path: root/doc/protocol/draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt

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]