Database of Long-Lived Symmetric Cryptographic Keys
RFC 7210
| Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (April 2014; Errata) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Tim Polk , Russ Housley , Sam Hartman , Dacheng Zhang | ||
| Last updated | 2020-01-21 | ||
| Replaces | draft-housley-saag-crypto-key-table | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized with errata bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Brian Weis | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2013-08-06) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 7210 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Adrian Farrel | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Housley
Request for Comments: 7210 Vigil Security
Category: Standards Track T. Polk
ISSN: 2070-1721 NIST
S. Hartman
Painless Security
D. Zhang
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
April 2014
Database of Long-Lived Symmetric Cryptographic Keys
Abstract
This document specifies the information contained in a conceptual
database of long-lived cryptographic keys used by many different
routing protocols for message security. The database is designed to
support both manual and automated key management. In addition to
describing the schema for the database, this document describes the
operations that can be performed on the database as well as the
requirements for the routing protocols that wish to use the database.
In many typical scenarios, the protocols do not directly use the
long-lived key, but rather a key derivation function is used to
derive a short-lived key from a long-lived key.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7210.
Housley, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 7210 Table of Cryptographic Keys April 2014
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
1. Introduction
This document specifies the information that needs to be included in
a database of long-lived cryptographic keys in order to key the
cryptographic authentication of routing protocols. This conceptual
database is designed to separate protocol-specific aspects from both
manual and automated key management. The intent is to allow many
different implementation approaches to the specified cryptographic
key database, while simplifying specification and heterogeneous
deployments. This conceptual database avoids the need to build
knowledge of any security protocol into key management protocols. It
minimizes protocol-specific knowledge in operational/management
interfaces, and it constrains where that knowledge can appear.
Textual conventions are provided for the representation of keys and
other identifiers. These conventions should be used when presenting
keys and identifiers to operational/management interfaces or reading
keys/identifiers from these interfaces. This satisfies the
operational requirement that all implementations represent the keys
and key identifiers in the same way so that cross-vendor
configuration instructions can be provided.
Routing protocols can employ the services of more-generic security
protocols such as TCP-AO [RFC5925]. Implementations of routing
protocols may need to supply keys to databases specific to these
security protocols as the associated entries in this document's
conceptual database are manipulated.
In many instances, the long-lived keys are not used directly in
security protocols, but rather a key derivation function is used to
derive short-lived keys from the long-lived key in the database. In
other instances, security protocols will directly use the long-lived
key from the database. The database design supports both use cases.
Housley, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 7210 Table of Cryptographic Keys April 2014
1.1. Requirements Notation
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].
2. Conceptual Database Structure
The database is characterized as a table, where each row represents a
single long-lived symmetric cryptographic key. Normally, each key
should only have one row. Only in the (hopefully) very rare cases
where a key is used for more than one purpose, or where the same key
is used with multiple key derivation functions (KDFs) will multiple
rows contain the same key value. The columns in the table represent
the key value and attributes of the key.
To accommodate manual key management, the format of the fields has
been purposefully chosen to allow updates with a plain-text editor
and to provide equivalent display on multiple systems.
The columns that the table consists of are listed as follows:
AdminKeyName
The AdminKeyName field contains a human-readable string meant
to identify the key for the user. Implementations can use this
field to uniquely identify rows in the key table. The same
string can be used on the local system and peer systems, but
this is not required. Routing protocols do not make use of
this string; they use the LocalKeyName and the PeerKeyName.
However, if these strings are to be used as protocol elements
in other protocols or otherwise transferred between systems,
they will need to follow the requirements of Section 5.1.
LocalKeyName
The LocalKeyName field contains a string identifying the key.
It can be used to retrieve the key in the local database when
received in a message. As discussed in Section 4, the protocol
defines the form of this field. For example, many routing
protocols restrict the format of their key names to integers
that can be represented in 16 or 32 bits. Typically, this
field does not contain data in human character sets requiring
internationalization. If there ever are any routing Protocols
with key names requiring internationalization, those
specifications need to address issues of canonicalization and
normalization so that key names can be compared using binary
comparison.
Housley, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 7210 Table of Cryptographic Keys April 2014
PeerKeyName
PeerKeyName is the name of the key used by the local system in
an outgoing message. For unicast communication, the
PeerKeyName of a key on a system matches the LocalKeyName of
the identical key that is maintained on one or multiple peer
systems. Similar to LocalKeyName, a protocol defines the form
of this identifier and will often restrict it to be an integer.
For group keys, the protocol will typically require this field
be an empty string as the sending and the receiving key names
need to be the same.
Peers
Typically for unicast keys, this field lists the peer systems
that have this key in their database. For group keys, this
field names the groups for which the key is appropriate. For
example, this might name a routing area for a multicast routing
protocol. Formally, this field provides a protocol-specific
set of restrictions on the scope in which the key is
appropriate. The format of the identifiers in the Peers field
is specified by the protocol.
Interfaces
The Interfaces field identifies the set of physical and/or
virtual interfaces for which it is appropriate to use this key.
When the long-lived value in the Key field is intended for use
on any interface, this field is set to "all". The interfaces
field consists of a set of strings; the form of these strings
is specified by the implementation and is independent of the
protocol in question. Protocols may require support for the
Interfaces field or may indicate that support for constraining
keys based on interface is not required. As an example, TCP-AO
implementations are unlikely to make the decision of what
interface to use prior to key selection. In that case, the
implementations are expected to use the same keying material
across all of the interfaces and then require the "all"
setting.
Protocol
The Protocol field identifies a single routing protocol where
this key may be used to provide cryptographic protection. This
specification establishes a registry for this field; the
registry also specifies the format of the following field,
ProtocolSpecificInfo, for each registered protocol.
Housley, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 7210 Table of Cryptographic Keys April 2014
ProtocolSpecificInfo
This field contains the protocol-specified information that may
be useful for a protocol to apply the key correctly. Note that
such information MUST NOT be required for a protocol to locate
an appropriate key. When a protocol does not need the
information in ProtocolSpecificInfo, it will require this field
be empty. Key table rows MAY specify a Direction of "both".
As a result, the encoding of this field needs to support
encoding protocol-specific information for sending and
receiving in the same row.
KDF
The KDF field indicates the key derivation function that is
used to generate short-lived keys from the long-lived value in
the Key field. When the long-lived value in the Key field is
intended for direct use, the KDF field is set to "none". A key
derivation function is a one-way function that provides
cryptographic separation of key material. The KDF MAY use
inputs from the row in the key table and the message being sent
or received but MUST NOT depend on other configuration state.
This document establishes an IANA registry for the values in
the KDF field to simplify references in future specifications.
The protocol indicates what (if any) KDFs are valid.
AlgID
The AlgID field indicates which cryptographic algorithm is to
be used with the security protocol for the specified peer or
peers. Such an algorithm can be an encryption algorithm and
mode (e.g., AES-128-CBC), an authentication algorithm (e.g.,
HMAC-SHA1-96 or AES-128-CMAC), or any other symmetric
cryptographic algorithm needed by a security protocol. If the
KDF field contains "none", then the long-lived key is used
directly with this algorithm; otherwise, the derived short-
lived key is used with this algorithm. When the long-lived key
is used to generate a set of short-lived keys for use with the
security protocol, the AlgID field identifies a ciphersuite
rather than a single cryptographic algorithm. This document
establishes an IANA registry for the values in the AlgID field
to simplify references in future specifications. Protocols
indicate which algorithms are appropriate.
Key
The Key field contains a long-lived symmetric cryptographic key
in the format of a lowercase hexadecimal string. The size of
the Key depends on the KDF and the AlgID. For instance,
KDF=none and AlgID=AES128 require a 128-bit key, which is
represented by 32 hexadecimal digits.
Housley, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 7210 Table of Cryptographic Keys April 2014
Direction
The Direction field indicates whether this key may be used for
inbound traffic, outbound traffic, both, or whether the key has
been disabled and may not currently be used at all. The
supported values are "in", "out", "both", and "disabled",
respectively. The Protocol field will determine which of these
values are valid.
SendLifetimeStart
The SendLifetimeStart field specifies the earliest date and
time in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) at which this key
should be considered for use when sending traffic. The format
is YYYYMMDDHHSSZ, where four digits specify the year, two
digits specify the month, two digits specify the day, two
digits specify the hour, two digits specify the minute, and two
digits specify the second. The "Z" is included as a clear
indication that the time is in UTC.
SendLifeTimeEnd
The SendLifeTimeEnd field specifies the latest date and time at
which this key should be considered for use when sending
traffic. The format is the same as the SendLifetimeStart
field.
AcceptLifeTimeStart
The AcceptLifeTimeStart field specifies the earliest date and
time in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) at which this key
should be considered for use when processing received traffic.
The format is YYYYMMDDHHSSZ, where four digits specify the
year, two digits specify the month, two digits specify the day,
two digits specify the hour, two digits specify the minute, and
two digits specify the second. The "Z" is included as a clear
indication that the time is in UTC.
AcceptLifeTimeEnd
The AcceptLifeTimeEnd field specifies the latest date and time
at which this key should be considered for use when processing
the received traffic. The format of this field is identical to
the format of AcceptLifeTimeStart.
Housley, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 7210 Table of Cryptographic Keys April 2014
3. Key Selection and Rollover
A protocol may directly consult the key table to find the key to use
on an outgoing message. The protocol provides a protocol (P) and a
peer identifier (H) into the key selection function. Optionally, an
interface identifier (I) may also need to be provided. Any key that
satisfies the following conditions may be selected:
(1) the Peers field includes H;
(2) the Protocol field matches P;
(3) If an interface is specified by the protocol, the Interfaces
field in the key table row includes I or "all";
(4) the Direction field is either "out" or "both"; and
(5) SendLifetimeStart <= current time <= SendLifeTimeEnd.
During key selection, there may be multiple entries that
simultaneously exist and are associated with different cryptographic
algorithms or ciphersuites. Systems should support selection of keys
based on algorithm preference to facilitate algorithm transition.
In addition, multiple entries with overlapping valid periods are
expected to be available for orderly key rollover. In these cases,
the expectation is that systems will transition to the newest key
available. To meet this requirement, this specification recommends
supplementing the key selection algorithm with the following
differentiation: select the long-lived key specifying the most recent
time in the SendLifetimeStart field.
In order to look up a key for validating an incoming message, the
protocol provides its protocol (P), the peer identifier (H), the key
identifier (L), and optionally the interface (I). If one key matches
the following conditions, it is selected:
(1) the Peer field includes H;
(2) the Protocol field matches P;
(3) if the Interface field is provided, it includes I or is
"all";
(4) the Direction field is either "in" or "both";
Housley, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 7210 Table of Cryptographic Keys April 2014
(5) the LocalKeyName is L; and
(6) AcceptLifeTimeStart <= current time <= AcceptLifeTimeEnd.
Note that the key usage is loosely bound by the times specified in
the AcceptLifeTimeStart and AcceptLifeTimeEnd fields. New security
associations should not be established except within the period of
use specified by these fields, while allowing some grace time for
clock skew. However, if a security association has already been
established based on a particular long-lived key, exceeding the
lifetime does not have any direct impact. The implementations of
security protocols that involve long-lived security associations
should be designed to periodically interrogate the database and
rollover to new keys without tearing down the security associations.
Rather than consulting the conceptual database, a security protocol
such as TCP-AO may update its own tables as keys are added and
removed. In this case, the protocol needs to maintain its own key
information. Some routing protocols use IP Security (IPsec) to
provide integrity. If a specification describes how to use the
conceptual database described in this document to configure keys for
these routing protocols, similar concerns apply. The specification
mapping those routing protocols onto this conceptual database needs
to describe how the Security Policy Database is manipulated as rows
are added and removed from the conceptual database.
4. Application of the Database in a Security Protocol
In order to use the key table database in a protocol specification, a
protocol needs to specify certain information. This section
enumerates items that a protocol must specify.
(1) The ways of mapping the information in a key table row to the
information needed to produce an outgoing message; specified
as an explanation of either how to fill in authentication-
related fields in a message based on key table information,
or (for protocols such as TCP-AO) how to construct Master Key
Tuples (MKTs) or other protocol-specific structures from a
key table row
(2) The ways of locating the peer identifier (a member of the
Peers set) and the LocalKeyName inside an incoming message
(3) The methods of verifying a message given a key table row;
this may be stated directly or in terms of protocol-specific
structures such as MKTs
Housley, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 7210 Table of Cryptographic Keys April 2014
(4) The form and validation rules for LocalKeyName and
PeerKeyName; if either of these is an integer, the
conventions in Section 5.1 are used as a vendor-independent
format
(5) The form and validation rules for members of the Peers set
(6) The algorithms and KDFs supported
(7) The form of the ProtocolSpecificInfo field
(8) The rules for canonicalizing LocalKeyName, PeerKeyName,
entries in the Peers set, or ProtocolSpecificInfo; this may
include normalizations such as lowercasing hexadecimal
strings
(9) The Indication whether the support for Interfaces is required
by this protocol
The form of the interfaces field is not protocol specific but instead
is shared among all protocols on an implementation. If a protocol
needs to distinguish instances running over the same interface, this
is included in the specification of peers. Generally, it is
desirable to define the specification of peers so that an operator
can use the Interfaces field to refer to all instances of a protocol
on a link without having to specify both generic interfaces
information and protocol-specific peer information.
5. Textual Conventions
5.1. Key Names
When a key for a given protocol is identified by an integer key
identifier, the associated key name will be represented as lowercase
hexadecimal digits with the most significant octet first. This
integer is padded with leading zero digits until the width of the key
identifier field in the protocol is reached. If a key name contains
non-integer human-readable text, its format and encoding may be an
issue, particularly if it is used in protocol between two different
types of systems. If characters from the ASCII range [RFC20] are
sufficient for a key name, then they SHOULD be used. If characters
outside of that range are desirable or required, then they MUST be in
an encoding of Unicode [UNICODE].
In the case of an AdminKeyName that uses characters outside of the
ASCII range, the AdminKeyName MUST be encoded using UTF-8 [RFC3629]
and SHOULD be normalized using Unicode Normalization Form KC [UAX15]
to maximize the chance that the strings will compare correctly.
Housley, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 7210 Table of Cryptographic Keys April 2014
However, simply using Unicode Normalization Form KC is not sufficient
to account for all issues of string comparison; refer to
[PRECIS-FRAMEWORK] for additional information.
5.2. Keys
A key is represented as a lowercase hexadecimal string with the most
significant octet of the key first. As discussed in Section 2, the
length of this string depends on the associated algorithm and KDF.
6. Operational Considerations
If the valid periods for long-lived keys do not overlap or the system
clocks are inconsistent, it is possible to construct scenarios where
systems cannot agree upon a long-lived key. When installing a series
of keys to be used one after another, operators should configure the
SendLifetimeStart field of the key to be several hours after the
AcceptLifeTimeStart field of the key to guarantee there is some
overlap. This overlap is intended to address the clock-skew issue
and allow for basic operational considerations. Operators may choose
to specify a longer overlap (e.g., several days) to allow for
exceptional circumstances.
7. Security Considerations
Management of encryption and authentication keys has been a
significant operational problem, both in terms of key synchronization
and key selection. For instance, the current guidance [RFC3562]
warns against sharing TCP MD5 keying material between systems and
recommends changing keys according to a schedule. The same general
operational issues are relevant for the management of other
cryptographic keys.
It has been recognized in [RFC4107] that automated key management is
not viable in multiple scenarios. The conceptual database specified
in this document is designed to accommodate both manual key
management and automated key management. A future specification to
automatically populate rows in the database is envisioned.
Designers should recognize the warning provided in [RFC4107]:
Automated key management and manual key management provide very
different features. In particular, the protocol associated with
an automated key management technique will confirm the liveness of
the peer, protect against replay, authenticate the source of the
short-term session key, associate protocol state information with
the short-term session key, and ensure that a fresh short-term
session key is generated. Further, an automated key management
Housley, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 7210 Table of Cryptographic Keys April 2014
protocol can improve interoperability by including negotiation
mechanisms for cryptographic algorithms. These valuable features
are impossible or extremely cumbersome to accomplish with manual
key management.
8. IANA Considerations
This specification defines three registries.
8.1. KeyTable Protocols
Per this document, IANA has established a registry called "KeyTable
Protocols".
All assignments to the KeyTable Protocols registry are made on a
Specification Required basis per Section 4.1 of [RFC5226].
Each registration entry must contain the three fields:
- Protocol Name (unique within the registry);
- Protocol-Specific Info; and
- Reference.
The specification needs to describe parameters required for using the
conceptual database as outlined in Section 4. This typically means
that the specification focuses more on the application of security
protocols with the key tables rather than being a new security
protocol specification for general purposes. Of course, new
protocols may combine information on how to use the key table
database with the protocol specification.
The registry has three columns. The first column is a string of
Unicode characters encoded in UTF-8 representing the name protocol.
The second column is a string of Unicode characters encoded in UTF-8
providing a brief description of Protocol-Specific Info. The third
column is a reference to a specification defining how the protocol is
used with the key table.
There are no initial registrations.
8.2. KeyTable KDFs
Per this document, IANA has established a registry called "KeyTable
KDFs". The remainder of this section describes the registry.
All assignments to the KeyTable KDFs registry are made on a First
Come First Served basis per Section 4.1 of RFC 5226.
Housley, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 7210 Table of Cryptographic Keys April 2014
The registry has three columns. The first column is a string of
Unicode characters encoded in UTF-8 representing the name of a KDF.
The second column is a string of Unicode characters encoded in UTF-8
providing a brief description of the KDF. The third column is a
reference to a specification defining the KDF, if available.
The initial contents of this registry and that in Section 8.3 are
chosen based on the algorithms defined for TCP-AO [RFC5926].
KDF Description Reference
------------ ---------------------------- ---------
none No KDF is used with this key N/A
AES-128-CMAC AES-CMAC using 128-bit keys [RFC4493]
HMAC-SHA-1 HMAC using the SHA-1 hash [RFC2104]
8.3. KeyTable AlgIDs
Per this document, IANA has established a registry called "KeyTable
AlgIDs". The remainder of this section describes the registry.
All assignments to the KeyTable AlgIDs registry are made on a First
Come First Served basis per Section 4.1 of RFC 5226.
The registry has three columns. The first column is a string of
Unicode characters encoded in UTF-8 representing the algorithm
identifier (AlgID). The second column is a string of Unicode
characters encoded in UTF-8 providing a brief description of the
identified algorithm. The third column is a reference to a
specification defining the identified algorithm.
The initial contents of this registry and that in Section 8.2 are
chosen based on the algorithms defined for TCP-AO [RFC5926].
AlgID Description Reference
------------ --------------------------------- ---------
AES-128-CMAC AES-CMAC using 128-bit keys [RFC4493]
AES-128-CMAC-96 AES-128-CMAC truncated to 96 bits [RFC5926]
HMAC-SHA-1-96 HMAC SHA-1 truncated to 96 bits [RFC2104]
Housley, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 7210 Table of Cryptographic Keys April 2014
9. Acknowledgments
This document reflects many discussions with many different people
over many years. In particular, the authors thank Jari Arkko, Ran
Atkinson, Ron Bonica, Ross Callon, Lars Eggert, Pasi Eronen, Adrian
Farrel, Gregory Lebovitz, Acee Lindem, Sandy Murphy, Eric Rescorla,
Mike Shand, Dave Ward, and Brian Weis for their insights. The
authors additionally thank Brian Weis for supplying text to address
IANA concerns and for help with formatting.
Sam Hartman's work on this document is funded by Huawei.
10. Normative References
[RFC20] Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", RFC 20,
October 1969.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[UAX15] The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Standard Annex #15:
Unicode Normalization Forms", Unicode 6.3.0, September
2013, <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr15/tr15-39.html>.
[UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version
6.3.0", (Mountain View, CA: The Unicode Consortium, 2013.
ISBN 978-1-936213-08-5),
<http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.3.0/>.
11. Informative References
[PRECIS-FRAMEWORK]
Saint-Andre, P. and M. Blanchet, "PRECIS Framework:
Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings in
Application Protocols", Work in Progress, March 2014.
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, February
1997.
[RFC3562] Leech, M., "Key Management Considerations for the TCP MD5
Signature Option", RFC 3562, July 2003.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[RFC4107] Bellovin, S. and R. Housley, "Guidelines for Cryptographic
Key Management", BCP 107, RFC 4107, June 2005.
Housley, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 7210 Table of Cryptographic Keys April 2014
[RFC4493] Song, JH., Poovendran, R., Lee, J., and T. Iwata, "The
AES-CMAC Algorithm", RFC 4493, June 2006.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
Authentication Option", RFC 5925, June 2010.
[RFC5926] Lebovitz, G. and E. Rescorla, "Cryptographic Algorithms
for the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO)", RFC 5926,
June 2010.
Authors' Addresses
Russell Housley
Vigil Security, LLC
918 Spring Knoll Drive
Herndon, VA 20170
USA
EMail: housley@vigilsec.com
Tim Polk
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8930
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930
USA
EMail: tim.polk@nist.gov
Sam Hartman
Painless Security, LLC
USA
EMail: hartmans-ietf@mit.edu
Dacheng Zhang
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
China
EMail: zhangdacheng@huawei.com
Housley, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]