to ensure authentication.)
+
+ CipherSuite TLS_DH_anon_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 = { 0x00, 0x18 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_DH_anon_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA = { 0x00, 0x1A };
+ CipherSuite TLS_DH_anon_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA = { 0x00, 0x1B };
+ CipherSuite TLS_DH_anon_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA = { 0x00, 0x34 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_DH_anon_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA = { 0x00, 0x3A };
+
+ Note that using non-anonymous key exchange without actually verifying
+ the key exchange is essentially equivalent to anonymous key exchange,
+ and the same precautions apply. While non-anonymous key exchange
+ will generally involve a higher computational and communicational
+ cost than anonymous key exchange, it may be in the interest of
+ interoperability not to disable non-anonymous key exchange when the
+ application layer is allowing anonymous key exchange.
+
+ When SSLv3 and TLS 1.0 were designed, the United States restricted
+ the export of cryptographic software containing certain strong
+ encryption algorithms. A series of cipher suites were designed to
+ operate at reduced key lengths in order to comply with those
+ regulations. Due to advances in computer performance, these
+ algorithms are now unacceptably weak and export restrictions have
+ since been loosened. TLS 1.2 implementations MUST NOT negotiate these
+ cipher suites in TLS 1.2 mode. However, for backward compatibility
+ they may be offered in the ClientHello for use with TLS 1.0 or SSLv3
+ only servers. TLS 1.2 clients MUST check that the server did not
+ choose one of these cipher suites during the handshake. These
+ ciphersuites are listed below for informational purposes and to
+ reserve the numbers.
+
+ CipherSuite TLS_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_RC4_40_MD5 = { 0x00,0x03 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_RC2_CBC_40_MD5 = { 0x00,0x06 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_DES40_CBC_SHA = { 0x00,0x08 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_DH_DSS_EXPORT_WITH_DES40_CBC_SHA = { 0x00,0x0B };
+ CipherSuite TLS_DH_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_DES40_CBC_SHA = { 0x00,0x0E };
+ CipherSuite TLS_DHE_DSS_EXPORT_WITH_DES40_CBC_SHA = { 0x00,0x11 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_DHE_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_DES40_CBC_SHA = { 0x00,0x14 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_DH_anon_EXPORT_WITH_RC4_40_MD5 = { 0x00,0x17 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_DH_anon_EXPORT_WITH_DES40_CBC_SHA = { 0x00,0x19 };
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 67] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ The following cipher suites were defined in [TLSKRB] and are included
+ here for completeness. See [TLSKRB] for details:
+
+ CipherSuite TLS_KRB5_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA = { 0x00,0x1E };
+ CipherSuite TLS_KRB5_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA = { 0x00,0x1F };
+ CipherSuite TLS_KRB5_WITH_RC4_128_SHA = { 0x00,0x20 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_KRB5_WITH_IDEA_CBC_SHA = { 0x00,0x21 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_KRB5_WITH_DES_CBC_MD5 = { 0x00,0x22 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_KRB5_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_MD5 = { 0x00,0x23 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_KRB5_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 = { 0x00,0x24 };
+ CipherSuite TLS_KRB5_WITH_IDEA_CBC_MD5 = { 0x00,0x25 };
+
+ The following exportable cipher suites were defined in [TLSKRB] and
+ are included here for completeness. TLS 1.2 implementations MUST NOT
+ negotiate these cipher suites.
+
+ CipherSuite TLS_KRB5_EXPORT_WITH_DES_CBC_40_SHA = { 0x00,0x26
+ };
+ CipherSuite TLS_KRB5_EXPORT_WITH_RC2_CBC_40_SHA = { 0x00,0x27
+ };
+ CipherSuite TLS_KRB5_EXPORT_WITH_RC4_40_SHA = { 0x00,0x28
+ };
+ CipherSuite TLS_KRB5_EXPORT_WITH_DES_CBC_40_MD5 = { 0x00,0x29
+ };
+ CipherSuite TLS_KRB5_EXPORT_WITH_RC2_CBC_40_MD5 = { 0x00,0x2A
+ };
+ CipherSuite TLS_KRB5_EXPORT_WITH_RC4_40_MD5 = { 0x00,0x2B
+ };
+
+
+ New cipher suite values are assigned by IANA as described in Section
+ 11.
+
+ Note: The cipher suite values { 0x00, 0x1C } and { 0x00, 0x1D } are
+ reserved to avoid collision with Fortezza-based cipher suites in SSL
+ 3.
+
+A.6. The Security Parameters
+
+ These security parameters are determined by the TLS Handshake
+ Protocol and provided as parameters to the TLS Record Layer in order
+ to initialize a connection state. SecurityParameters includes:
+
+ enum { null(0), (255) } CompressionMethod;
+
+ enum { server, client } ConnectionEnd;
+
+ enum { null, rc4, rc2, des, 3des, des40, aes, idea }
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 68] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ BulkCipherAlgorithm;
+
+ enum { stream, block, aead } CipherType;
+
+ enum { null, md5, sha } MACAlgorithm;
+
+ /* The algorithms specified in CompressionMethod,
+ BulkCipherAlgorithm, and MACAlgorithm may be added to. */
+
+ struct {
+ ConnectionEnd entity;
+ BulkCipherAlgorithm bulk_cipher_algorithm;
+ CipherType cipher_type;
+ uint8 enc_key_length;
+ uint8 block_length;
+ uint8 iv_length;
+ MACAlgorithm mac_algorithm;
+ uint8 mac_length;
+ uint8 mac_key_length;
+ CompressionMethod compression_algorithm;
+ opaque master_secret[48];
+ opaque client_random[32];
+ opaque server_random[32];
+ } SecurityParameters;
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 69] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+Appendix B. Glossary
+
+ Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)
+ AES is a widely used symmetric encryption algorithm. AES is a
+ block cipher with a 128, 192, or 256 bit keys and a 16 byte block
+ size. [AES] TLS currently only supports the 128 and 256 bit key
+ sizes.
+
+ application protocol
+ An application protocol is a protocol that normally layers
+ directly on top of the transport layer (e.g., TCP/IP). Examples
+ include HTTP, TELNET, FTP, and SMTP.
+
+ asymmetric cipher
+ See public key cryptography.
+
+ authenticated encryption with additional data (AEAD)
+ A symmetric encryption algorithm that simultaneously provides
+ confidentiality and message integrity.
+
+ authentication
+ Authentication is the ability of one entity to determine the
+ identity of another entity.
+
+ block cipher
+ A block cipher is an algorithm that operates on plaintext in
+ groups of bits, called blocks. 64 bits is a common block size.
+
+ bulk cipher
+ A symmetric encryption algorithm used to encrypt large quantities
+ of data.
+
+ cipher block chaining (CBC)
+ CBC is a mode in which every plaintext block encrypted with a
+ block cipher is first exclusive-ORed with the previous ciphertext
+ block (or, in the case of the first block, with the
+ initialization vector). For decryption, every block is first
+ decrypted, then exclusive-ORed with the previous ciphertext block
+ (or IV).
+
+ certificate
+ As part of the X.509 protocol (a.k.a. ISO Authentication
+ framework), certificates are assigned by a trusted Certificate
+ Authority and provide a strong binding between a party's identity
+ or some other attributes and its public key.
+
+ client
+ The application entity that initiates a TLS connection to a
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 70] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ server. This may or may not imply that the client initiated the
+ underlying transport connection. The primary operational
+ difference between the server and client is that the server is
+ generally authenticated, while the client is only optionally
+ authenticated.
+
+ client write key
+ The key used to encrypt data written by the client.
+
+ client write MAC secret
+ The secret data used to authenticate data written by the client.
+
+ connection
+ A connection is a transport (in the OSI layering model
+ definition) that provides a suitable type of service. For TLS,
+ such connections are peer-to-peer relationships. The connections
+ are transient. Every connection is associated with one session.
+
+ Data Encryption Standard
+ DES is a very widely used symmetric encryption algorithm. DES is
+ a block cipher with a 56 bit key and an 8 byte block size. Note
+ that in TLS, for key generation purposes, DES is treated as
+ having an 8 byte key length (64 bits), but it still only provides
+ 56 bits of protection. (The low bit of each key byte is presumed
+ to be set to produce odd parity in that key byte.) DES can also
+ be operated in a mode where three independent keys and three
+ encryptions are used for each block of data; this uses 168 bits
+ of key (24 bytes in the TLS key generation method) and provides
+ the equivalent of 112 bits of security. [DES], [3DES]
+
+ Digital Signature Standard (DSS)
+ A standard for digital signing, including the Digital Signing
+ Algorithm, approved by the National Institute of Standards and
+ Technology, defined in NIST FIPS PUB 186, "Digital Signature
+ Standard", published May, 1994 by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce.
+ [DSS]
+
+ digital signatures
+ Digital signatures utilize public key cryptography and one-way
+ hash functions to produce a signature of the data that can be
+ authenticated, and is difficult to forge or repudiate.
+
+ handshake
+ An initial negotiation between client and server that establishes
+ the parameters of their transactions.
+
+ Initialization Vector (IV)
+ When a block cipher is used in CBC mode, the initialization
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 71] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ vector is exclusive-ORed with the first plaintext block prior to
+ encryption.
+
+ IDEA
+ A 64-bit block cipher designed by Xuejia Lai and James Massey.
+ [IDEA]
+
+ Message Authentication Code (MAC)
+ A Message Authentication Code is a one-way hash computed from a
+ message and some secret data. It is difficult to forge without
+ knowing the secret data. Its purpose is to detect if the message
+ has been altered.
+
+ master secret
+ Secure secret data used for generating encryption keys, MAC
+ secrets, and IVs.
+
+ MD5
+ MD5 is a secure hashing function that converts an arbitrarily
+ long data stream into a digest of fixed size (16 bytes). [MD5]
+
+ public key cryptography
+ A class of cryptographic techniques employing two-key ciphers.
+ Messages encrypted with the public key can only be decrypted with
+ the associated private key. Conversely, messages signed with the
+ private key can be verified with the public key.
+
+ one-way hash function
+ A one-way transformation that converts an arbitrary amount of
+ data into a fixed-length hash. It is computationally hard to
+ reverse the transformation or to find collisions. MD5 and SHA are
+ examples of one-way hash functions.
+
+ RC2
+ A block cipher developed by Ron Rivest at RSA Data Security, Inc.
+ [RSADSI] described in [RC2].
+
+ RC4
+ A stream cipher invented by Ron Rivest. A compatible cipher is
+ described in [SCH].
+
+ RSA
+ A very widely used public-key algorithm that can be used for
+ either encryption or digital signing. [RSA]
+
+ server
+ The server is the application entity that responds to requests
+ for connections from clients. See also under client.
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 72] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ session
+ A TLS session is an association between a client and a server.
+ Sessions are created by the handshake protocol. Sessions define a
+ set of cryptographic security parameters that can be shared among
+ multiple connections. Sessions are used to avoid the expensive
+ negotiation of new security parameters for each connection.
+
+ session identifier
+ A session identifier is a value generated by a server that
+ identifies a particular session.
+
+ server write key
+ The key used to encrypt data written by the server.
+
+ server write MAC secret
+ The secret data used to authenticate data written by the server.
+
+ SHA
+ The Secure Hash Algorithm is defined in FIPS PUB 180-2. It
+ produces a 20-byte output. Note that all references to SHA
+ actually use the modified SHA-1 algorithm. [SHA]
+
+ SSL
+ Netscape's Secure Socket Layer protocol [SSL3]. TLS is based on
+ SSL Version 3.0
+
+ stream cipher
+ An encryption algorithm that converts a key into a
+ cryptographically strong keystream, which is then exclusive-ORed
+ with the plaintext.
+
+ symmetric cipher
+ See bulk cipher.
+
+ Transport Layer Security (TLS)
+ This protocol; also, the Transport Layer Security working group
+ of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). See "Comments" at
+ the end of this document.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 73] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+Appendix C. CipherSuite Definitions
+
+CipherSuite Key Cipher Hash
+ Exchange
+
+TLS_NULL_WITH_NULL_NULL NULL NULL NULL
+TLS_RSA_WITH_NULL_MD5 RSA NULL MD5
+TLS_RSA_WITH_NULL_SHA RSA NULL SHA
+TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 RSA RC4_128 MD5
+TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA RSA RC4_128 SHA
+TLS_RSA_WITH_IDEA_CBC_SHA RSA IDEA_CBC SHA
+TLS_RSA_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA RSA DES_CBC SHA
+TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA RSA 3DES_EDE_CBC SHA
+TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA RSA AES_128_CBC SHA
+TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_SHA RSA AES_256_CBC SHA
+TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA DH_DSS DES_CBC SHA
+TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA DH_DSS 3DES_EDE_CBC SHA
+TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA DH_RSA DES_CBC SHA
+TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA DH_RSA 3DES_EDE_CBC SHA
+TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA DHE_DSS DES_CBC SHA
+TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA DHE_DSS 3DES_EDE_CBC SHA
+TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA DHE_RSA DES_CBC SHA
+TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA DHE_RSA 3DES_EDE_CBC SHA
+TLS_DH_anon_WITH_RC4_128_MD5 DH_anon RC4_128 MD5
+TLS_DH_anon_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA DH_anon DES_CBC SHA
+TLS_DH_anon_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA DH_anon 3DES_EDE_CBC SHA
+TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA DH_DSS AES_128_CBC SHA
+TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA DH_RSA AES_128_CBC SHA
+TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA DHE_DSS AES_128_CBC SHA
+TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA DHE_RSA AES_128_CBC SHA
+TLS_DH_anon_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA DH_anon AES_128_CBC SHA
+TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA DH_DSS AES_256_CBC SHA
+TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA DH_RSA AES_256_CBC SHA
+TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA DHE_DSS AES_256_CBC SHA
+TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA DHE_RSA AES_256_CBC SHA
+TLS_DH_anon_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA DH_anon AES_256_CBC SHA
+
+ Key
+ Exchange
+ Algorithm Description Key size limit
+
+ DHE_DSS Ephemeral DH with DSS signatures None
+ DHE_RSA Ephemeral DH with RSA signatures None
+ DH_anon Anonymous DH, no signatures None
+ DH_DSS DH with DSS-based certificates None
+ DH_RSA DH with RSA-based certificates None
+ RSA = none
+ NULL No key exchange N/A
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 74] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ RSA RSA key exchange None
+
+ Key Expanded IV Block
+ Cipher Type Material Key Material Size Size
+
+ NULL Stream 0 0 0 N/A
+ IDEA_CBC Block 16 16 8 8
+ RC2_CBC_40 Block 5 16 8 8
+ RC4_40 Stream 5 16 0 N/A
+ RC4_128 Stream 16 16 0 N/A
+ DES40_CBC Block 5 8 8 8
+ DES_CBC Block 8 8 8 8
+ 3DES_EDE_CBC Block 24 24 8 8
+
+ Type
+ Indicates whether this is a stream cipher or a block cipher
+ running in CBC mode.
+
+ Key Material
+ The number of bytes from the key_block that are used for
+ generating the write keys.
+
+ Expanded Key Material
+ The number of bytes actually fed into the encryption algorithm.
+
+ IV Size
+ The amount of data needed to be generated for the initialization
+ vector. Zero for stream ciphers; equal to the block size for
+ block ciphers.
+
+ Block Size
+ The amount of data a block cipher enciphers in one chunk; a
+ block cipher running in CBC mode can only encrypt an even
+ multiple of its block size.
+
+ Hash Hash Padding
+ function Size Size
+ NULL 0 0
+ MD5 16 48
+ SHA 20 40
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 75] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+Appendix D. Implementation Notes
+
+ The TLS protocol cannot prevent many common security mistakes. This
+ section provides several recommendations to assist implementors.
+
+D.1 Random Number Generation and Seeding
+
+ TLS requires a cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator
+ (PRNG). Care must be taken in designing and seeding PRNGs. PRNGs
+ based on secure hash operations, most notably MD5 and/or SHA, are
+ acceptable, but cannot provide more security than the size of the
+ random number generator state. (For example, MD5-based PRNGs usually
+ provide 128 bits of state.)
+
+ To estimate the amount of seed material being produced, add the
+ number of bits of unpredictable information in each seed byte. For
+ example, keystroke timing values taken from a PC compatible's 18.2 Hz
+ timer provide 1 or 2 secure bits each, even though the total size of
+ the counter value is 16 bits or more. Seeding a 128-bit PRNG would
+ thus require approximately 100 such timer values.
+
+ [RANDOM] provides guidance on the generation of random values.
+
+D.2 Certificates and Authentication
+
+ Implementations are responsible for verifying the integrity of
+ certificates and should generally support certificate revocation
+ messages. Certificates should always be verified to ensure proper
+ signing by a trusted Certificate Authority (CA). The selection and
+ addition of trusted CAs should be done very carefully. Users should
+ be able to view information about the certificate and root CA.
+
+D.3 CipherSuites
+
+ TLS supports a range of key sizes and security levels, including some
+ that provide no or minimal security. A proper implementation will
+ probably not support many cipher suites. For instance, anonymous
+ Diffie-Hellman is strongly discouraged because it cannot prevent man-
+ in-the-middle attacks. Applications should also enforce minimum and
+ maximum key sizes. For example, certificate chains containing 512-bit
+ RSA keys or signatures are not appropriate for high-security
+ applications.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 76] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+Appendix E. Backward Compatibility
+
+E.1 Compatibility with TLS 1.0/1.1 and SSL 3.0
+
+ Since there are various versions of TLS (1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and any
+ future versions) and SSL (2.0 and 3.0), means are needed to negotiate
+ the specific protocol version to use. The TLS protocol provides a
+ built-in mechanism for version negotiation so as not to bother other
+ protocol components with the complexities of version selection.
+
+ TLS versions 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2, and SSL 3.0 are very similar, and use
+ compatible ClientHello messages; thus, supporting all of them is
+ relatively easy. Similarly, servers can easily handle clients trying
+ to use future versions of TLS as long as the ClientHello format
+ remains compatible, and the client support the highest protocol
+ version available in the server.
+
+ A TLS 1.2 client who wishes to negotiate with such older servers will
+ send a normal TLS 1.2 ClientHello, containing { 3, 3 } (TLS 1.2) in
+ ClientHello.client_version. If the server does not support this
+ version, it will respond with ServerHello containing an older version
+ number. If the client agrees to use this version, the negotiation
+ will proceed as appropriate for the negotiated protocol.
+
+ If the version chosen by the server is not supported by the client
+ (or not acceptable), the client MUST send a "protocol_version" alert
+ message and close the connection.
+
+ If a TLS server receives a ClientHello containing a version number
+ greater than the highest version supported by the server, it MUST
+ reply according to the highest version supported by the server.
+
+ A TLS server can also receive a ClientHello containing version number
+ smaller than the highest supported version. If the server wishes to
+ negotiate with old clients, it will proceed as appropriate for the
+ highest version supported by the server that is not greater than
+ ClientHello.client_version. For example, if the server supports TLS
+ 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2, and client_version is TLS 1.0, the server will
+ proceed with a TLS 1.0 ServerHello. If server supports (or is willing
+ to use) only versions greater than client_version, it MUST send a
+ "protocol_version" alert message and close the connection.
+
+ Whenever a client already knows the highest protocol known to a
+ server (for example, when resuming a session), it SHOULD initiate the
+ connection in that native protocol.
+
+ Note: some server implementations are known to implement version
+ negotiation incorrectly. For example, there are buggy TLS 1.0 servers
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 77] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ that simply close the connection when the client offers a version
+ newer than TLS 1.0. Also, it is known that some servers will refuse
+ connection if any TLS extensions are included in ClientHello.
+ Interoperability with such buggy servers is a complex topic beyond
+ the scope of this document, and may require multiple connection
+ attempts by the client.
+
+ Earlier versions of the TLS specification were not fully clear on
+ what the record layer version number (TLSPlaintext.version) should
+ contain when sending ClientHello (i.e., before it is known which
+ version of the protocol will be employed). Thus, TLS servers
+ compliant with this specification MUST accept any value {03,XX} as
+ the record layer version number for ClientHello.
+
+ TLS clients that wish to negotiate with older servers MAY send any
+ value {03,XX} as the record layer version number. Typical values
+ would be {03,00}, the lowest version number supported by the client,
+ and the value of ClientHello.client_version. No single value will
+ guarantee interoperability with all old servers, but this is a
+ complex topic beyond the scope of this document.
+
+E.2 Compatibility with SSL 2.0
+
+ TLS 1.2 clients that wish to support SSL 2.0 servers MUST send
+ version 2.0 CLIENT-HELLO messages defined in [SSL2]. The message MUST
+ contain the same version number as would be used for ordinary
+ ClientHello, and MUST encode the supported TLS ciphersuites in the
+ CIPHER-SPECS-DATA field as described below.
+
+Warning: The ability to send version 2.0 CLIENT-HELLO messages will be
+ phased out with all due haste, since the newer ClientHello format
+ provides better mechanisms for moving to newer versions and
+ negotiating extensions. TLS 1.2 clients SHOULD NOT support SSL 2.0.
+
+ However, even TLS servers that do not support SSL 2.0 SHOULD accept
+ version 2.0 CLIENT-HELLO messages. The message is presented below in
+ sufficient detail for TLS server implementors; the true definition is
+ still assumed to be [SSL2].
+
+ For negotiation purposes, 2.0 CLIENT-HELLO is interpreted the same
+ way as a ClientHello with a "null" compression method and no
+ extensions. Note that this message MUST be sent directly on the wire,
+ not wrapped as a TLS record. For the purposes of calculating Finished
+ and CertificateVerify, the msg_length field is not considered to be a
+ part of the handshake message.
+
+ uint8 V2CipherSpec[3];
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 78] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ struct {
+ uint16 msg_length;
+ uint8 msg_type;
+ Version version;
+ uint16 cipher_spec_length;
+ uint16 session_id_length;
+ uint16 challenge_length;
+ V2CipherSpec cipher_specs[V2ClientHello.cipher_spec_length];
+ opaque session_id[V2ClientHello.session_id_length];
+ opaque challenge[V2ClientHello.challenge_length;
+ } V2ClientHello;
+
+ msg_length
+ The highest bit MUST be 1; the remaining bits contain the
+ length of the following data in bytes.
+
+ msg_type
+ This field, in conjunction with the version field, identifies a
+ version 2 client hello message. The value MUST be one (1).
+
+ version
+ Equal to ClientHello.client_version.
+
+ cipher_spec_length
+ This field is the total length of the field cipher_specs. It
+ cannot be zero and MUST be a multiple of the V2CipherSpec length
+ (3).
+
+ session_id_length
+ This field MUST have a value of zero for a client that claims to
+ support TLS 1.2.
+
+ challenge_length
+ The length in bytes of the client's challenge to the server to
+ authenticate itself. Historically, permissible values are between
+ 16 and 32 bytes inclusive. When using the SSLv2 backward
+ compatible handshake the client SHOULD use a 32 byte challenge.
+
+ cipher_specs
+ This is a list of all CipherSpecs the client is willing and able
+ to use. In addition to the 2.0 cipher specs defined in [SSL2],
+ this includes the TLS cipher suites normally sent in
+ ClientHello.cipher_suites, each cipher suite prefixed by a zero
+ byte. For example, TLS ciphersuite {0x00,0x0A} would be sent as
+ {0x00,0x00,0x0A}.
+
+ session_id
+ This field MUST be empty.
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 79] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ challenge
+ Corresponds to ClientHello.random. If the challenge length is
+ less than 32, the TLS server will pad the data with leading
+ (note: not trailing) zero bytes to make it 32 bytes long.
+
+ Note: Requests to resume a TLS session MUST use a TLS client hello.
+
+E.2. Avoiding Man-in-the-Middle Version Rollback
+
+ When TLS clients fall back to Version 2.0 compatibility mode, they
+ MUST use special PKCS#1 block formatting. This is done so that TLS
+ servers will reject Version 2.0 sessions with TLS-capable clients.
+
+ When a client negotiates SSL 2.0 but also supports TLS, it MUST set
+ the right-hand (least-significant) 8 random bytes of the PKCS padding
+ (not including the terminal null of the padding) for the RSA
+ encryption of the ENCRYPTED-KEY-DATA field of the CLIENT-MASTER-KEY
+ to 0x03 (the other padding bytes are random).
+
+ When a TLS-capable server negotiates SSL 2.0 it SHOULD, after
+ decrypting the ENCRYPTED-KEY-DATA field, check that these eight
+ padding bytes are 0x03. If they are not, the server SHOULD generate a
+ random value for SECRET-KEY-DATA, and continue the handshake (which
+ will eventually fail since the keys will not match). Note that
+ reporting the error situation to the client could make the server
+ vulnerable to attacks described in [BLEI].
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 80] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+Appendix F. Security Analysis
+
+ The TLS protocol is designed to establish a secure connection between
+ a client and a server communicating over an insecure channel. This
+ document makes several traditional assumptions, including that
+ attackers have substantial computational resources and cannot obtain
+ secret information from sources outside the protocol. Attackers are
+ assumed to have the ability to capture, modify, delete, replay, and
+ otherwise tamper with messages sent over the communication channel.
+ This appendix outlines how TLS has been designed to resist a variety
+ of attacks.
+
+F.1. Handshake Protocol
+
+ The handshake protocol is responsible for selecting a CipherSpec and
+ generating a Master Secret, which together comprise the primary
+ cryptographic parameters associated with a secure session. The
+ handshake protocol can also optionally authenticate parties who have
+ certificates signed by a trusted certificate authority.
+
+F.1.1. Authentication and Key Exchange
+
+ TLS supports three authentication modes: authentication of both
+ parties, server authentication with an unauthenticated client, and
+ total anonymity. Whenever the server is authenticated, the channel is
+ secure against man-in-the-middle attacks, but completely anonymous
+ sessions are inherently vulnerable to such attacks. Anonymous
+ servers cannot authenticate clients. If the server is authenticated,
+ its certificate message must provide a valid certificate chain
+ leading to an acceptable certificate authority. Similarly,
+ authenticated clients must supply an acceptable certificate to the
+ server. Each party is responsible for verifying that the other's
+ certificate is valid and has not expired or been revoked.
+
+ The general goal of the key exchange process is to create a
+ pre_master_secret known to the communicating parties and not to
+ attackers. The pre_master_secret will be used to generate the
+ master_secret (see Section 8.1). The master_secret is required to
+ generate the finished messages, encryption keys, and MAC secrets (see
+ Sections 7.4.9 and 6.3). By sending a correct finished message,
+ parties thus prove that they know the correct pre_master_secret.
+
+F.1.1.1. Anonymous Key Exchange
+
+ Completely anonymous sessions can be established using RSA or Diffie-
+ Hellman for key exchange. With anonymous RSA, the client encrypts a
+ pre_master_secret with the server's uncertified public key extracted
+ from the server key exchange message. The result is sent in a client
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 81] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ key exchange message. Since eavesdroppers do not know the server's
+ private key, it will be infeasible for them to decode the
+ pre_master_secret.
+
+ Note: No anonymous RSA Cipher Suites are defined in this document.
+
+ With Diffie-Hellman, the server's public parameters are contained in
+ the server key exchange message and the client's are sent in the
+ client key exchange message. Eavesdroppers who do not know the
+ private values should not be able to find the Diffie-Hellman result
+ (i.e. the pre_master_secret).
+
+ Warning: Completely anonymous connections only provide protection
+ against passive eavesdropping. Unless an independent tamper-
+ proof channel is used to verify that the finished messages
+ were not replaced by an attacker, server authentication is
+ required in environments where active man-in-the-middle
+ attacks are a concern.
+
+F.1.1.2. RSA Key Exchange and Authentication
+
+ With RSA, key exchange and server authentication are combined. The
+ public key is contained in the server's certificate. Note that
+ compromise of the server's static RSA key results in a loss of
+ confidentiality for all sessions protected under that static key. TLS
+ users desiring Perfect Forward Secrecy should use DHE cipher suites.
+ The damage done by exposure of a private key can be limited by
+ changing one's private key (and certificate) frequently.
+
+ After verifying the server's certificate, the client encrypts a
+ pre_master_secret with the server's public key. By successfully
+ decoding the pre_master_secret and producing a correct finished
+ message, the server demonstrates that it knows the private key
+ corresponding to the server certificate.
+
+ When RSA is used for key exchange, clients are authenticated using
+ the certificate verify message (see Section 7.4.9). The client signs
+ a value derived from the master_secret and all preceding handshake
+ messages. These handshake messages include the server certificate,
+ which binds the signature to the server, and ServerHello.random,
+ which binds the signature to the current handshake process.
+
+F.1.1.3. Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange with Authentication
+
+ When Diffie-Hellman key exchange is used, the server can either
+ supply a certificate containing fixed Diffie-Hellman parameters or
+ use the server key exchange message to send a set of temporary
+ Diffie-Hellman parameters signed with a DSS or RSA certificate.
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 82] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ Temporary parameters are hashed with the hello.random values before
+ signing to ensure that attackers do not replay old parameters. In
+ either case, the client can verify the certificate or signature to
+ ensure that the parameters belong to the server.
+
+ If the client has a certificate containing fixed Diffie-Hellman
+ parameters, its certificate contains the information required to
+ complete the key exchange. Note that in this case the client and
+ server will generate the same Diffie-Hellman result (i.e.,
+ pre_master_secret) every time they communicate. To prevent the
+ pre_master_secret from staying in memory any longer than necessary,
+ it should be converted into the master_secret as soon as possible.
+ Client Diffie-Hellman parameters must be compatible with those
+ supplied by the server for the key exchange to work.
+
+ If the client has a standard DSS or RSA certificate or is
+ unauthenticated, it sends a set of temporary parameters to the server
+ in the client key exchange message, then optionally uses a
+ certificate verify message to authenticate itself.
+
+ If the same DH keypair is to be used for multiple handshakes, either
+ because the client or server has a certificate containing a fixed DH
+ keypair or because the server is reusing DH keys, care must be taken
+ to prevent small subgroup attacks. Implementations SHOULD follow the
+ guidelines found in [SUBGROUP].
+
+ Small subgroup attacks are most easily avoided by using one of the
+ DHE ciphersuites and generating a fresh DH private key (X) for each
+ handshake. If a suitable base (such as 2) is chosen, g^X mod p can be
+ computed very quickly, therefore the performance cost is minimized.
+ Additionally, using a fresh key for each handshake provides Perfect
+ Forward Secrecy. Implementations SHOULD generate a new X for each
+ handshake when using DHE ciphersuites.
+
+ Because TLS allows the server to provide arbitrary DH groups, the
+ client SHOULD verify the correctness of the DH group. [TODO: provide
+ a reference to some document describing how] and that it is of
+ suitable size as defined by local policy. The client SHOULD also
+ verify that the DH public exponent appears to be of adequate size.
+ The server MAY choose to assist the client by providing a known
+ group, such as those defined in [IKEALG] or [MODP]. These can be
+ verified by simple comparison.
+
+F.1.2. Version Rollback Attacks
+
+ Because TLS includes substantial improvements over SSL Version 2.0,
+ attackers may try to make TLS-capable clients and servers fall back
+ to Version 2.0. This attack can occur if (and only if) two TLS-
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 83] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ capable parties use an SSL 2.0 handshake.
+
+ Although the solution using non-random PKCS #1 block type 2 message
+ padding is inelegant, it provides a reasonably secure way for Version
+ 3.0 servers to detect the attack. This solution is not secure against
+ attackers who can brute force the key and substitute a new ENCRYPTED-
+ KEY-DATA message containing the same key (but with normal padding)
+ before the application specified wait threshold has expired. Altering
+ the padding of the least significant 8 bytes of the PKCS padding does
+ not impact security for the size of the signed hashes and RSA key
+ lengths used in the protocol, since this is essentially equivalent to
+ increasing the input block size by 8 bytes.
+
+F.1.3. Detecting Attacks Against the Handshake Protocol
+
+ An attacker might try to influence the handshake exchange to make the
+ parties select different encryption algorithms than they would
+ normally chooses.
+
+ For this attack, an attacker must actively change one or more
+ handshake messages. If this occurs, the client and server will
+ compute different values for the handshake message hashes. As a
+ result, the parties will not accept each others' finished messages.
+ Without the master_secret, the attacker cannot repair the finished
+ messages, so the attack will be discovered.
+
+F.1.4. Resuming Sessions
+
+ When a connection is established by resuming a session, new
+ ClientHello.random and ServerHello.random values are hashed with the
+ session's master_secret. Provided that the master_secret has not been
+ compromised and that the secure hash operations used to produce the
+ encryption keys and MAC secrets are secure, the connection should be
+ secure and effectively independent from previous connections.
+ Attackers cannot use known encryption keys or MAC secrets to
+ compromise the master_secret without breaking the secure hash
+ operations (which use both SHA and MD5).
+
+ Sessions cannot be resumed unless both the client and server agree.
+ If either party suspects that the session may have been compromised,
+ or that certificates may have expired or been revoked, it should
+ force a full handshake. An upper limit of 24 hours is suggested for
+ session ID lifetimes, since an attacker who obtains a master_secret
+ may be able to impersonate the compromised party until the
+ corresponding session ID is retired. Applications that may be run in
+ relatively insecure environments should not write session IDs to
+ stable storage.
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 84] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+F.1.5 Extensions
+
+ Security considerations for the extension mechanism in general, and
+ the design of new extensions, are described in the previous section.
+ A security analysis of each of the extensions defined in this
+ document is given below.
+
+ In general, implementers should continue to monitor the state of the
+ art, and address any weaknesses identified.
+
+F.2. Protecting Application Data
+
+ The master_secret is hashed with the ClientHello.random and
+ ServerHello.random to produce unique data encryption keys and MAC
+ secrets for each connection.
+
+ Outgoing data is protected with a MAC before transmission. To prevent
+ message replay or modification attacks, the MAC is computed from the
+ MAC secret, the sequence number, the message length, the message
+ contents, and two fixed character strings. The message type field is
+ necessary to ensure that messages intended for one TLS Record Layer
+ client are not redirected to another. The sequence number ensures
+ that attempts to delete or reorder messages will be detected. Since
+ sequence numbers are 64 bits long, they should never overflow.
+ Messages from one party cannot be inserted into the other's output,
+ since they use independent MAC secrets. Similarly, the server-write
+ and client-write keys are independent, so stream cipher keys are used
+ only once.
+
+ If an attacker does break an encryption key, all messages encrypted
+ with it can be read. Similarly, compromise of a MAC key can make
+ message modification attacks possible. Because MACs are also
+ encrypted, message-alteration attacks generally require breaking the
+ encryption algorithm as well as the MAC.
+
+ Note: MAC secrets may be larger than encryption keys, so messages can
+ remain tamper resistant even if encryption keys are broken.
+
+F.3. Explicit IVs
+
+ [CBCATT] describes a chosen plaintext attack on TLS that depends
+ on knowing the IV for a record. Previous versions of TLS [TLS1.0]
+ used the CBC residue of the previous record as the IV and
+ therefore enabled this attack. This version uses an explicit IV
+ in order to protect against this attack.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 85] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+F.4. Security of Composite Cipher Modes
+
+ TLS secures transmitted application data via the use of symmetric
+ encryption and authentication functions defined in the negotiated
+ ciphersuite. The objective is to protect both the integrity and
+ confidentiality of the transmitted data from malicious actions by
+ active attackers in the network. It turns out that the order in
+ which encryption and authentication functions are applied to the
+ data plays an important role for achieving this goal [ENCAUTH].
+
+ The most robust method, called encrypt-then-authenticate, first
+ applies encryption to the data and then applies a MAC to the
+ ciphertext. This method ensures that the integrity and
+ confidentiality goals are obtained with ANY pair of encryption
+ and MAC functions, provided that the former is secure against
+ chosen plaintext attacks and that the MAC is secure against
+ chosen-message attacks. TLS uses another method, called
+ authenticate-then-encrypt, in which first a MAC is computed on
+ the plaintext and then the concatenation of plaintext and MAC is
+ encrypted. This method has been proven secure for CERTAIN
+ combinations of encryption functions and MAC functions, but it is
+ not guaranteed to be secure in general. In particular, it has
+ been shown that there exist perfectly secure encryption functions
+ (secure even in the information-theoretic sense) that combined
+ with any secure MAC function, fail to provide the confidentiality
+ goal against an active attack. Therefore, new ciphersuites and
+ operation modes adopted into TLS need to be analyzed under the
+ authenticate-then-encrypt method to verify that they achieve the
+ stated integrity and confidentiality goals.
+
+ Currently, the security of the authenticate-then-encrypt method
+ has been proven for some important cases. One is the case of
+ stream ciphers in which a computationally unpredictable pad of
+ the length of the message, plus the length of the MAC tag, is
+ produced using a pseudo-random generator and this pad is xor-ed
+ with the concatenation of plaintext and MAC tag. The other is
+ the case of CBC mode using a secure block cipher. In this case,
+ security can be shown if one applies one CBC encryption pass to
+ the concatenation of plaintext and MAC and uses a new,
+ independent, and unpredictable IV for each new pair of plaintext
+ and MAC. In previous versions of SSL, CBC mode was used properly
+ EXCEPT that it used a predictable IV in the form of the last
+ block of the previous ciphertext. This made TLS open to chosen
+ plaintext attacks. This version of the protocol is immune to
+ those attacks. For exact details in the encryption modes proven
+ secure, see [ENCAUTH].
+
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 86] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+F.5 Denial of Service
+
+ TLS is susceptible to a number of denial of service (DoS) attacks.
+ In particular, an attacker who initiates a large number of TCP
+ connections can cause a server to consume large amounts of CPU doing
+ RSA decryption. However, because TLS is generally used over TCP, it
+ is difficult for the attacker to hide his point of origin if proper
+ TCP SYN randomization is used [SEQNUM] by the TCP stack.
+
+ Because TLS runs over TCP, it is also susceptible to a number of
+ denial of service attacks on individual connections. In particular,
+ attackers can forge RSTs, thereby terminating connections, or forge
+ partial TLS records, thereby causing the connection to stall. These
+ attacks cannot in general be defended against by a TCP-using
+ protocol. Implementors or users who are concerned with this class of
+ attack should use IPsec AH [AH] or ESP [ESP].
+
+F.6. Final Notes
+
+ For TLS to be able to provide a secure connection, both the client
+ and server systems, keys, and applications must be secure. In
+ addition, the implementation must be free of security errors.
+
+ The system is only as strong as the weakest key exchange and
+ authentication algorithm supported, and only trustworthy
+ cryptographic functions should be used. Short public keys and
+ anonymous servers should be used with great caution. Implementations
+ and users must be careful when deciding which certificates and
+ certificate authorities are acceptable; a dishonest certificate
+ authority can do tremendous damage.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 87] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+Security Considerations
+
+ Security issues are discussed throughout this memo, especially in
+ Appendices D, E, and F.
+
+
+Changes in This Version
+
+ [RFC Editor: Please delete this]
+
+ - Added some guidance about checking DH groups and exponents.
+ [Issues 15 and 43]
+
+ - DigestInfo now MUST be NULL but must be accepted either way
+ per discussion in Prague [Issue 22]
+
+ - Improved versions of Bleichenbacher/Klima/Version number
+ text for the EPMS (due to Eronen) [Issue 17]
+
+ - Cleaned up SSLv2 backward compatibility text [Issue 25]
+
+ - Improvements to signature hash agility text [Issue 41].
+ Still not completely fixed.
+
+ - Changed cert_hash_types to signature hash types and indicated a
+ preference order.
+
+ - Strengthened language about when alerts are required. Note
+ that it is still legal under some circumstances to close
+ a connection with no alert.
+
+Normative References
+ [AES] National Institute of Standards and Technology,
+ "Specification for the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)"
+ FIPS 197. November 26, 2001.
+
+ [3DES] National Institute of Standards and Tecnology,
+ "Recommendation for the Triple Data Encryption Algorithm
+ (TDEA) Block Cipher", NIST Special Publication 800-67, May
+ 2004.
+
+ [DES] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Data
+ Encryption Standard (DES)", FIPS PUB 46-3, October 1999.
+
+ [DSS] NIST FIPS PUB 186-2, "Digital Signature Standard," National
+ Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of
+ Commerce, 2000.
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 88] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ [HMAC] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
+ Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, February
+ 1997.
+
+ [IDEA] X. Lai, "On the Design and Security of Block Ciphers," ETH
+ Series in Information Processing, v. 1, Konstanz: Hartung-
+ Gorre Verlag, 1992.
+
+ [MD5] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321,
+ April 1992.
+
+ [PKCS1] J. Jonsson, B. Kaliski, "Public-Key Cryptography Standards
+ (PKCS) #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications Version 2.1", RFC
+ 3447, February 2003.
+
+ [PKIX] Housley, R., Ford, W., Polk, W. and D. Solo, "Internet
+ Public Key Infrastructure: Part I: X.509 Certificate and CRL
+ Profile", RFC 3280, April 2002.
+
+ [RC2] Rivest, R., "A Description of the RC2(r) Encryption
+ Algorithm", RFC 2268, March 1998.
+
+ [SCH] B. Schneier. "Applied Cryptography: Protocols, Algorithms,
+ and Source Code in C, 2ed", Published by John Wiley & Sons,
+ Inc. 1996.
+
+ [SHA] NIST FIPS PUB 180-2, "Secure Hash Standard," National
+ Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of
+ Commerce., August 2001.
+
+ [REQ] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+ [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
+ IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 25, RFC 2434,
+ October 1998.
+
+ [URI] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform
+ Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396,
+ August 1998.
+
+ [X509-4th] ITU-T Recommendation X.509 (2000) | ISO/IEC 9594- 8:2001,
+ "Information Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - The
+ Directory: Public key and Attribute certificate
+ frameworks."
+
+ [X509-4th-TC1] ITU-T Recommendation X.509(2000) Corrigendum 1(2001) |
+ ISO/IEC 9594-8:2001/Cor.1:2002, Technical Corrigendum 1 to
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 89] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ ISO/IEC 9594:8:2001.
+
+Informative References
+
+ [AEAD] Mcgrew, D., "Authenticated Encryption", February 2007,
+ draft-mcgrew-auth-enc-02.txt.
+
+ [AH] Kent, S., and Atkinson, R., "IP Authentication Header", RFC
+ 4302, December 2005.
+
+ [BLEI] Bleichenbacher D., "Chosen Ciphertext Attacks against
+ Protocols Based on RSA Encryption Standard PKCS #1" in
+ Advances in Cryptology -- CRYPTO'98, LNCS vol. 1462, pages:
+ 1-12, 1998.
+
+ [CBCATT] Moeller, B., "Security of CBC Ciphersuites in SSL/TLS:
+ Problems and Countermeasures",
+ http://www.openssl.org/~bodo/tls-cbc.txt.
+
+ [CBCTIME] Canvel, B., "Password Interception in a SSL/TLS Channel",
+ http://lasecwww.epfl.ch/memo_ssl.shtml, 2003.
+
+ [CCM] "NIST Special Publication 800-38C: The CCM Mode for
+ Authentication and Confidentiality",
+ http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/SP800-38C.pdf.
+
+ [ENCAUTH] Krawczyk, H., "The Order of Encryption and Authentication
+ for Protecting Communications (Or: How Secure is SSL?)",
+ Crypto 2001.
+
+ [ESP] Kent, S., and Atkinson, R., "IP Encapsulating Security
+ Payload (ESP)", RFC 4303, December 2005.
+
+ [GCM] "NIST Special Publication 800-38C: The CCM Mode for
+ Authentication and Confidentiality",
+ http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/SP800-38C.pdf.
+
+ [IKEALG] Schiller, J., "Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the
+ Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 4307, December
+ 2005.
+
+ [KPR03] Klima, V., Pokorny, O., Rosa, T., "Attacking RSA-based
+ Sessions in SSL/TLS", http://eprint.iacr.org/2003/052/,
+ March 2003.
+
+ [MODP] Kivinen, T. and M. Kojo, "More Modular Exponential (MODP)
+ Diffie-Hellman groups for Internet Key Exchange (IKE)", RFC
+ 3526, May 2003.
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 90] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ [PKCS6] RSA Laboratories, "PKCS #6: RSA Extended Certificate Syntax
+ Standard," version 1.5, November 1993.
+
+ [PKCS7] RSA Laboratories, "PKCS #7: RSA Cryptographic Message Syntax
+ Standard," version 1.5, November 1993.
+
+ [RANDOM] Eastlake, D., 3rd, Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, "Randomness
+ Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, June 2005.
+
+ [RSA] R. Rivest, A. Shamir, and L. M. Adleman, "A Method for
+ Obtaining Digital Signatures and Public-Key Cryptosystems,"
+ Communications of the ACM, v. 21, n. 2, Feb 1978, pp.
+ 120-126.
+
+ [SEQNUM] Bellovin. S., "Defending Against Sequence Number Attacks",
+ RFC 1948, May 1996.
+
+ [SSL2] Hickman, Kipp, "The SSL Protocol", Netscape Communications
+ Corp., Feb 9, 1995.
+
+ [SSL3] A. Frier, P. Karlton, and P. Kocher, "The SSL 3.0 Protocol",
+ Netscape Communications Corp., Nov 18, 1996.
+
+ [SUBGROUP] Zuccherato, R., "Methods for Avoiding the "Small-Subgroup"
+ Attacks on the Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method for
+ S/MIME", RFC 2785, March 2000.
+
+ [TCP] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol," STD 7, RFC 793,
+ September 1981.
+
+ [TIMING] Boneh, D., Brumley, D., "Remote timing attacks are
+ practical", USENIX Security Symposium 2003.
+
+ [TLSAES] Chown, P., "Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Ciphersuites
+ for Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 3268, June 2002.
+
+ [TLSEXT] Blake-Wilson, S., Nystrom, M., Hopwood, D., Mikkelsen, J.,
+ Wright, T., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions", RFC
+ 3546, June 2003.
+
+ [TLSKRB] Medvinsky, A. and M. Hur, "Addition of Kerberos Cipher
+ Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 2712, October
+ 1999.
+
+ [TLS1.0] Dierks, T., and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol, Version 1.0",
+ RFC 2246, January 1999.
+
+ [TLS1.1] Dierks, T., and E. Rescorla, "The TLS Protocol, Version
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 91] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ 1.1", RFC 4346, April, 2006.
+
+ [X501] ITU-T Recommendation X.501: Information Technology - Open
+ Systems Interconnection - The Directory: Models, 1993.
+
+ [X509] ITU-T Recommendation X.509 (1997 E): Information Technology -
+ Open Systems Interconnection - "The Directory -
+ Authentication Framework". 1988.
+
+ [XDR] Srinivansan, R., Sun Microsystems, "XDR: External Data
+ Representation Standard", RFC 1832, August 1995.
+
+
+Credits
+
+ Working Group Chairs
+ Eric Rescorla
+ EMail: ekr@networkresonance.com
+
+ Pasi Eronen
+ pasi.eronen@nokia.com
+
+
+ Editors
+
+ Tim Dierks Eric Rescorla
+ Independent Network Resonance, Inc.
+
+ EMail: tim@dierks.org EMail: ekr@networkresonance.com
+
+
+
+ Other contributors
+
+ Christopher Allen (co-editor of TLS 1.0)
+ Alacrity Ventures
+ ChristopherA@AlacrityManagement.com
+
+ Martin Abadi
+ University of California, Santa Cruz
+ abadi@cs.ucsc.edu
+
+ Steven M. Bellovin
+ Columbia University
+ smb@cs.columbia.edu
+
+ Simon Blake-Wilson
+ BCI
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 92] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ EMail: sblakewilson@bcisse.com
+
+ Ran Canetti
+ IBM
+ canetti@watson.ibm.com
+
+ Pete Chown
+ Skygate Technology Ltd
+ pc@skygate.co.uk
+
+ Taher Elgamal
+ taher@securify.com
+ Securify
+
+ Anil Gangolli
+ anil@busybuddha.org
+
+ Kipp Hickman
+
+ David Hopwood
+ Independent Consultant
+ EMail: david.hopwood@blueyonder.co.uk
+
+ Phil Karlton (co-author of SSLv3)
+
+ Paul Kocher (co-author of SSLv3)
+ Cryptography Research
+ paul@cryptography.com
+
+ Hugo Krawczyk
+ Technion Israel Institute of Technology
+ hugo@ee.technion.ac.il
+
+ Jan Mikkelsen
+ Transactionware
+ EMail: janm@transactionware.com
+
+ Magnus Nystrom
+ RSA Security
+ EMail: magnus@rsasecurity.com
+
+ Robert Relyea
+ Netscape Communications
+ relyea@netscape.com
+
+ Jim Roskind
+ Netscape Communications
+ jar@netscape.com
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 93] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ Michael Sabin
+
+ Dan Simon
+ Microsoft, Inc.
+ dansimon@microsoft.com
+
+ Tom Weinstein
+
+ Tim Wright
+ Vodafone
+ EMail: timothy.wright@vodafone.com
+
+Comments
+
+ The discussion list for the IETF TLS working group is located at the
+ e-mail address <tls@ietf.org>. Information on the group and
+ information on how to subscribe to the list is at
+ <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>
+
+ Archives of the list can be found at:
+ <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/index.html>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 94] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+ Full Copyright Statement
+
+ Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
+
+ This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
+ contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
+ retain all their rights.
+
+ This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
+ "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
+ OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
+ THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
+ OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
+ THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
+ WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+
+ Intellectual Property
+
+ The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
+ Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
+ pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
+ this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
+ might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
+ made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
+ on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
+ found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
+
+ Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
+ assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
+ attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
+ such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
+ specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
+ http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
+
+ The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
+ copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
+ rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
+ this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
+ ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
+
+
+ Acknowledgment
+
+ Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
+ Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
+
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 95] draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt TLS June 2007
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Dierks & Rescorla Standards Track [Page 96]
+
diff --git a/doc/protocol/draft-santesson-tls-gssapi-02.txt b/doc/protocol/draft-santesson-tls-gssapi-02.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..ddf76b67c1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/protocol/draft-santesson-tls-gssapi-02.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,504 @@
+
+
+NETWORK WORKING GROUP L. Zhu
+Internet-Draft Microsoft Corporation
+Updates: 4279 (if approved) July 9, 2007
+Intended status: Standards Track
+Expires: January 10, 2008
+
+
+ Flexible Key Agreement for Transport Layer Security (FKA-TLS)
+ draft-santesson-tls-gssapi-02
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+ By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
+ applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
+ have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
+ aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
+
+ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
+ Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
+ other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
+ Drafts.
+
+ Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
+ and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
+ time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
+ material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
+
+ The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
+ http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
+
+ The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
+ http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
+
+ This Internet-Draft will expire on January 10, 2008.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+ Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
+
+Abstract
+
+ This document defines extensions to RFC 4279 to enable dynamic key
+ sharing in distributed environments. By using these extensions, the
+ client and the server can use off-shelf libraries to exchange tokens
+ and establish a shared secret, based on a Generic Security Service
+ Application Program Interface (GSS-API) mechanism such as Kerberos as
+ defined in RFC 4121, and then proceed according to RFC 4279 to
+ complete the authentication and provide data protection.
+
+
+
+Zhu Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 1]
+
+Internet-Draft FKA-TLS July 2007
+
+
+Table of Contents
+
+ 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
+ 2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
+ 3. Protocol Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
+ 4. Choosing GSS-API Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
+ 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
+ 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+ 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+ 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+ 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+ 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
+ Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
+ Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zhu Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 2]
+
+Internet-Draft FKA-TLS July 2007
+
+
+1. Introduction
+
+ [RFC4279] defines Transport Layer Security (TLS) based on pre-shared
+ keys (PSK). This assumes a pair-wise key sharing scheme that is less
+ scalable and more costly to manage in comparison with a trusted third
+ party scheme such as Kerberos [RFC4120]. In addition, off-shelf GSS-
+ API libraries that allow dynamic key sharing are not currently
+ accessible to TLS applications. For example, Kerberos [RFC4121] is a
+ GSS-API mechanism that can establish a shared key between a client
+ and a server based on either asymmetric keys [RFC4556] or symmetric
+ keys [RFC4120].
+
+ This document extends [RFC4279] to allow the client and the server
+ establish a shared key on demand by using off-shelf GSS-API
+ libraries, and then proceed according to RFC 4279. This is a modular
+ approach to leverage Kerberos alike trust infrastructures in securing
+ TLS connections.
+
+
+2. Conventions Used in This Document
+
+ The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+ "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+ document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
+
+
+3. Protocol Definition
+
+ The GSS-API TLS extension is defined according to [RFC3546]. The
+ extension data carries GSS-API token within the TLS hello messages.
+
+ enum {
+ GSS-API(TBD), (65535)
+ } ExtensionType;
+
+ Initially the client calls GSS_Init_sec_context() [RFC2743] to
+ establish a security context, it MUST set the mutual_req_flag and
+ identify the server by targ_name so that mutual authentication is
+ performed in the course of context establishment. If the mutual
+ authentication is not available when the context is established
+ successfully, the GSS-API security context MUST be discarded. The
+ extension_data from the client contains the output token of
+ GSS_Init_sec_context(). If a GSS-API context cannot be established,
+ the GSS-API TLS extension MUST NOT be included in the client hello
+ message and it is a matter of local policy on the client whether to
+ continue or reject the TLS authentication as if the GSS-API TLS
+ extension is not supported.
+
+
+
+
+Zhu Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 3]
+
+Internet-Draft FKA-TLS July 2007
+
+
+ Upon receipt of the GSS-API TLS extension from the client, and if the
+ server supports the GSS-API TLS extension, the server calls
+ GSS_Accept_sec_context() with the client GSS-API output token in the
+ client's extension data as the input token. If
+ GSS_Accept_sec_context() returns a token successfully, the server
+ responds with a GSS-API TLS extension and places the output token in
+ the extension_data. If GSS_Accept_sec_context() fails, it is a
+ matter of local policy on the server whether to continue or reject
+ the TLS authentication as if the GSS-API TLS extension is not
+ supported.
+
+ The server MUST NOT include a GSS-API TLS extension in the hello
+ message if the cipher_suite in the ServerHello message is not a PSK
+ ciphersuite [RFC4279].
+
+ If the server expects at least one more token to be accepted from the
+ client in order to establish the security context, the additional
+ GSS-API tokens are carried in a new handshake message called the
+ token-transfer message.
+
+ enum {
+ token_transfer(TBD), (255)
+ } HandshakeType;
+
+ struct {
+ HandshakeType msg_type; /* handshake type */
+ uint24 length; /* bytes in message */
+ select (HandshakeType) {
+ case token_transfer: /* NEW */
+ TokenTranfer;
+ } body;
+ } Handshake;
+
+ enum {
+ gss-api-token(1), (255)
+ } TokenTransferType;
+
+ struct {
+ TokenTransferType token_type; /* token type */
+ opaque token<0..2^16-1>;
+ } TokenTranfer;
+
+ The TokenTranfer structure is filled out as follows:
+
+ o The token_type is gss-api-token.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zhu Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 4]
+
+Internet-Draft FKA-TLS July 2007
+
+
+ o The token field contains the GSS-API context establishment tokens
+ from the client and the server.
+
+ The client calls GSS_Init_sec_context() with the token in the
+ TokenTranfer stucture from the server as the input token, and then
+ places the output token, if any, into the TokenTranfer message and
+ sends the handshake message to the server. The server calls
+ GSS_Accept_sec_context() with the token in the TokenTranfer structure
+ from the client as the input token, and then places the output token,
+ if any, into the TokenTranfer message and sends the handshake message
+ to the client. This loop repeats until either the context fails to
+ establish or the context is established successfully. To prevent an
+ infinite loop, both the client and the server MUST have a policy to
+ limit the maximum number of GSS-API context establishment calls for a
+ given session. The recommended value is 5. If the GSS-API context
+ fails to establish, it is a matter of local policy whether to
+ continue or reject the TLS authentication as if the GSS-API TLS
+ extension is not supported.
+
+ When the last GSS-API context establishment token is sent by the
+ client or when the GSS-API context fails to establish on the client
+ side and the local policy allows the TLS authentication to proceed as
+ if the TLS GSS-API extension is not supported, the client sends an
+ empty TokenTransfer handshake message.
+
+ If the GSS-API context fails to establish and local policy allows the
+ TLS authentication continue as if the GSS-API TLS extension is not
+ supported, the server MAY send another ServerHello message in order
+ to choose a different cipher suite. The client then MUST expect the
+ second ServerHello message from the server before the session is
+ established. The second ServerHello message MUST differ from the
+ first ServerHello message in the cipher_suite field and only in that
+ field.
+
+ If the client and the server establish a security context
+ successfully, both the client and the server call GSS_Pseudo_random()
+ [RFC4401] to compute a sufficiently long shared secret with the same
+ value based on the negotiated ciphersuite, and then proceed according
+ to [RFC4279] using this shared secret value as the "PSK". Both
+ psk_identity and psk_identity_hint are empty in the handshake
+ messages when the shared key is established using a GSS-API mechanism
+ as described in this document.
+
+ The following text art summaries the protocol message flow.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zhu Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 5]
+
+Internet-Draft FKA-TLS July 2007
+
+
+ Client Server
+
+ ClientHello -------->
+ ServerHello
+ <-------- TokenTransfer*
+ .
+ .
+ .
+ TokenTransfer* -------->
+
+ ServerHello*
+ Certificate*
+ ServerKeyExchange*
+ CertificateRequest*
+ <-------- ServerHelloDone
+ Certificate*
+ ClientKeyExchange
+ CertificateVerify*
+ [ChangeCipherSpec]
+ Finished -------->
+ [ChangeCipherSpec]
+ <-------- Finished
+ Application Data <--------> Application Data
+
+ Fig. 1. Message flow for a full handshake
+
+ * Indicates optional or situation-dependent messages that are
+ not always sent.
+
+ There could be multiple TokenTransfer handshake messages, and the
+ last TokenTranster message, if present, is always sent from the
+ client to the server and it can carry an empty token.
+
+
+4. Choosing GSS-API Mechanisms
+
+ If more than one GSS-API mechanism is shared between the client and
+ the server, it is RECOMMENDED to deploy a pseudo GSS-API mechanism
+ such as [RFC4178] to choose a mutually preferred GSS-API mechanism.
+
+ If the Kerberos client does not have access to the KDC but the server
+ does, [IAKERB] can be chosen to tunnel the Kerberos authentication
+ exchange within the TLS handshake messages.
+
+
+5. Security Considerations
+
+ When Kerberos as defined in [RFC4120] is used to establish the share
+
+
+
+Zhu Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 6]
+
+Internet-Draft FKA-TLS July 2007
+
+
+ key, it is vulnerable to offline dictionary attacks. The threat is
+ mitigated by deploying kerberos FAST [KRB-FAST].
+
+
+6. Acknowledgements
+
+ Stefan Santesson, Ari Medvinsky and Jeffery Altman helped editing the
+ earlier revisions of this document.
+
+
+7. IANA Considerations
+
+ A new handshake message token_transfer is defined according to
+ [RFC4346] and a new TLS extension called the GSS-API extension is
+ defined according to [RFC3546]. The registry need to be updated to
+ include these new types.
+
+ This document defines the type of the transfer tokens in Section 3, a
+ registry need to be setup and the allocation policy is "Specification
+ Required".
+
+
+8. References
+
+8.1. Normative References
+
+ [IAKERB] Zhu, L., "Initial and Pass Through Authentication Using
+ Kerberos V5 and the GSS-API", draft-zhu-ws-kerb-03.txt
+ (work in progress), 2007.
+
+ [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+ [RFC2743] Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program
+ Interface Version 2, Update 1", RFC 2743, January 2000.
+
+ [RFC3546] Blake-Wilson, S., Nystrom, M., Hopwood, D., Mikkelsen, J.,
+ and T. Wright, "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
+ Extensions", RFC 3546, June 2003.
+
+ [RFC4178] Zhu, L., Leach, P., Jaganathan, K., and W. Ingersoll, "The
+ Simple and Protected Generic Security Service Application
+ Program Interface (GSS-API) Negotiation Mechanism",
+ RFC 4178, October 2005.
+
+ [RFC4279] Eronen, P. and H. Tschofenig, "Pre-Shared Key Ciphersuites
+ for Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 4279,
+ December 2005.
+
+
+
+Zhu Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 7]
+
+Internet-Draft FKA-TLS July 2007
+
+
+ [RFC4346] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
+ (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006.
+
+ [RFC4401] Williams, N., "A Pseudo-Random Function (PRF) API
+ Extension for the Generic Security Service Application
+ Program Interface (GSS-API)", RFC 4401, February 2006.
+
+8.2. Informative References
+
+ [KRB-FAST]
+ Zhu, L. and S. Hartman, "A Generalized Framework for
+ Kerberos Pre-Authentication",
+ draft-ietf-krb-wg-preauth-framework-06.txt (work in
+ progress), 2007.
+
+ [RFC4120] Neuman, C., Yu, T., Hartman, S., and K. Raeburn, "The
+ Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)", RFC 4120,
+ July 2005.
+
+ [RFC4121] Zhu, L., Jaganathan, K., and S. Hartman, "The Kerberos
+ Version 5 Generic Security Service Application Program
+ Interface (GSS-API) Mechanism: Version 2", RFC 4121,
+ July 2005.
+
+ [RFC4556] Zhu, L. and B. Tung, "Public Key Cryptography for Initial
+ Authentication in Kerberos (PKINIT)", RFC 4556, June 2006.
+
+
+Author's Address
+
+ Larry Zhu
+ Microsoft Corporation
+ One Microsoft Way
+ Redmond, WA 98052
+ US
+
+ Email: lzhu@microsoft.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Zhu Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 8]
+
+Internet-Draft FKA-TLS July 2007
+
+
+Full Copyright Statement
+
+ Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
+
+ This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
+ contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
+ retain all their rights.
+
+ This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
+ "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
+ OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
+ THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
+ OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
+ THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
+ WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+
+Intellectual Property
+
+ The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
+ Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
+ pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
+ this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
+ might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
+ made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
+ on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
+ found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
+
+ Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
+ assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
+ attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
+ such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
+ specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
+ http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
+
+ The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
+ copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
+ rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
+ this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
+ ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
+
+
+Acknowledgment
+
+ Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
+ Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
+
+
+
+
+
+Zhu Expires January 10, 2008 [Page 9]
+
+
View Lorry Controller Status