Skip to main content

Applying Generate Random Extensions And Sustain Extensibility (GREASE) to EDHOC Extensibility
draft-amsuess-core-edhoc-grease-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Author Christian Amsüss
Last updated 2024-03-01 (Latest revision 2023-10-21)
RFC stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Additional resources GitLab Repository
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-amsuess-core-edhoc-grease-01
CoRE                                                           C. Amsüss
Internet-Draft                                           22 October 2023
Intended status: Informational                                          
Expires: 24 April 2024

 Applying Generate Random Extensions And Sustain Extensibility (GREASE)
                         to EDHOC Extensibility
                   draft-amsuess-core-edhoc-grease-01

Abstract

   This document applies the extensibility mechanism GREASE (Generate
   Random Extensions And Sustain Extensibility), which was pioneered for
   TLS, to the EDHOC ecosystem.  It reserves a set of non-critical EAD
   labels and unusable cipher suites that may be included in messages to
   ensure peers correctly handle unknown values.

Discussion Venues

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the Constrained RESTful
   Environments Working Group mailing list (core@ietf.org), which is
   archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://gitlab.com/chrysn/core-edhoc-grease.

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 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 24 April 2024.

Amsüss                    Expires 24 April 2024                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft   Applying Generate Random Extensions And    October 2023

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  The GREASE EAD labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Use of GREASE EADs by message senders . . . . . . . . . .   3
       2.1.1.  Pattern for limited fingerprinting  . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Use of GREASE EADs by message recipients  . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  GREASE cipher suites  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Privacy considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.1.  EDHOC EADs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     6.2.  EDHOC cipher suites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Appendix A.  Open questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Appendix B.  Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   [ See abstract ]

   The introduction of [RFC8701] provides comprehensive motivation for
   adding such extensions.

   The extension points of the EDHOC protocol ([I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc])
   are cipher suites, methods, EADs (External Authorization Data items)
   and COSE headers.  Of these, EADs and cipher suites can be used in
   such a way that even in the presence of an unknown value, a
   connection can still be established.

Amsüss                    Expires 24 April 2024                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft   Applying Generate Random Extensions And    October 2023

   Unlike in TLS GREASE, EDHOC is operating on tight bandwidth and
   message size budget, with some messages just barely fitting within
   relevant networks' fragmentation limits.  Thus, more than with TLS
   GREASE, it is up to implementations to decide whether in their
   particular use case they can afford to send addtional data.

2.  The GREASE EAD labels

   This document registers the following EAD labels as GREASE EADs:

   160, 41120, 43690, 44975

   These EADs are available in all EDHOC messages.  The EADs are only
   used in their positive (non-critical) form.

2.1.  Use of GREASE EADs by message senders

   A sender of an EDHOC message MAY send a GREASE EAD using the non-
   critical (positive) form at any time, with any or no EAD value (that
   is, with or without a byte string of any usable length), in any
   message.

   Senders SHOULD consider the properties of the network their messages
   are sent over, and refrain from adding GREASE when its use would be
   detrimental to the network (for example, when the added size causes
   fragmentation of the message).

   On networks where the data added by the grease EADs does not
   significantly impact the network, senders SHOULD irregularly send
   arbitrary (possibly random) GREASE EADs with their messages to ensure
   that errors resulting from the use of GREASE are detected.

   The GREASE EADs MAY be used as an alternative form of padding.

2.1.1.  Pattern for limited fingerprinting

   A method of deciding how to apply GREASE is suggested as follows:

   *  For every message, use GREASE with a random probability of 1 in
      64.

   *  Pick a random GREASE label out of the uniform distribution of
      available options.

   *  Pick a random length from the uniformly distributed interval 9 to
      40 (inclusive).

Amsüss                    Expires 24 April 2024                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft   Applying Generate Random Extensions And    October 2023

   *  Add the selected GREASE label with a value of the selected length,
      filled with random bytes.

2.2.  Use of GREASE EADs by message recipients

   A party receiving a GREASE EAD MUST NOT alter its behavior in any way
   that would allow random GREASE EADs to alter the security context
   that gets established.

   It MAY alter its behavior in other ways; in particular, it SHOULD
   randomly insert GREASE EADs in later messages of an exchange in which
   any were received.

   If it does not alter its behavior, it is RECOMMENDED that
   implementations make no attempt to recognize GREASE EADs, and apply
   the default processing -- that is, to ignoring any unknown non-
   critical EADs.

3.  GREASE cipher suites

   This document registers the following cipher suites:

   160, 41120, -41121, 43690

   An initiator may insert a GREASE cipher suite at any position in its
   sequence of preferred cipher suites.

   A responder MUST NOT support any of these cipher suites, and MUST
   treat them like any other cipher suite it does not support.

   Thus, these cipher suites never occur as the selected cipher suite.
   An initiator whose choice of a GREASE cipher suite is accepted needs
   to discontinue the protocol.

4.  Privacy considerations

   The way in which GREASE is applied can contribute to identifying
   which implementation of EDHOC is being used.  Implementers of EDHOC
   are encouraged to use the algorithm described in Section 2.1.1, both
   to reduce the likelihood of their implementation to be identified
   through the use of GREASE and to increase the anonymity set of other
   users of the same algorithm.

5.  Security Considerations

   The use of the GREASE option has no impact on security in a correct
   EDHOC implementation.

Amsüss                    Expires 24 April 2024                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft   Applying Generate Random Extensions And    October 2023

6.  IANA considerations

6.1.  EDHOC EADs

   IANA is requested to register four new entries into the EDHOC
   External Authorization Data Registry established in
   [I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc]:

   160, 41120, 43690, 44975

   All share the name "GREASE", the description "Arbitrary data to
   ensure extensibility", and this document as a reference.

6.2.  EDHOC cipher suites

   IANA is requested to register four new values into the EDHOC Cipher
   Suites Registry established in [I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc]:

   160, 41120, -41121, 43690

   All share the name "GREASE", the array N/A, the description
   "Unimplementable cipher suite to ensure extensibility", and this
   document as a reference.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-lake-edhoc]
              Selander, G., Mattsson, J. P., and F. Palombini,
              "Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC)", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lake-edhoc-22, 25
              August 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
              ietf-lake-edhoc-22>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC8701]  Benjamin, D., "Applying Generate Random Extensions And
              Sustain Extensibility (GREASE) to TLS Extensibility",
              RFC 8701, DOI 10.17487/RFC8701, January 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8701>.

Appendix A.  Open questions

   Do the GREASE EADs add any value that padding does not already add?

Amsüss                    Expires 24 April 2024                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft   Applying Generate Random Extensions And    October 2023

   Probably yes, because padding is "special enough" that it could be
   handled in a hard-coded fashion.  (Then again, there's nothing but
   the effort stopping anyone else from doing the same with the GREASE
   EADs, right?)

   Can anything be done about extra methods and COSE headers?

   They would not result in successful operations, but maybe there is
   still some value in registering one or two -- using them would mean
   sacrificing the full connection, but it may still be possible to
   conclude that the extension points are in order from watching the
   EDHOC exchange fail in the predicted way.

Appendix B.  Change log

   Since -00:

   *  Fixed a mix-up between positivity and criticality of options.

   *  Adjusted numbers accordingly to once more fit in the 0xa. pattern
      (actually they're using 0x.a, but that doesn't work the same way
      with CBOR).

   *  Text improvements around recipient side processing.

Acknowledgements

   Marco Tiloca pointed out a critical error in the numeric
   constructions.  Göran Selander provided input to reduce mistakable
   text.

Author's Address

   Christian Amsüss
   Austria
   Email: christian@amsuess.com

Amsüss                    Expires 24 April 2024                 [Page 6]