Public Metadata Issuance
draft-hendrickson-privacypass-public-metadata-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Scott Hendrickson | ||
| Last updated | 2023-03-29 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-privacypass-public-metadata-issuance | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| 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-hendrickson-privacypass-public-metadata-00
Privacy Pass S. Hendrickson
Internet-Draft Google
Intended status: Informational 30 March 2023
Expires: 1 October 2023
Public Metadata Issuance
draft-hendrickson-privacypass-public-metadata-00
Abstract
This document specifies a Privacy Pass token type that encodes public
metadata visible to the Client, Attester, Issuer, and Origin.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
The latest revision of this draft can be found at
https://smhendrickson.github.io/draft-hendrickson-privacypass-public-
metadata-issuance/draft-hendrickson-privacypass-public-metadata.html.
Status information for this document may be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hendrickson-privacypass-
public-metadata/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the Privacy Pass Working
Group mailing list (mailto:privacy-pass@ietf.org), which is archived
at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/privacy-pass/. Subscribe
at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/privacy-pass/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/smhendrickson/draft-hendrickson-privacypass-
public-metadata-issuance.
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."
Hendrickson Expires 1 October 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Public Metadata Issuance March 2023
This Internet-Draft will expire on 1 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. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Issuance Protocol for Publicly Verifiable Tokens . . . . . . 4
5.1. Client-to-Issuer Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Issuer-to-Client Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. Finalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.4. Token Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.5. Issuer Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
This document specifies a Privacy Pass token type that encodes public
metadata visible to the Client, Attester, Issuer, and Origin. This
allows deployments to encode a small amount of information visible to
all parties participating in the protocol.
Hendrickson Expires 1 October 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Public Metadata Issuance March 2023
2. Motivation
Public metadata enables Privacy Pass deployments that share
information between clients, attesters, issuers and origins. In a
0x01 (VOPRF) or 0x02 (Blind RSA) deployment, the only information
available to all parties is the issuer_name. If one wants to
differentiate bits of information at the origin, many TokenChallenges
must be sent - one for each issuer_name that attests to the bit
required.
For example, if a deployment was built that attested to an app’s
published state in an app store, it requires 1 bit {published,
not_published} and can be built with a single issuer. To build an
app version attester, we need one issuer_name for each app version,
and one challenge per version the origin needs to differentiate on
each origin load. For each new app version that requires attesting,
a new issuer_name must be deployed. If we build this system with
public metadata a single TokenChallenge for a single issuer_name can
be used. Deployment specific logic could allow adding a new app
version into the metadata once sufficient users are on the new
version, ensuring users are private when providing attested metadata
bits to the origins.
2.1. Alternatives
To implement this scheme without new cryptographic primitives, one
could deploy an issuer signing key per metadata value, and publish
each key’s bit assignment in Issuer Configuration. This many-key
metadata deployment should provide metadata visible to all parties in
the same way as the [PBLINDRSA] proposal outlined here, however it
has reliability and scalability tradeoffs. Imagine a Privacy Pass
deployment using a client cached redemption context where max-age
cannot be used to expire signed tokens due to the cache, yet the
deployment requires fast token expiration. Handling this requires
either deploying one key per expiration period or rotating keys
quickly. Many simultaneous deployed keys could be difficult to scale
- for example some HSM implementations have fixed per-key costs, slow
key generation, and minimum key lifetimes. Quick key rotation
creates reliability risk to the system, as a pause or slowdown in key
rotation could cause the system to run out of active signing or
verification keys. [PBLINDRSA] allows deployments to change metadata
sets without publishing new keys, and challenge expiry can be encoded
within metadata. It pushes all metadata design into the deployment
domain, instead of defining them in issuer configuration.
Hendrickson Expires 1 October 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Public Metadata Issuance March 2023
3. Terminology
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.
The following terms are used throughout this document.
* Public Metadata: Information that can be viewed by the Client,
Attester, Issuer, and Origin, and cryptographically bound to a
token.
4. Notation
The following terms are used throughout this document to describe the
protocol operations in this document:
* len(s): the length of a byte string, in bytes.
* concat(x0, ..., xN): Concatenation of byte strings. For example,
concat(0x01, 0x0203, 0x040506) = 0x010203040506
* int_to_bytes: Convert a non-negative integer to a byte string.
int_to_bytes is implemented as I2OSP as described in Section 4.1
of [RFC8017]. Note that these functions operate on byte strings
in big-endian byte order.
5. Issuance Protocol for Publicly Verifiable Tokens
This section describes a variant of the issuance protocol in
Section 6 of [PROTOCOL] for producing publicly verifiable tokens
including public metadata using cryptography specified in
[PBLINDRSA]. In particular, this variant of the issuance protocol
works for the RSAPBSSA-SHA384-PSSZERO-Deterministic or RSAPBSSA-
SHA384-PSS-Deterministic variant of the blind RSA protocol variants
described in Section 6 of [PBLINDRSA].
The public metadata issuance protocol differs from the protocol in
Section 6 of [PROTOCOL] in that the issuance and redemption protocols
carry metadata provided by the Client and visible to the Attester,
Issuer, and Origin. This means Clients can set arbitrary metadata
when requesting a token, but specific values of metadata may be
rejected by any of Attester, Issuer, or Origin. Similar to a token
nonce, metadata is cryptographically bound to a token and cannot be
altered.
Hendrickson Expires 1 October 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Public Metadata Issuance March 2023
Clients provide the following as input to the issuance protocol:
* Issuer Request URI: A URI to which token request messages are
sent. This can be a URL derived from the "issuer-request-uri"
value in the Issuer's directory resource, or it can be another
Client-configured URL. The value of this parameter depends on the
Client configuration and deployment model. For example, in the
'Split Origin, Attester, Issuer' deployment model, the Issuer
Request URI might be correspond to the Client's configured
Attester, and the Attester is configured to relay requests to the
Issuer.
* Issuer name: An identifier for the Issuer. This is typically a
host name that can be used to construct HTTP requests to the
Issuer.
* Issuer Public Key: pkI, with a key identifier token_key_id
computed as described in Section 5.5.
* Challenge value: challenge, an opaque byte string. For example,
this might be provided by the redemption protocol in [AUTHSCHEME].
* Public Metadata: metadata, an opaque byte string of length at most
2^(16-1) bytes.
Given this configuration and these inputs, the two messages exchanged
in this protocol are described below. The constant Nk is defined as
256 for token type 0xDA7A.
5.1. Client-to-Issuer Request
The Client first creates an issuance request message for a random
value nonce using the input challenge and Issuer key identifier as
follows:
nonce = random(32)
challenge_digest = SHA256(challenge)
token_input = concat(0xDA7A, // Token type field is 2 bytes long
int_to_bytes(len(metadata), 2),
metadata,
nonce,
challenge_digest,
token_key_id)
blinded_msg, blind_inv = Blind(pkI, PrepareIdentity(token_input), metadata)
Where PrepareIdentity is defined in Section 6 of [PBLINDRSA] and
Blind is defined in Section 4.2 of [PBLINDRSA]
Hendrickson Expires 1 October 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Public Metadata Issuance March 2023
The Client stores the nonce, challenge_digest, and metadata values
locally for use when finalizing the issuance protocol to produce a
token (as described in Section 5.3).
The Client then creates a TokenRequest structured as follows:
struct {
uint16_t token_type = 0xDA7A; /* Type Public Metadata Blind RSA (2048-bit) */
uint8_t truncated_token_key_id;
opaque metadata<1..2^16-1>;
uint8_t blinded_msg[Nk];
} MetadataTokenRequest;
The structure fields are defined as follows:
* "token_type" is a 2-octet integer, which matches the type in the
challenge.
* "truncated_token_key_id" is the least significant byte of the
token_key_id (Section 5.5) in network byte order (in other words,
the last 8 bits of token_key_id).
* "metadata" is the opaque metadata value input to the issuance
protocol.
* "blinded_msg" is the Nk-octet request defined above.
The Client then generates an HTTP POST request to send to the Issuer
Request URI, with the TokenRequest as the content. The media type
for this request is "application/private-token-request". An example
request is shown below:
:method = POST
:scheme = https
:authority = issuer.example.net
:path = /request
accept = application/private-token-response
cache-control = no-cache, no-store
content-type = application/private-token-request
content-length = <Length of TokenRequest>
<Bytes containing the TokenRequest>
5.2. Issuer-to-Client Response
Upon receipt of the request, the Issuer validates the following
conditions:
Hendrickson Expires 1 October 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Public Metadata Issuance March 2023
* The TokenRequest contains a supported token_type.
* The TokenRequest.truncated_token_key_id corresponds to the
truncated key ID of an Issuer Public Key.
* The TokenRequest.blinded_msg is of the correct size.
If any of these conditions is not met, the Issuer MUST return an HTTP
400 error to the Client, which will forward the error to the client.
Otherwise, if the Issuer is willing to produce a token token to the
Client for the provided metadata value, the Issuer completes the
issuance flow by computing a blinded response as follows:
blind_sig = BlindSign(skI, TokenRequest.blinded_msg, metadata)
Where BlindSign is defined in Section 4.3 of [PBLINDRSA].
The result is encoded and transmitted to the client in the following
TokenResponse structure:
struct {
uint8_t blind_sig[Nk];
} MetadataTokenResponse;
The Issuer generates an HTTP response with status code 200 whose
content consists of TokenResponse, with the content type set as
"application/private-token-response".
:status = 200
content-type = application/private-token-response
content-length = <Length of TokenResponse>
<Bytes containing the TokenResponse>
5.3. Finalization
Upon receipt, the Client handles the response and, if successful,
processes the content as follows:
authenticator = Finalize(pkI, nonce, metadata, blind_sig, blind_inv)
Where Finalize function is defined in Section 4.4 of [PBLINDRSA].
If this succeeds, the Client then constructs a Token as described in
[AUTHSCHEME] as follows:
Hendrickson Expires 1 October 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Public Metadata Issuance March 2023
struct {
uint16_t token_type = 0xDA7A; /* Type Partially Blind RSA (2048-bit) */
opaque metadata<1..2^16-1>;
uint8_t nonce[32];
uint8_t challenge_digest[32];
uint8_t token_key_id[32];
uint8_t authenticator[Nk];
} Token;
The Token.nonce value is that which was sampled in Section 5.1 of
[PROTOCOL]. If the Finalize function fails, the Client aborts the
protocol.
5.4. Token Verification
Verifying a Token requires checking that Token.authenticator is a
valid signature over the remainder of the token input using the
Augmented Issuer Public Key.
pkM = AugmentPublicKey(pkI, Token.metadata)
token_input = concat(0xDA7A, // Token type field is 2 bytes long
int_to_bytes(len(Token.metadata), 2),
Token.metadata,
Token.nonce,
Token.challenge_digest,
Token.token_key_id)
token_authenticator_input = concat("msg",
int_to_bytes(len(Token.metadata), 2),
Token.metadata,
token_input)
valid = RSASSA-PSS-VERIFY(pkM,
token_authenticator_input,
Token.authenticator)
Where AugmentPublicKey is defined in Section 4.6 of [PBLINDRSA], and
message verification is redefined in Section 4.5 of [PBLINDRSA].
The function RSASSA-PSS-VERIFY is defined in Section 8.1.2 of
[RFC8017], using SHA-384 as the Hash function, MGF1 with SHA-384 as
the PSS mask generation function (MGF), and a 48-byte salt length
(sLen).
Hendrickson Expires 1 October 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Public Metadata Issuance March 2023
5.5. Issuer Configuration
Issuers are configured with Private and Public Key pairs, each
denoted skI and pkI, respectively, used to produce tokens. Each key
pair SHALL be generated as as specified in FIPS 186-4 [DSS], where n
is 2048 bits in length. These key pairs MUST NOT be reused in other
protocols. Each key pair MUST comply with all requirements as
specified in Section 5.2 of [PBLINDRSA].
The key identifier for a keypair (skI, pkI), denoted token_key_id, is
computed as SHA256(encoded_key), where encoded_key is a DER-encoded
SubjectPublicKeyInfo (SPKI) object carrying pkI. The SPKI object
MUST use the RSASSA-PSS OID [RFC5756], which specifies the hash
algorithm and salt size. The salt size MUST match the output size of
the hash function associated with the public key and token type.
Since Clients truncate token_key_id in each TokenRequest, Issuers
should ensure that the truncated form of new key IDs do not collide
with other truncated key IDs in rotation.
6. Security Considerations
TODO Security
7. IANA Considerations
This extends the token type registry defined in Section 8.2.1 of
[PROTOCOL] with a new token type of value 0xDA7A:
* Value: 0xDA7A
* Name: Partially Blind RSA (2048-bit)
* Token Structure: As defined in Section 5.1
* TokenChallenge Structure: As defined in Section 2.1 of
[AUTHSCHEME]
* Publicly Verifiable: Y
* Public Metadata: Y
* Private Metadata: N
* Nk: 256
* Nid: 32
Hendrickson Expires 1 October 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Public Metadata Issuance March 2023
* Notes: The RSABSSA-SHA384-PSS-Deterministic and RSABSSA-SHA384-
PSSZERO-Deterministic variants are supported
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[AUTHSCHEME]
Pauly, T., Valdez, S., and C. A. Wood, "The Privacy Pass
HTTP Authentication Scheme", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-privacypass-auth-scheme-09, 6 March
2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
privacypass-auth-scheme-09>.
[PBLINDRSA]
Amjad, G. A., Hendrickson, S., Wood, C. A., and K. W. L.
Yeo, "Partially Blind RSA Signatures", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-amjad-cfrg-partially-blind-rsa-00,
13 March 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-amjad-cfrg-partially-blind-rsa-00>.
[PROTOCOL] Celi, S., Davidson, A., Faz-Hernandez, A., Valdez, S., and
C. A. Wood, "Privacy Pass Issuance Protocol", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-privacypass-protocol-
10, 6 March 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-privacypass-protocol-10>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC5756] Turner, S., Brown, D., Yiu, K., Housley, R., and T. Polk,
"Updates for RSAES-OAEP and RSASSA-PSS Algorithm
Parameters", RFC 5756, DOI 10.17487/RFC5756, January 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5756>.
[RFC8017] Moriarty, K., Ed., Kaliski, B., Jonsson, J., and A. Rusch,
"PKCS #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications Version 2.2",
RFC 8017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8017, November 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8017>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
8.2. Informative References
Hendrickson Expires 1 October 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Public Metadata Issuance March 2023
[DSS] "Digital Signature Standard (DSS)", National Institute of
Standards and Technology report,
DOI 10.6028/nist.fips.186-4, July 2013,
<https://doi.org/10.6028/nist.fips.186-4>.
Acknowledgments
TODO acknowledge.
Author's Address
Scott Hendrickson
Google
Email: scott@shendrickson.com
Hendrickson Expires 1 October 2023 [Page 11]