Internet-Draft | TLS 1.3 Extended Key Schedule | August 2020 |
Hoyland & Wood | Expires 15 February 2021 | [Page] |
TLS 1.3 is sometimes used in situations where it is necessary to inject extra key material into the handshake. This draft aims to describe methods for doing so securely. This key material must be injected in such a way that both parties agree on what is being injected and why, and further, in what order.¶
Discussion of this document takes place on the TLS Working Group mailing list (tls@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/.¶
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/jhoyla/draft-jhoyla-tls-key-injection.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 15 February 2021.¶
Copyright (c) 2020 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include 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.¶
Introducing additional key material into the TLS handshake is a non-trivial process because both parties need to agree on the injection content and context. If the two parties do not agree then an attacker may exploit the mismatch in so-called channel synchronization attacks.¶
Injecting key material into the TLS handshake allows other protocols to be bound to the handshake. For example, it may provide additional protections to the ClientHello message, which in the standard TLS handshake only receives protections after the server's Finished message has been received. It may also permit the use of combined shared secrets, possibly from multiple key exchange algorithms, to be included in the key schedule. This pattern is common for Post Quantum key exchange algorithms, as discussed in [I-D.stebila-tls-hybrid-design].¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
This section describes two places in which additional secrets can be injected into the TLS 1.3 key schedule.¶
To inject extra key material into the Handshake Secret it is recommended to prefix it, inside an appropriate frame, to the (EC)DHE
input, where ||
represents concatenation.¶
| v Derive-Secret(., "derived early", "") | v Input -> HKDF-Extract | v Derive-Secret(., "derived", "") | v Input || (EC)DHE -> HKDF-Extract = Handshake Secret | v¶
[BINDEL] provides a proof that this construction is secure as long as either the concatenated secret is secure or the PSK is secure. [[Is this guarantee sufficient? Do we also need to guarantee that a malicious prefix can't weaken the resulting PRF output?]]¶
To inject key material into the Master Secret it is recommended to use an extra derive secret.¶
| v Derive-Secret(., "derived early", "") | v Input -> HKDF-Extract | v Derive-Secret(., "derived", "") | v Input || 0 -> HKDF-Extract = Master Secret | v¶
This structure mirrors the Handshake Injection point, and is also supported by [BINDEL]¶
In some cases, protocols may require more than one secret to be injected at a particular stage in the key schedule. Thus, we require a generic and extensible way of doing so. To accomplish this, we use a structure - KeyScheduleInput - that encodes well-ordered sequences of secret material to inject into the key schedule. KeyScheduleInput is defined as follows:¶
struct { KeyScheduleSecretType type; opaque secret_data<0..2^16-1>; } KeyScheduleSecret; enum { (65535) } KeyScheduleSecretType; struct { KeyScheduleSecret secrets<0..2^16-1>; } KeyScheduleInput;¶
Each secret included in a KeyScheduleInput structure has a type and corresponding secret data. Each secret MUST have a unique KeyScheduleSecretType. When encoding KeyScheduleInput as the key schedule Input value, the KeyScheduleSecret values MUST be in ascending sorted order. This ensures that endpoints always encode the same KeyScheduleInput value when using the same secret keying material.¶
[[OPEN ISSUE: This draft has not seen any security analysis.]]¶
[[TODO: define secret registry structure]]¶
We thank Karthik Bhargavan for his comments.¶