[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-nharper-0-rtt-token-binding) 00 01 02

Token Binding Working Group                                    N. Harper
Internet-Draft                                               Google Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                          March 13, 2017
Expires: September 14, 2017


              Token Binding for 0-RTT TLS 1.3 Connections
                    draft-ietf-tokbind-tls13-0rtt-01

Abstract

   This document describes how Token Binding can be used in the 0-RTT
   data of a TLS 1.3 connection.  This involves updating how Token
   Binding negotiation works and adding a mechanism for indicating
   whether a server prevents replay.  A TokenBindingMessage sent in
   0-RTT data has different security properties than one sent after the
   TLS handshake has finished, which this document also describes.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 14, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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




Harper                 Expires September 14, 2017               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             0-RTT Token Binding                March 2017


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Proposed Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  TokenBinding Signature Definition . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       2.1.1.  Selecting Which Exporter Secret to Use  . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Negotiating Token Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.2.1.  Negotiation TLS Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.2.2.  Replay Protection Indication Extension  . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Implementation Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Proof of Possession of Token Binding Key  . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  Attacks on PSK-only Key Exchange and Token Binding  . . .   6
     5.3.  Exporter Replayability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.4.  Replay Mitigations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       5.4.1.  Server Mitigations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       5.4.2.  Client Mitigations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.5.  Early Data Ticket Age Window  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   Token Binding ([I-D.ietf-tokbind-protocol]) cryptographically binds
   security tokens (e.g.  HTTP cookies, OAuth tokens) to the TLS layer
   on which they are presented.  It does so by signing an [RFC5705]
   exporter value from the TLS connection.  TLS 1.3 introduces a new
   mode that allows a client to send application data on its first
   flight.  If this 0-RTT data contains a security token, then a client
   using Token Binding would want to prove possession of its Token
   Binding private key so that the server can verify the binding.  The
   [RFC5705]-style exporter provided by TLS 1.3 cannot be run until the
   handshake has finished.  TLS 1.3 also provides an exporter that can
   be used with 0-RTT data, but it requires that the application
   explicitly specify that use.  This document specifies how to use the
   early_exporter_secret with Token Binding in TLS 1.3 0-RTT data.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].



Harper                 Expires September 14, 2017               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             0-RTT Token Binding                March 2017


2.  Proposed Design

   A TokenBinding struct as defined in [I-D.ietf-tokbind-protocol]
   contains a signature of the EKM value from the TLS layer.  Under
   normal circumstances, a TokenBinding on a TLS 1.3 connection would
   use the exporter_secret to derive the EKM value.  When 0-RTT data is
   assembled to be sent, the exporter_secret is not yet available.  This
   design changes the definition of the TokenBinding.signature field to
   use the exporter with either early_exporter_secret or
   exporter_secret.  Since no negotiation for the connection can happen
   before the client sends this TokenBindingMessage in 0-RTT data, this
   document also describes how a client decides what TokenBindingMessage
   to send in 0-RTT data and how a server should interpret that message.

   If a client does not send any 0-RTT data, or if the server rejects
   the client's 0-RTT data, then the client MUST use the 1-RTT exporter,
   as defined in [I-D.ietf-tokbind-protocol].

2.1.  TokenBinding Signature Definition

   In [I-D.ietf-tokbind-protocol], the signature field of the
   TokenBinding struct is defined to be the signature of a
   concatentation that includes the EKM value.  Depending on the
   circumstances, the exporter value in section 7.3.3 of
   [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13] is computed using either exporter_secret or
   early_exporter_secret as the Secret.

   When early_exporter_secret is used as the Secret, the client MUST
   indicate this use so the server knows which secret to use in
   signature verification.  This indication is done through a new Token
   Binding extension, "early_exporter" (with extension type TBD).  This
   extension always has 0-length data, so the full Extension struct is
   the bytes {0xTBD, 0x00, 0x00}. The early_exporter extension MUST be
   present in every TokenBinding struct where the exporter that is
   signed uses the early_exporter_secret, and it MUST NOT be present in
   any other TokenBinding structs.

2.1.1.  Selecting Which Exporter Secret to Use

   A client which is not sending any 0-RTT data on a connection MUST use
   the exporter defined in [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13] (using exporter_secret
   as the Secret) for all TokenBindingMessages on that connection so
   that it is compatible with [I-D.ietf-tokbind-protocol].

   When a client sends a TokenBindingMessage in 0-RTT data, it must use
   the early_exporter_secret.  After the client receives an application-
   layer response from the server, it must use the exporter_secret for
   all future token bindings on that connection.  Requests sent after



Harper                 Expires September 14, 2017               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             0-RTT Token Binding                March 2017


   the client's TLS Finished message, but before the client processes
   any application-layer response from the server, may use either
   exporter secret in their token bindings.

   A server may choose to reject an application message containing a
   Token Binding that uses the early_exporter_secret.  If it chooses to
   do so, it may send an application message indicating that the client
   should re-send the request (with a new Token Binding).  In HTTP, this
   could be done with a 307 status code.

2.2.  Negotiating Token Binding

2.2.1.  Negotiation TLS Extension

   The behavior of the Token Binding negotiation TLS extension does not
   change for a 0-RTT connection: the client and server should process
   this extension the same way regardless of whether the client also
   sent the EarlyDataIndication extension.

   For the sake of choosing a key parameter to use in 0-RTT data, the
   client MUST use the same key parameter that was used on the
   connection during which the ticket (now being used for resumption)
   was established.  The server MUST NOT accept early data if the
   negotiated Token Binding key parameter does not match the parameter
   from the initial connection.  This is the same behavior as ALPN and
   SNI extensions.

   If 0-RTT data is being sent with Token Binding using a PSK obtained
   out-of-band, then the Token Binding key parameter to use with that
   PSK must also be provisioned to both parties, and only that key
   parameter must be used with that PSK.

2.2.2.  Replay Protection Indication Extension

   The signed exporter value used in a 0-RTT connection is not
   guaranteed to be unique to the connection, so an attacker may be able
   to replay the signature without having possession of the private key.
   To combat this attack, a server may implement some sort of replay
   prevention, and indicate this to the client.  A new TLS extension
   "token_binding_replay_indication" is defined for the client to query
   and server to indicate whether it has implemented a mechanism to
   prevent replay.

   enum {
       token_binding_replay_indication(TBD), (65535)
   } ExtensionType;





Harper                 Expires September 14, 2017               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             0-RTT Token Binding                March 2017


   When sent, this extension always has zero length.  If a client wishes
   to know whether its peer is preventing replay of TokenBinding structs
   across multiple connections, the client can include this extension in
   its ClientHello.  Upon receiving this extension, the server must echo
   it back if it is using such a mechanism (like those described in
   Section 5.4.1) to prevent replay.  A client that only wishes to send
   0-RTT Token Binding if the server implements replay protection can
   send this extension on first connection establishment, and if the
   server doesn't send it back (but does support Token Binding) the
   client can choose to not send 0-RTT messages to that server.

   A client that wishes to use this extension should send it every time
   it sends a "token_binding" [I-D.ietf-tokbind-negotiation] extension.

3.  Implementation Challenges

   The client has to be able to modify the message it sends in 0-RTT
   data if the 0-RTT data gets rejected and needs to be retransmitted in
   1-RTT data.  Even if the Token Binding integration with 0-RTT were
   modified so that Token Binding never caused a 0-RTT reject that
   required rewriting a request, the client still has to handle the
   server rejecting the 0-RTT data for other reasons.

   HTTP2 allows for requests to different domains to share the same TLS
   connection if the SAN of the cert covers those domains.  If
   one.example.com supports 0-RTT and Token Binding, but two.example.com
   only supports Token Binding as defined in
   [I-D.ietf-tokbind-protocol], those servers cannot share a cert and
   use HTTP2.

4.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines a new TLS extension
   "token_binding_replay_indication", which needs to be added to the
   IANA "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions" registry.

   This document defines a new Token Binding extension "early_exporter",
   which needs to be added to the IANA "Token Binding Extensions"
   registry.

5.  Security Considerations

   Token Binding messages that use the 0-RTT exporter have weaker
   security properties than with the [RFC5705] exporter.  If either
   party of a connection using Token Binding does not wish to use 0-RTT
   token bindings, they can do so: a client can choose to never send
   0-RTT data on a connection where it uses token binding, and a server




Harper                 Expires September 14, 2017               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             0-RTT Token Binding                March 2017


   can choose to reject any 0-RTT data sent on a connection that
   negotiated token binding.

   0-RTT data in TLS 1.3 has weaker security properties than other kinds
   of TLS data.  Specifically, TLS 1.3 does not guarantee non-
   replayability of data between connections.  Token Binding has similar
   replayability issues when in 0-RTT data, but preventing replay of
   Token Binding and preventing replay of 0-RTT data are two separate
   problems.  Token Binding is not designed to prevent replay of 0-RTT
   data, although solutions for preventing the replay of Token Binding
   might also be applicable to 0-RTT data.

5.1.  Proof of Possession of Token Binding Key

   When a Token Binding signature is generated using the exporter with
   early_exporter_secret, the value being signed is under the client's
   control.  An attacker with temporary access to the Token Binding
   private key can generate Token Binding signatures for as many future
   connections as it has NewSessionTickets for.  An attacker can
   construct these to be usable at any time in the future up until the
   NewSessionTicket's expiration.  Section 4.6.1 of [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13]
   requires that a NewSessionTicket be valid for a maximum of 7 days.

   Unlike in [I-D.ietf-tokbind-protocol], where the proof of possession
   of the Token Binding key proves that the client had possession at the
   time the TLS handshake finished, 0-RTT Token Binding only proves that
   the client had possession of the Token Binding key at some point
   after receiving the NewSessionTicket used for that connection.

5.2.  Attacks on PSK-only Key Exchange and Token Binding

   An attacker who possesses the PSK can eavesdrop on an existing
   connection that uses that PSK to obtain a TokenBindingMessage that is
   valid on the connection and then hijack the connection to send
   whatever attacker-controlled data it wishes.  Because the regular
   exporter closes over the server random, this TokenBindingMessage is
   valid only for that connection.

   If the attacker does the same thing with a pure-PSK connection and
   0-RTT Token Binding, the attacker can replay the original ClientHello
   and the exporter will stay the same, allowing the attacker to obtain
   a TokenBindingMessage from one connection and replay it on future
   connections.  The only way for a server to prevent this replay is to
   prevent the client from ever repeating a client random in the
   handshake.

   If a server accepting connections with PSK-only key establishment is
   concerned about the threat of PSK theft and also implements Token



Harper                 Expires September 14, 2017               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             0-RTT Token Binding                March 2017


   Binding, then that server must either reject all 0-RTT token
   bindings, or implement some form of preventing reuse of a client
   random.

5.3.  Exporter Replayability

   The exporter specified in [I-D.ietf-tokbind-protocol] is chosen so
   that a client and server have the same exporter value only if they
   are on the same TLS connection.  This prevents an attacker who can
   read the plaintext of a TokenBindingMessage sent on that connection
   from replaying that message on another connection (without also
   having the token binding private key).  The 0-RTT exporter only
   covers the ClientHello and the PSK of the connection, so it does not
   provide this guarantee.

   An attacker with possession of the PSK secret and a transcript of the
   ClientHello and early data sent by a client under that PSK can
   extract the TokenBindingMessage, create a new connection to the
   server (using the same ClientHello and PSK), and send different
   application data with the same TokenBindingMessage.  Note that the
   ClientHello contains public values for the (EC)DHE key agreement that
   is used as part of deriving the traffic keys for the TLS connection,
   so if the attacker does not also have the corresponding private
   values, they will not be able to read the server's response or send a
   valid Finished message in the handshake for this TLS connection.
   Nevertheless, by that point the server has already processed the
   attacker's message with the replayed TokenBindingMessage.

   This sort of replayability of a TokenBindingMessage is different than
   the replayability caveat of 0-RTT application data in TLS 1.3.  A
   network observer can replay 0-RTT data from TLS 1.3 without knowing
   any secrets of the client or server, but the application data that is
   replayed is untouched.  This replay is done by a more powerful
   attacker who is able to view the plaintext and then spoof a
   connection with the same parameters so that the replayed
   TokenBindingMessage still validates when sent with different
   application data.

5.4.  Replay Mitigations

   This section presents multiple ways that a client or server can
   prevent the replay of a TokenBinding while still using Token Binding
   with 0-RTT data.

   If a client or server implements a measure that prevents all replays,
   then its peer does not also need to implement such a mitigation.  A
   client that is concerned about replay SHOULD implement a replay
   mitigation instead of relying solely on a signal from the server



Harper                 Expires September 14, 2017               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             0-RTT Token Binding                March 2017


   through the replay indication extension.  Note that even with replay
   mitigations, 0-RTT Token Binding is vulnerable to other attacks.

5.4.1.  Server Mitigations

   If a server uses a session cache instead of stateless tickets, it can
   enforce that a PSK generated for resumption can only be used once.
   If an attacker tries to replay 0-RTT data (with a
   TokenBindingMessage), the server will reject it because the PSK was
   already used.

   Preventing all replay of 0-RTT data is not necessary to prevent
   replay of a TokenBinding.  A server could implement a mechanism to
   prevent a particular TokenBinding from being presented on more than
   one connection.  In cases where a server's TLS termination and
   application layer processing happen in different locations, this
   option might be easier to implement, especially when not all requests
   have bound tokens.  This processing can also take advantage of the
   structure of the bound token, e.g. a token that identifies which user
   is making a request could shard its store of which TokenBindings have
   been seen based on the user ID.

   A server can prevent some, but not all, 0-RTT data replay with a
   tight time window for the ticket age that it will accept.  See
   Section 5.5 for more details.

5.4.2.  Client Mitigations

   A client cannot prevent a sufficiently motivated attacker from
   replaying a TokenBinding, but it can make it so difficult to replay
   the TokenBinding that it is easier for the attacker to steal the
   Token Binding key directly.  If the client secures the resumption
   secret with the same level of protection as the Token Binding key,
   then the client has made it not worth the effort of the attacker to
   attempt to replay a TokenBinding.  Ideally the resumption secret (and
   Token Binding key) are protected strongly and virtually non-
   exportable.

5.5.  Early Data Ticket Age Window

   When an attacker with control of the PSK secret replays a
   TokenBindingMessage, it has to use the same ClientHello that the
   client used.  The ClientHello includes an "obfuscated_ticket_age" in
   its EarlyDataIndication extension, which the server can use to narrow
   the window in which that ClientHello will be accepted.  Even if a PSK
   is valid for a week, the server will only accept that particular
   ClientHello for a smaller time window based on the ticket age.  A
   server should make their acceptance window for this value as small as



Harper                 Expires September 14, 2017               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             0-RTT Token Binding                March 2017


   practical to limit an attacker's ability to replay a ClientHello and
   send new application data with the stolen TokenBindingMessage.

6.  Acknowledgements

   The author would like to thank David Benjamin, Steven Valdez, Bill
   Cox, and Andrei Popov for their feedback and suggestions.

7.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13]
              Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", draft-ietf-tls-tls13-19 (work in progress),
              March 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-tokbind-negotiation]
              Popov, A., Nystrom, M., Balfanz, D., and A. Langley,
              "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extension for Token
              Binding Protocol Negotiation", draft-ietf-tokbind-
              negotiation-07 (work in progress), February 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-tokbind-protocol]
              Popov, A., Nystrom, M., Balfanz, D., Langley, A., and J.
              Hodges, "The Token Binding Protocol Version 1.0", draft-
              ietf-tokbind-protocol-13 (work in progress), February
              2017.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC5705]  Rescorla, E., "Keying Material Exporters for Transport
              Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 5705, DOI 10.17487/RFC5705,
              March 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5705>.

Author's Address

   Nick Harper
   Google Inc.

   Email: nharper@google.com









Harper                 Expires September 14, 2017               [Page 9]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/