Signing HTTP Messages
draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures-05
The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 9421.
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Annabelle Backman , Justin Richer , Manu Sporny | ||
Last updated | 2021-06-08 (Latest revision 2021-04-21) | ||
Replaces | draft-richanna-http-message-signatures, draft-cavage-http-signatures | ||
RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Formats | |||
Reviews |
ARTART Telechat review
(of
-17)
by Harald Alvestrand
Ready w/issues
GENART Last Call review
(of
-16)
by Dan Romascanu
Ready w/nits
SECDIR Early review
by Daniel Migault
Has issues
|
||
Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
Associated WG milestone |
|
||
Document shepherd | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 9421 (Proposed Standard) | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures-05
HTTP A. Backman, Ed. Internet-Draft Amazon Intended status: Standards Track J. Richer Expires: 10 December 2021 Bespoke Engineering M. Sporny Digital Bazaar 8 June 2021 Signing HTTP Messages draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures-05 Abstract This document describes a mechanism for creating, encoding, and verifying digital signatures or message authentication codes over content within an HTTP message. This mechanism supports use cases where the full HTTP message may not be known to the signer, and where the message may be transformed (e.g., by intermediaries) before reaching the verifier. Note to Readers _RFC EDITOR: please remove this section before publication_ Discussion of this draft takes place on the HTTP working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/ (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/). Working Group information can be found at https://httpwg.org/ (https://httpwg.org/); source code and issues list for this draft can be found at https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/labels/ signatures (https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/labels/ signatures). 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/. Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 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 10 December 2021. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2021 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. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. HTTP Message Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.3. Safe Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.4. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.5. Application of HTTP Message Signatures . . . . . . . . . 8 2. HTTP Message Signature Covered Content . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.1. HTTP Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.1.1. Canonicalized Structured HTTP Headers . . . . . . . . 10 2.1.2. Canonicalization Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.2. Dictionary Structured Field Members . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.2.1. Canonicalization Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.3. Specialty Content Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.3.1. Request Target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.3.2. Signature Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.4. Creating the Signature Input String . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3. HTTP Message Signatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.1. Creating a Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.2. Verifying a Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.2.1. Enforcing Application Requirements . . . . . . . . . 20 3.3. Signature Algorithm Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.3.1. RSASSA-PSS using SHA-512 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.3.2. RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 using SHA-256 . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.3.3. HMAC using SHA-256 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.3.4. ECDSA using curve P-256 DSS and SHA-256 . . . . . . . 23 Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 3.3.5. JSON Web Signature (JWS) algorithms . . . . . . . . . 23 4. Including a Message Signature in a Message . . . . . . . . . 23 4.1. The 'Signature-Input' HTTP Header . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4.2. The 'Signature' HTTP Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4.3. Multiple Signatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5.1. HTTP Signature Algorithms Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5.1.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5.1.2. Initial Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.2. HTTP Signature Metadata Parameters Registry . . . . . . . 28 5.2.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.2.2. Initial Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.3. HTTP Signature Specialty Content Identifiers Registry . . 29 5.3.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.3.2. Initial Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Appendix A. Detecting HTTP Message Signatures . . . . . . . . . 32 Appendix B. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 B.1. Example Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 B.1.1. Example Key RSA test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 B.1.2. Example RSA PSS Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 B.1.3. Example ECC P-256 Test Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 B.1.4. Example Shared Secret . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 B.2. Test Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 B.2.1. Minimal Signature Header using rsa-pss-sha512 . . . . 36 B.2.2. Header Coverage using rsa-pss-sha512 . . . . . . . . 36 B.2.3. Full Coverage using rsa-pss-sha512 . . . . . . . . . 37 B.2.4. Signing a Response using ecdsa-p256-sha256 . . . . . 37 B.2.5. Signing a Request using hmac-sha256 . . . . . . . . . 38 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 1. Introduction Message integrity and authenticity are important security properties that are critical to the secure operation of many HTTP applications. Application developers typically rely on the transport layer to provide these properties, by operating their application over [TLS]. However, TLS only guarantees these properties over a single TLS connection, and the path between client and application may be composed of multiple independent TLS connections (for example, if the application is hosted behind a TLS-terminating gateway or if the client is behind a TLS Inspection appliance). In such cases, TLS cannot guarantee end-to-end message integrity or authenticity between Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 the client and application. Additionally, some operating environments present obstacles that make it impractical to use TLS, or to use features necessary to provide message authenticity. Furthermore, some applications require the binding of an application- level key to the HTTP message, separate from any TLS certificates in use. Consequently, while TLS can meet message integrity and authenticity needs for many HTTP-based applications, it is not a universal solution. This document defines a mechanism for providing end-to-end integrity and authenticity for content within an HTTP message. The mechanism allows applications to create digital signatures or message authentication codes (MACs) over only that content within the message that is meaningful and appropriate for the application. Strict canonicalization rules ensure that the verifier can verify the signature even if the message has been transformed in any of the many ways permitted by HTTP. The mechanism described in this document consists of three parts: * A common nomenclature and canonicalization rule set for the different protocol elements and other content within HTTP messages. * Algorithms for generating and verifying signatures over HTTP message content using this nomenclature and rule set. * A mechanism for attaching a signature and related metadata to an HTTP message. 1.1. Requirements Discussion HTTP permits and sometimes requires intermediaries to transform messages in a variety of ways. This may result in a recipient receiving a message that is not bitwise equivalent to the message that was originally sent. In such a case, the recipient will be unable to verify a signature over the raw bytes of the sender's HTTP message, as verifying digital signatures or MACs requires both signer and verifier to have the exact same signed content. Since the raw bytes of the message cannot be relied upon as signed content, the signer and verifier must derive the signed content from their respective versions of the message, via a mechanism that is resilient to safe changes that do not alter the meaning of the message. For a variety of reasons, it is impractical to strictly define what constitutes a safe change versus an unsafe one. Applications use HTTP in a wide variety of ways, and may disagree on whether a particular piece of information in a message (e.g., the body, or the Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 "Date" header field) is relevant. Thus a general purpose solution must provide signers with some degree of control over which message content is signed. HTTP applications may be running in environments that do not provide complete access to or control over HTTP messages (such as a web browser's JavaScript environment), or may be using libraries that abstract away the details of the protocol (such as the Java HTTPClient library (https://openjdk.java.net/groups/net/httpclient/ intro.html)). These applications need to be able to generate and verify signatures despite incomplete knowledge of the HTTP message. 1.2. HTTP Message Transformations As mentioned earlier, HTTP explicitly permits and in some cases requires implementations to transform messages in a variety of ways. Implementations are required to tolerate many of these transformations. What follows is a non-normative and non-exhaustive list of transformations that may occur under HTTP, provided as context: * Re-ordering of header fields with different header field names ([MESSAGING], Section 3.2.2). * Combination of header fields with the same field name ([MESSAGING], Section 3.2.2). * Removal of header fields listed in the "Connection" header field ([MESSAGING], Section 6.1). * Addition of header fields that indicate control options ([MESSAGING], Section 6.1). * Addition or removal of a transfer coding ([MESSAGING], Section 5.7.2). * Addition of header fields such as "Via" ([MESSAGING], Section 5.7.1) and "Forwarded" ([RFC7239], Section 4). 1.3. Safe Transformations Based on the definition of HTTP and the requirements described above, we can identify certain types of transformations that should not prevent signature verification, even when performed on content covered by the signature. The following list describes those transformations: * Combination of header fields with the same field name. Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 * Reordering of header fields with different names. * Conversion between different versions of the HTTP protocol (e.g., HTTP/1.x to HTTP/2, or vice-versa). * Changes in casing (e.g., "Origin" to "origin") of any case- insensitive content such as header field names, request URI scheme, or host. * Addition or removal of leading or trailing whitespace to a header field value. * Addition or removal of "obs-folds". * Changes to the "request-target" and "Host" header field that when applied together do not result in a change to the message's effective request URI, as defined in Section 5.5 of [MESSAGING]. Additionally, all changes to content not covered by the signature are considered safe. 1.4. Conventions and 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 terms "HTTP message", "HTTP request", "HTTP response", "absolute- form", "absolute-path", "effective request URI", "gateway", "header field", "intermediary", "request-target", "sender", and "recipient" are used as defined in [MESSAGING]. The term "method" is to be interpreted as defined in Section 4 of [SEMANTICS]. For brevity, the term "signature" on its own is used in this document to refer to both digital signatures and keyed MACs. Similarly, the verb "sign" refers to the generation of either a digital signature or keyed MAC over a given input string. The qualified term "digital signature" refers specifically to the output of an asymmetric cryptographic signing operation. In addition to those listed above, this document uses the following terms: Signer: Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 The entity that is generating or has generated an HTTP Message Signature. Verifier: An entity that is verifying or has verified an HTTP Message Signature against an HTTP Message. Note that an HTTP Message Signature may be verified multiple times, potentially by different entities. Covered Content: An ordered list of content identifiers for headers (Section 2.1) and specialty content (Section 2.3) that indicates the metadata and message content that is covered by the signature, not including the "@signature-params" specialty field itself. HTTP Signature Algorithm: A cryptographic algorithm that describes the signing and verification process for the signature. When expressed explicitly, the value maps to a string defined in the HTTP Signature Algorithms Registry defined in this document. Key Material: The key material required to create or verify the signature. The key material is often identified with an explicit key identifier, allowing the signer to indicate to the verifier which key was used. Creation Time: A timestamp representing the point in time that the signature was generated, as asserted by the signer. Expiration Time: A timestamp representing the point in time at which the signature expires, as asserted by the signer. A signature's expiration time could be undefined, indicating that the signature does not expire from the perspective of the signer. The term "Unix time" is defined by [POSIX.1], Section 4.16 (http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/ V1_chap04.html#tag_04_16). This document contains non-normative examples of partial and complete HTTP messages. Some examples use a single trailing backslash '' to indicate line wrapping for long values, as per [RFC8792]. The "\" character and leading spaces on wrapped lines are not part of the value. Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 1.5. Application of HTTP Message Signatures HTTP Message Signatures are designed to be a general-purpose security mechanism applicable in a wide variety of circumstances and applications. In order to properly and safely apply HTTP Message Signatures, an application or profile of this specification MUST specify all of the following items: * The set of content identifiers (Section 2) that are expected and required. For example, an authorization protocol could mandate that the "Authorization" header be covered to protect the authorization credentials and mandate the signature parameters contain a "created" parameter, while an API expecting HTTP message bodies could require the "Digest" header to be present and covered. * A means of retrieving the key material used to verify the signature. An application will usually use the "keyid" parameter of the signature parameters (Section 2.3.2) and define rules for resolving a key from there, though the appropriate key could be known from other means. * A means of determining the signature algorithm used to verify the signature content is appropriate for the key material. For example, the process could use the "alg" parameter of the signature parameters (Section 2.3.2) to state the algorithm explicitly, derive the algorithm from the key material, or use some pre-configured algorithm agreed upon by the signer and verifier. * A means of determining that a given key and algorithm presented in the request are appropriate for the request being made. For example, a server expecting only ECDSA signatures should know to reject any RSA signatures, or a server expecting asymmetric cryptography should know to reject any symmetric cryptography. The details of this kind of profiling are the purview of the application and outside the scope of this specification. 2. HTTP Message Signature Covered Content In order to allow signers and verifiers to establish which content is covered by a signature, this document defines content identifiers for data items covered by an HTTP Message Signature as well as the means for combining these canonicalized values into a signature input string. Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 Some content within HTTP messages can undergo transformations that change the bitwise value without altering meaning of the content (for example, the merging together of header fields with the same name). Message content must therefore be canonicalized before it is signed, to ensure that a signature can be verified despite such intermediary transformations. This document defines rules for each content identifier that transform the identifier's associated content into such a canonical form. Content identifiers are defined using production grammar defined by RFC8941, Section 4 [RFC8941]. The content identifier is an "sf- string" value. The content identifier type MAY define parameters which are included using the "parameters" rule. content-identifier = sf-string parameters Note that this means the value of the identifier itself is encased in double quotes, with parameters following as a semicolon-separated list, such as ""cache-control"", ""date"", or ""@signature-params"". The following sections define content identifier types, their parameters, their associated content, and their canonicalization rules. The method for combining content identifiers into the signature input string is defined in Section 2.4. 2.1. HTTP Headers The content identifier for an HTTP header is the lowercased form of its header field name. While HTTP header field names are case- insensitive, implementations MUST use lowercased field names (e.g., "content-type", "date", "etag") when using them as content identifiers. Unless overridden by additional parameters and rules, the HTTP header field value MUST be canonicalized with the following steps: 1. Create an ordered list of the field values of each instance of the header field in the message, in the order that they occur (or will occur) in the message. 2. Strip leading and trailing whitespace from each item in the list. 3. Concatenate the list items together, with a comma "," and space " " between each item. The resulting string is the canonicalized value. Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 2.1.1. Canonicalized Structured HTTP Headers If value of the the HTTP header in question is a structured field ([RFC8941]), the content identifier MAY include the "sf" parameter. If this parameter is included, the HTTP header value MUST be canonicalized using the rules specified in Section 4 of RFC8941 [RFC8941]. Note that this process will replace any optional whitespace with a single space. The resulting string is used as the field value input in Section 2.1. 2.1.2. Canonicalization Examples This section contains non-normative examples of canonicalized values for header fields, given the following example HTTP message: Server: www.example.com Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2014 20:51:35 GMT X-OWS-Header: Leading and trailing whitespace. X-Obs-Fold-Header: Obsolete line folding. X-Empty-Header: Cache-Control: max-age=60 Cache-Control: must-revalidate The following table shows example canonicalized values for header fields, given that message: +=====================+==================================+ | Header Field | Canonicalized Value | +=====================+==================================+ | "cache-control" | max-age=60, must-revalidate | +---------------------+----------------------------------+ | "date" | Tue, 07 Jun 2014 20:51:35 GMT | +---------------------+----------------------------------+ | "server" | www.example.com | +---------------------+----------------------------------+ | "x-empty-header" | | +---------------------+----------------------------------+ | "x-obs-fold-header" | Obsolete line folding. | +---------------------+----------------------------------+ | "x-ows-header" | Leading and trailing whitespace. | +---------------------+----------------------------------+ Table 1: Non-normative examples of header field canonicalization. Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 2.2. Dictionary Structured Field Members An individual member in the value of a Dictionary Structured Field is identified by using the parameter "key" on the content identifier for the header. The value of this parameter is a the key being identified, without any parameters present on that key in the original dictionary. An individual member in the value of a Dictionary Structured Field is canonicalized by applying the serialization algorithm described in Section 4.1.2 of RFC8941 [RFC8941] on a Dictionary containing only that member. 2.2.1. Canonicalization Examples This section contains non-normative examples of canonicalized values for Dictionary Structured Field Members given the following example header field, whose value is assumed to be a Dictionary: X-Dictionary: a=1, b=2;x=1;y=2, c=(a b c) The following table shows example canonicalized values for different content identifiers, given that field: +======================+=====================+ | Content Identifier | Canonicalized Value | +======================+=====================+ | "x-dictionary";key=a | 1 | +----------------------+---------------------+ | "x-dictionary";key=b | 2;x=1;y=2 | +----------------------+---------------------+ | "x-dictionary";key=c | (a, b, c) | +----------------------+---------------------+ Table 2: Non-normative examples of Dictionary member canonicalization. 2.3. Specialty Content Fields Content not found in an HTTP header can be included in the signature base string by defining a content identifier and the canonicalization method for its content. To differentiate specialty content identifiers from HTTP headers, specialty content identifiers MUST start with the "at" "@" character. This specification defines the following specialty content identifiers: Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 @request-target The target request endpoint. (Section 2.3.1) @signature-params The signature metadata parameters for this signature. (Section 2.3.2) Additional specialty content identifiers MAY be defined and registered in the HTTP Signatures Specialty Content Identifier Registry. (Section 5.3) 2.3.1. Request Target The request target endpoint, consisting of the request method and the path and query of the effective request URI, is identified by the "@request-target" identifier. Its value is canonicalized as follows: 1. Take the lowercased HTTP method of the message. 2. Append a space " ". 3. Append the path and query of the request target of the message, formatted according to the rules defined for the :path pseudo- header in [HTTP2], Section 8.1.2.3. The resulting string is the canonicalized value. 2.3.1.1. Canonicalization Examples The following table contains non-normative example HTTP messages and their canonicalized "@request-target" values. Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 +=========================+=================+ |HTTP Message | @request-target | +=========================+=================+ | POST /?param=value HTTP/1.1| post | | Host: www.example.com | /?param=value | +-------------------------+-----------------+ | POST /a/b HTTP/1.1 | post /a/b | | Host: www.example.com | | +-------------------------+-----------------+ | GET http://www.example.com/a/ HTTP/1.1| get /a/ | +-------------------------+-----------------+ | GET http://www.example.com HTTP/1.1| get / | +-------------------------+-----------------+ | CONNECT server.example.com:80 HTTP/1.1| connect / | | Host: server.example.com| | +-------------------------+-----------------+ | OPTIONS * HTTP/1.1 | options * | | Host: server.example.com| | +-------------------------+-----------------+ Table 3: Non-normative examples of "@request-target" canonicalization. 2.3.2. Signature Parameters HTTP Message Signatures have metadata properties that provide information regarding the signature's generation and/or verification. The signature parameters specialty content is identified by the "@signature-params" identifier. Its canonicalized value is the serialization of the signature parameters for this signature, including the covered content list with all associated parameters. * "alg": The HTTP message signature algorithm from the HTTP Message Signature Algorithm Registry, as an "sf-string" value. * "keyid": The identifier for the key material as an "sf-string" value. * "created": Creation time as an "sf-integer" UNIX timestamp value. Sub-second precision is not supported. * "expires": Expiration time as an "sf-integer" UNIX timestamp value. Sub-second precision is not supported. * "nonce": A random unique value generated for this signature. Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 Additional parameters can be defined in the HTTP Signature Parameters Registry (Section 5.2.2). The signature parameters are serialized using the rules in Section 4 of RFC8941 [RFC8941] as follows: 1. Let the output be an empty string. 2. Determine an order for the content identifiers of the covered content. Once this order is chosen, it cannot be changed. 3. Serialize the content identifiers of the covered content, including all parameters, as an ordered "inner-list" according to Section 4.1.1.1 of RFC8941 [RFC8941] and append this to the output. 4. Determine an order for any signature parameters. Once this order is chosen, it cannot be changed. 5. Append the parameters to the "inner-list" in the chosen order according to Section 4.1.1.2 of RFC8941 [RFC8941], skipping parameters that are not available or not used for this signature. 6. The output contains the signature parameters value. Note that the "inner-list" serialization is used for the covered content value instead of the "sf-list" serialization in order to facilitate this value's additional inclusion in the "Signature-Input" header's dictionary, as discussed in Section 4.1. This example shows a canonicalized value for the parameters of a given signature: ("@request-target" "host" "date" "cache-control" "x-empty-header" \ "x-example");keyid="test-key-rsa-pss";alg="rsa-pss-sha512";\ created=1618884475;expires=1618884775 Note that an HTTP message could contain multiple signatures, but only the signature parameters used for the current signature are included in this field. 2.4. Creating the Signature Input String The signature input is a US-ASCII string containing the content that is covered by the signature. To create the signature input string, the signer or verifier concatenates together entries for each identifier in the signature's covered content and parameters using the following algorithm: Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 1. Let the output be an empty string. 2. For each covered content item in the covered content list (in order): 1. Append the identifier for the covered content serialized according to the "content-identifier" rule. 2. Append a single colon "":"" 3. Append a single space "" "" 4. Append the covered content's canonicalized value, as defined by the covered content type. (Section 2.1 and Section 2.3) 5. Append a single newline ""\\n"" 3. Append the signature parameters (Section 2.3.2) as follows: 1. Append the identifier for the signature parameters serialized according to the "content-identifier" rule, ""@signature- params"" 2. Append a single colon "":"" 3. Append a single space "" "" 4. Append the signature parameters' canonicalized value as defined in Section 2.3.2 4. Return the output string. If covered content references an identifier that cannot be resolved to a value in the message, the implementation MUST produce an error. Such situations are included but not limited to: * The signer or verifier does not understand the content identifier. * The identifier identifies a header field that is not present in the message or whose value is malformed. * The identifier is a Dictionary member identifier that references a header field that is not present in the message, is not a Dictionary Structured Field, or whose value is malformed. Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 * The identifier is a Dictionary member identifier that references a member that is not present in the header field value, or whose value is malformed. E.g., the identifier is ""x-dictionary";key="c"" and the value of the "x-dictionary" header field is "a=1, b=2" In the following non-normative example, the HTTP message being signed is the following request: GET /foo HTTP/1.1 Host: example.org Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 02:07:55 GMT X-Example: Example header with some whitespace. X-Empty-Header: Cache-Control: max-age=60 Cache-Control: must-revalidate The covered content consists of the "@request-target" specialty content followed by the "Host", "Date", "Cache-Control", "X-Empty- Header", "X-Example" HTTP headers, in order. The signature creation timestamp is "1618884475" and the key identifier is "test-key-rsa- pss". The signature input string for this message with these parameters is: "@request-target": get /foo "host": example.org "date": Tue, 20 Apr 2021 02:07:55 GMT "cache-control": max-age=60, must-revalidate "x-empty-header": "x-example": Example header with some whitespace. "@signature-params": ("@request-target" "host" "date" "cache-control" \ "x-empty-header" "x-example");created=1618884475;\ keyid="test-key-rsa-pss" Figure 1: Non-normative example Signature Input 3. HTTP Message Signatures An HTTP Message Signature is a signature over a string generated from a subset of the content in an HTTP message and metadata about the signature itself. When successfully verified against an HTTP message, it provides cryptographic proof that with respect to the subset of content that was signed, the message is semantically equivalent to the message for which the signature was generated. Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 3.1. Creating a Signature In order to create a signature, a signer MUST follow the following algorithm: 1. The signer chooses an HTTP signature algorithm and key material for signing. The signer MUST choose key material that is appropriate for the signature's algorithm, and that conforms to any requirements defined by the algorithm, such as key size or format. The mechanism by which the signer chooses the algorithm and key material is out of scope for this document. 2. The signer sets the signature's creation time to the current time. 3. If applicable, the signer sets the signature's expiration time property to the time at which the signature is to expire. 4. The signer creates an ordered list of content identifiers representing the message content and signature metadata to be covered by the signature, and assigns this list as the signature's Covered Content. * Once an order of covered content is chosen, the order MUST NOT change for the life of the signature. * Each covered content identifier MUST either reference an HTTP header in the request message Section 2.1 or reference a specialty content field listed in Section 2.3 or its associated registry. * Signers SHOULD include "@request-target" in the covered content list. * Signers SHOULD include a date stamp in some form, such as using the "date" header. Alternatively, the "created" signature metadata parameter can fulfil this role. * Further guidance on what to include in this list and in what order is out of scope for this document. However, note that the list order is significant and once established for a given signature it MUST be preserved for that signature. * Note that the "@signature-params" specialty identifier is not explicitly listed in the list of covered content identifiers, because it is required to always be present as the last line in the signature input. This ensures that a signature always covers its own metadata. Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 5. The signer creates the signature input string. (Section 2.4) 6. The signer signs the signature input with the chosen signing algorithm using the key material chosen by the signer. Several signing algorithms are defined in in Section 3.3. 7. The byte array output of the signature function is the HTTP message signature output value to be included in the "Signature" header as defined in Section 4.2. For example, given the HTTP message and signature parameters in the example in Section 2.4, the example signature input string when signed with the "test-key-rsa-pss" key in Appendix B.1.2 gives the following message signature output value, encoded in Base64: lPxkxqDEPhgrx1yPaKLO7eJ+oPjSwsQ5NjWNRfYP7Jw0FwnK1k8/GH7g5s2q0VTTKVm\ xyfpUDp/HsDphh5Z7Fa/lvtujHyFe/0EP9z7bnVb7YBZrxV52LGvP8p4APhOYuG4yaH\ z478GsJav9BQYK0B2IOHdLFJe8qwWPJs07J47gPewpNwCt0To/zZ2KPpylGX5UHVgJP\ Uom64KjX43u2OwIvSoPEYk4nuBvLR9yxYAHURaTfLoEDUCtY1FsU1hOfG3jAlcT6ill\ fnyS72PEdSSzw1KsxroMj9IYpFhva77YxmJRk4pCIW0F0Kj0ukl7J4y2aZJHMCYI3g8\ yfqh/wQ== Figure 2: Non-normative example signature value 3.2. Verifying a Signature A verifier processes a signature and its associated signature input parameters in concert with each other. In order to verify a signature, a verifier MUST follow the following algorithm: 1. Parse the "Signature" and "Signature-Input" headers and extract the signatures to be verified. 1. If there is more than one signature value present, determine which signature should be processed for this request. If an appropriate signature is not found, produce an error. 2. If the chosen "Signature" value does not have a corresponding "Signature-Input" value, produce an error. 2. Parse the values of the chosen "Signature-Input" header field to get the parameters for the signature to be verified. 3. Parse the value of the corresponding "Signature" header field to get the byte array value of the signature to be verified. Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 4. Examine the signature parameters to confirm that the signature meets the requirements described in this document, as well as any additional requirements defined by the application such as which contents are required to be covered by the signature. (Section 3.2.1) 5. Determine the verification key material for this signature. If the key material is known through external means such as static configuration or external protocol negotiation, the verifier will use that. If the key is identified in the signature parameters, the verifier will dereference this to appropriate key material to use with the signature. The verifier has to determine the trustworthiness of the key material for the context in which the signature is presented. If a key is identified that the verifier does not know, does not trust for this request, or does not match something preconfigured, the verification MUST fail. 6. Determine the algorithm to apply for verification: 1. If the algorithm is known through external means such as static configuration or external protocol negotiation, the verifier will use this algorithm. 2. If the algorithm is explicitly stated in the signature parameters using a value from the HTTP Message Signatures registry, the verifier will use the referenced algorithm. 3. If the algorithm can be determined from the keying material, such as through an algorithm field on the key value itself, the verifier will use this algorithm. 4. If the algorithm is specified in more that one location, such as through static configuration and the algorithm signature parameter, or the algorithm signature parameter and from the key material itself, the resolved algorithms MUST be the same. If the algorithms are not the same, the verifier MUST vail the verification. 7. Use the received HTTP message and the signature's metadata to recreate the signature input, using the process described in Section 2.4. The value of the "@signature-params" input is the value of the SignatureInput header field for this signature serialized according to the rules described in Section 2.3.2, not including the signature's label from the "Signature-Input" header. Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 8. If the key material is appropriate for the algorithm, apply the verification algorithm to the signature, recalculated signature input, signature parameters, key material, and algorithm. Several algorithms are defined in Section 3.3. 9. The results of the verification algorithm function are the final results of the signature verification. If any of the above steps fail, the signature validation fails. 3.2.1. Enforcing Application Requirements The verification requirements specified in this document are intended as a baseline set of restrictions that are generally applicable to all use cases. Applications using HTTP Message Signatures MAY impose requirements above and beyond those specified by this document, as appropriate for their use case. Some non-normative examples of additional requirements an application might define are: * Requiring a specific set of header fields to be signed (e.g., Authorization, Digest). * Enforcing a maximum signature age. * Prohibiting the use of certain algorithms, or mandating the use of an algorithm. * Requiring keys to be of a certain size (e.g., 2048 bits vs. 1024 bits). * Enforcing uniqueness of a nonce value. Application-specific requirements are expected and encouraged. When an application defines additional requirements, it MUST enforce them during the signature verification process, and signature verification MUST fail if the signature does not conform to the application's requirements. Applications MUST enforce the requirements defined in this document. Regardless of use case, applications MUST NOT accept signatures that do not conform to these requirements. Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 3.3. Signature Algorithm Methods HTTP Message signatures MAY use any cryptographic digital signature or MAC method that is appropriate for the key material, environment, and needs of the signer and verifier. All signatures are generated from and verified against the byte values of the signature input string defined in Section 2.4. Each signature algorithm method takes as its input the signature input string as a set of byte values ("I"), the signing key material ("Ks"), and outputs the signed content as a set of byte values ("S"): HTTP_SIGN (I, Ks) -> S Each verification algorithm method takes as its input the recalculated signature input string as a set of byte values ("I"), the verification key material ("Kv"), and the presented signature to be verified as a set of byte values ("S") and outputs the verification result ("V") as a boolean: HTTP_VERIFY (I, Kv, S) -> V This section contains several common algorithm methods. The method to use can be communicated through the algorithm signature parameter defined in Section 2.3.2, by reference to the key material, or through mutual agreement between the signer and verifier. 3.3.1. RSASSA-PSS using SHA-512 To sign using this algorithm, the signer applies the "RSASSA-PSS-SIGN (K, M)" function [RFC8017] with the signer's private signing key ("K") and the signature input string ("M") (Section 2.4). The mask generation function is "MGF1" as specified in [RFC8017] with a hash function of SHA-512 [RFC6234]. The salt length ("sLen") is 64 bytes. The hash function ("Hash") SHA-512 [RFC6234] is applied to the signature input string to create the digest content to which the digital signature is applied. The resulting signed content byte array ("S") is the HTTP message signature output used in Section 3.1. To verify using this algorithm, the verifier applies the "RSASSA-PSS- VERIFY ((n, e), M, S)" function [RFC8017] using the public key portion of the verification key material ("(n, e)") and the signature input string ("M") re-created as described in Section 3.2. The mask generation function is "MGF1" as specified in [RFC8017] with a hash function of SHA-512 [RFC6234]. The salt length ("sLen") is 64 bytes. The hash function ("Hash") SHA-512 [RFC6234] is applied to the signature input string to create the digest content to which the verification function is applied. The verifier extracts the HTTP Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 message signature to be verified ("S") as described in Section 3.2. The results of the verification function are compared to the http message signature to determine if the signature presented is valid. 3.3.2. RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 using SHA-256 To sign using this algorithm, the signer applies the "RSASSA- PKCS1-V1_5-SIGN (K, M)" function [RFC8017] with the signer's private signing key ("K") and the signature input string ("M") (Section 2.4). The hash SHA-256 [RFC6234] is applied to the signature input string to create the digest content to which the digital signature is applied. The resulting signed content byte array ("S") is the HTTP message signature output used in Section 3.1. To verify using this algorithm, the verifier applies the "RSASSA- PKCS1-V1_5-VERIFY ((n, e), M, S)" function [RFC8017] using the public key portion of the verification key material ("(n, e)") and the signature input string ("M") re-created as described in Section 3.2. The hash function SHA-256 [RFC6234] is applied to the signature input string to create the digest content to which the verification function is applied. The verifier extracts the HTTP message signature to be verified ("S") as described in Section 3.2. The results of the verification function are compared to the http message signature to determine if the signature presented is valid. 3.3.3. HMAC using SHA-256 To sign and verify using this algorithm, the signer applies the "HMAC" function [RFC2104] with the shared signing key ("K") and the signature input string ("text") (Section 2.4). The hash function SHA-256 [RFC6234] is applied to the signature input string to create the digest content to which the HMAC is applied, giving the signature result. For signing, the resulting value is the HTTP message signature output used in Section 3.1. For verification, the verifier extracts the HTTP message signature to be verified ("S") as described in Section 3.2. The output of the HMAC function is compared to the value of the HTTP message signature, and the results of the comparison determine the validity of the signature presented. Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 22] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 3.3.4. ECDSA using curve P-256 DSS and SHA-256 To sign using this algorithm, the signer applies the "ECDSA" algorithm [FIPS186-4] using curve P-256 with the signer's private signing key and the signature input string (Section 2.4). The hash SHA-256 [RFC6234] is applied to the signature input string to create the digest content to which the digital signature is applied. The resulting signed content byte array is the HTTP message signature output used in Section 3.1. To verify using this algorithm, the verifier applies the "ECDSA" algorithm [FIPS186-4] using the public key portion of the verification key material and the signature input string re-created as described in Section 3.2. The hash function SHA-256 [RFC6234] is applied to the signature input string to create the digest content to which the verification function is applied. The verifier extracts the HTTP message signature to be verified ("S") as described in Section 3.2. The results of the verification function are compared to the http message signature to determine if the signature presented is valid. 3.3.5. JSON Web Signature (JWS) algorithms If the signing algorithm is a JOSE signing algorithm from the JSON Web Signature and Encryption Algorithms Registry established by [RFC7518], the JWS algorithm definition determines the signature and hashing algorithms to apply for both signing and verification. There is no use of the explicit "alg" signature parameter when using JOSE signing algorithms. For both signing and verification, the HTTP messages signature input string (Section 2.4) is used as the entire "JWS Signing Input". The JOSE Header defined in [RFC7517] is not used, and the signature input string is not first encoded in Base64 before applying the algorithm. The output of the JWS signature is taken as a byte array prior to the Base64url encoding used in JOSE. The JWS algorithm MUST NOT be "none" and MUST NOT be any algorithm with a JOSE Implementation Requirement of "Prohibited". 4. Including a Message Signature in a Message Message signatures can be included within an HTTP message via the "Signature-Input" and "Signature" HTTP header fields, both defined within this specification. Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 23] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 An HTTP message signature MUST use both headers: the "Signature" HTTP header field contains the signature value, while the "Signature- Input" HTTP header field identifies the covered content and parameters that describe how the signature was generated. Each header MAY contain multiple labeled values, where the labels determine the correlation between the "Signature" and "Signature- Input" fields. 4.1. The 'Signature-Input' HTTP Header The "Signature-Input" HTTP header field is a Dictionary Structured Header [RFC8941] containing the metadata for one or more message signatures generated from content within the HTTP message. Each member describes a single message signature. The member's name is an identifier that uniquely identifies the message signature within the context of the HTTP message. The member's value is the serialization of the covered content including all signature metadata parameters, using the serialization process defined in Section 2.3.2. Signature-Input: sig1=("@request-target" "host" "date" \ "cache-control" "x-empty-header" "x-example");created=1618884475\ ;keyid="test-key-rsa-pss" To facilitate signature validation, the "Signature-Input" header value MUST contain the same serialized value used in generating the signature input string's "@signature-params" value. 4.2. The 'Signature' HTTP Header The "Signature" HTTP header field is a Dictionary Structured Header [RFC8941] containing one or more message signatures generated from content within the HTTP message. Each member's name is a signature identifier that is present as a member name in the "Signature-Input" Structured Header within the HTTP message. Each member's value is a Byte Sequence containing the signature value for the message signature identified by the member name. Any member in the "Signature" HTTP header field that does not have a corresponding member in the HTTP message's "Signature-Input" HTTP header field MUST be ignored. Signature: sig1=:lPxkxqDEPhgrx1yPaKLO7eJ+oPjSwsQ5NjWNRfYP7Jw0FwnK1k\ 8/GH7g5s2q0VTTKVmxyfpUDp/HsDphh5Z7Fa/lvtujHyFe/0EP9z7bnVb7YBZrxV5\ 2LGvP8p4APhOYuG4yaHz478GsJav9BQYK0B2IOHdLFJe8qwWPJs07J47gPewpNwCt\ 0To/zZ2KPpylGX5UHVgJPUom64KjX43u2OwIvSoPEYk4nuBvLR9yxYAHURaTfLoED\ UCtY1FsU1hOfG3jAlcT6illfnyS72PEdSSzw1KsxroMj9IYpFhva77YxmJRk4pCIW\ 0F0Kj0ukl7J4y2aZJHMCYI3g8yfqh/wQ==: Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 24] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 4.3. Multiple Signatures Since "Signature-Input" and "Signature" are both defined as Dictionary Structured Headers, they can be used to include multiple signatures within the same HTTP message. For example, a signer may include multiple signatures signing the same content with different keys or algorithms to support verifiers with different capabilities, or a reverse proxy may include information about the client in header fields when forwarding the request to a service host, including a signature over those fields and the client's original signature. The following is a non-normative example of header fields a reverse proxy sets in addition to the examples in the previous sections. The original signature is included under the identifier "sig1", and the reverse proxy's signature is included under "proxy_sig". The proxy uses the key "rsa-test-key" to create its signature using the "rsa- v1_5-sha256" signature value. This results in a signature input string of: "signature";key="sig1": \ :lPxkxqDEPhgrx1yPaKLO7eJ+oPjSwsQ5NjWNRfYP7Jw0FwnK1k8/GH7g5s2q0VTT\ KVmxyfpUDp/HsDphh5Z7Fa/lvtujHyFe/0EP9z7bnVb7YBZrxV52LGvP8p4APhOYu\ G4yaHz478GsJav9BQYK0B2IOHdLFJe8qwWPJs07J47gPewpNwCt0To/zZ2KPpylGX\ 5UHVgJPUom64KjX43u2OwIvSoPEYk4nuBvLR9yxYAHURaTfLoEDUCtY1FsU1hOfG3\ jAlcT6illfnyS72PEdSSzw1KsxroMj9IYpFhva77YxmJRk4pCIW0F0Kj0ukl7J4y2\ aZJHMCYI3g8yfqh/wQ==: "x-forwarded-for": 192.0.2.123 "@signature-params": ("signature";key="sig1" "x-forwarded-for")\ ;created=1618884480;keyid="test-key-rsa";alg="rsa-v1_5-sha256" And a signature output value of: XD1O/vEh772WVpY7jYvReXop2+b7xTIIPKH8/OCYzPn78Wd9jodCwAJPF5TYCn9L6n6\ 8j4EjGsqFOMkVLVdSQEZqMLjEbvMEdIe8m1a0CLd5kydeaAwoHoglqod6ijkwhhEtxt\ aD8tDZmihQw2mZEH8u4aMSnRntqy7ExCNld0JLharsHV0iCbRO9jIP+d2ApD7gB+eZp\ n3pIvvVJZlxTwPkahFpxKlQtNMPaSqa1lvejURx+ST8CEuz4sS+G/oLJiX3MZenuUoO\ R8HeOHDnjN/VLzrEN4x44iF7WIL+iY2PtK87LUWRAsJAX9GqHL/upsGh1nxIdoVaoLV\ V5w+fRw== These values are added to the HTTP request message by the proxy. The different signature values are wrapped onto separate lines to increase human-readability of the result. Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 25] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 X-Forwarded-For: 192.0.2.123 Signature-Input: sig1=("@request-target" "host" "date" \ "cache-control" "x-empty-header" "x-example")\ ;created=1618884475;keyid="test-key-rsa-pss", \ proxy_sig=("signature";key="sig1" "x-forwarded-for")\ ;created=1618884480;keyid="test-key-rsa";alg="rsa-v1_5-sha256" Signature: sig1=:lPxkxqDEPhgrx1yPaKLO7eJ+oPjSwsQ5NjWNRfYP7Jw0FwnK1k\ 8/GH7g5s2q0VTTKVmxyfpUDp/HsDphh5Z7Fa/lvtujHyFe/0EP9z7bnVb7YBZrx\ V52LGvP8p4APhOYuG4yaHz478GsJav9BQYK0B2IOHdLFJe8qwWPJs07J47gPewp\ NwCt0To/zZ2KPpylGX5UHVgJPUom64KjX43u2OwIvSoPEYk4nuBvLR9yxYAHURa\ TfLoEDUCtY1FsU1hOfG3jAlcT6illfnyS72PEdSSzw1KsxroMj9IYpFhva77Yxm\ JRk4pCIW0F0Kj0ukl7J4y2aZJHMCYI3g8yfqh/wQ==:, \ proxy_sig=:XD1O/vEh772WVpY7jYvReXop2+b7xTIIPKH8/OCYzPn78Wd9jodCwA\ JPF5TYCn9L6n68j4EjGsqFOMkVLVdSQEZqMLjEbvMEdIe8m1a0CLd5kydeaAwoH\ oglqod6ijkwhhEtxtaD8tDZmihQw2mZEH8u4aMSnRntqy7ExCNld0JLharsHV0i\ CbRO9jIP+d2ApD7gB+eZpn3pIvvVJZlxTwPkahFpxKlQtNMPaSqa1lvejURx+ST\ 8CEuz4sS+G/oLJiX3MZenuUoOR8HeOHDnjN/VLzrEN4x44iF7WIL+iY2PtK87LU\ WRAsJAX9GqHL/upsGh1nxIdoVaoLVV5w+fRw==: The proxy's signature and the client's original signature can be verified independently for the same message, depending on the needs of the application. 5. IANA Considerations 5.1. HTTP Signature Algorithms Registry This document defines HTTP Signature Algorithms, for which IANA is asked to create and maintain a new registry titled "HTTP Signature Algorithms". Initial values for this registry are given in Section 5.1.2. Future assignments and modifications to existing assignment are to be made through the Expert Review registration policy [RFC8126] and shall follow the template presented in Section 5.1.1. Algorithms referenced by algorithm identifiers have to be fully defined with all parameters fixed. Algorithm identifiers in this registry are to be interpreted as whole string values and not as a combination of parts. That is to say, it is expected that implementors understand "rsa-pss-sha512" as referring to one specific algorithm with its hash, mask, and salt values set as defined here. Implementors do not parse out the "rsa", "pss", and "sha512" portions of the identifier to determine parameters of the signing algorithm from the string. 5.1.1. Registration Template Algorithm Name: Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 26] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 An identifier for the HTTP Signature Algorithm. The name MUST be an ASCII string consisting only of lower-case characters (""a"" - ""z""), digits (""0"" - ""9""), and hyphens (""-""), and SHOULD NOT exceed 20 characters in length. The identifier MUST be unique within the context of the registry. Status: A brief text description of the status of the algorithm. The description MUST begin with one of "Active" or "Deprecated", and MAY provide further context or explanation as to the reason for the status. Description: A brief description of the algorithm used to sign the signature input string. Specification document(s): Reference to the document(s) that specify the token endpoint authorization method, preferably including a URI that can be used to retrieve a copy of the document(s). An indication of the relevant sections may also be included but is not required. 5.1.2. Initial Contents 5.1.2.1. rsa-pss-sha512 Algorithm Name: "rsa-pss-sha512" Status: Active Definition: RSASSA-PSS using SHA-256 Specification document(s): [[This document]], Section 3.3.1 5.1.2.2. rsa-v1_5-sha256 Algorithm Name: "rsa-v1_5-sha256" Status: Active Description: RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 using SHA-256 Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 27] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 Specification document(s): [[This document]], Section 3.3.2 5.1.2.3. hmac-sha256 Algorithm Name: "hmac-sha256" Status: Active Description: HMAC using SHA-256 Specification document(s): [[This document]], Section 3.3.3 5.1.2.4. ecdsa-p256-sha256 Algorithm Name: "ecdsa-p256-sha256" Status: Active Description: ECDSA using curve P-256 DSS and SHA-256 Specification document(s): [[This document]], Section 3.3.4 5.2. HTTP Signature Metadata Parameters Registry This document defines the "Signature-Input" Structured Header, whose member values may have parameters containing metadata about a message signature. IANA is asked to create and maintain a new registry titled "HTTP Signature Metadata Parameters" to record and maintain the set of parameters defined for use with member values in the "Signature-Input" Structured Header. Initial values for this registry are given in Section 5.2.2. Future assignments and modifications to existing assignments are to be made through the Expert Review registration policy [RFC8126] and shall follow the template presented in Section 5.2.1. 5.2.1. Registration Template Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 28] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 5.2.2. Initial Contents The table below contains the initial contents of the HTTP Signature Metadata Parameters Registry. Each row in the table represents a distinct entry in the registry. +=========+========+================================+ | Name | Status | Reference(s) | +=========+========+================================+ | alg | Active | Section 2.3.2 of this document | +---------+--------+--------------------------------+ | created | Active | Section 2.3.2 of this document | +---------+--------+--------------------------------+ | expires | Active | Section 2.3.2 of this document | +---------+--------+--------------------------------+ | keyid | Active | Section 2.3.2 of this document | +---------+--------+--------------------------------+ | nonce | Active | Section 2.3.2 of this document | +---------+--------+--------------------------------+ Table 4: Initial contents of the HTTP Signature Metadata Parameters Registry. 5.3. HTTP Signature Specialty Content Identifiers Registry This document defines a method for canonicalizing HTTP message content, including content that can be generated from the context of the HTTP message outside of the HTTP headers. This content is identified by a unique key. IANA is asked to create and maintain a new registry typed "HTTP Signature Specialty Content Identifiers" to record and maintain the set of non-header content identifiers and their canonicalization method. Initial values for this registry are given in Section 5.3.2. Future assignments and modifications to existing assignments are to be made through the Expert Review registration policy [RFC8126] and shall follow the template presented in Section 5.3.1. 5.3.1. Registration Template 5.3.2. Initial Contents The table below contains the initial contents of the HTTP Signature Specialty Content Identifiers Registry. Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 29] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 +===================+========+================================+ | Name | Status | Reference(s) | +===================+========+================================+ | @request-target | Active | Section 2.3.1 of this document | +-------------------+--------+--------------------------------+ | @signature-params | Active | Section 2.3.2 of this document | +-------------------+--------+--------------------------------+ Table 5: Initial contents of the HTTP Signature Specialty Content Identifiers Registry. 6. Security Considerations (( TODO: need to dive deeper on this section; not sure how much of what's referenced below is actually applicable, or if it covers everything we need to worry about. )) (( TODO: Should provide some recommendations on how to determine what content needs to be signed for a given use case. )) There are a number of security considerations to take into account when implementing or utilizing this specification. A thorough security analysis of this protocol, including its strengths and weaknesses, can be found in [WP-HTTP-Sig-Audit]. 7. References 7.1. Normative References [FIPS186-4] "Digital Signature Standard (DSS)", 2013, <https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/fips/186/4/ final>. [HTTP2] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540, DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7540>. [MESSAGING] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7230>. [POSIX.1] "The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 7, 2018 edition", 2018, <https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/>. Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 30] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 [RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed- Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2104>. [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>. [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>. [RFC8792] Watsen, K., Auerswald, E., Farrel, A., and Q. Wu, "Handling Long Lines in Content of Internet-Drafts and RFCs", RFC 8792, DOI 10.17487/RFC8792, June 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8792>. [RFC8941] Nottingham, M. and P-H. Kamp, "Structured Field Values for HTTP", RFC 8941, DOI 10.17487/RFC8941, February 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8941>. [SEMANTICS] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7231>. 7.2. Informative References [RFC6234] Eastlake 3rd, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms (SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234, DOI 10.17487/RFC6234, May 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6234>. [RFC7239] Petersson, A. and M. Nilsson, "Forwarded HTTP Extension", RFC 7239, DOI 10.17487/RFC7239, June 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7239>. [RFC7517] Jones, M., "JSON Web Key (JWK)", RFC 7517, DOI 10.17487/RFC7517, May 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7517>. [RFC7518] Jones, M., "JSON Web Algorithms (JWA)", RFC 7518, DOI 10.17487/RFC7518, May 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7518>. Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 31] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 [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>. [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126>. [TLS] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8446>. [WP-HTTP-Sig-Audit] "Security Considerations for HTTP Signatures", 2013, <https://web-payments.org/specs/source/http-signatures- audit/>. Appendix A. Detecting HTTP Message Signatures There have been many attempts to create signed HTTP messages in the past, including other non-standard definitions of the "Signature" header used within this specification. It is recommended that developers wishing to support both this specification and other historical drafts do so carefully and deliberately, as incompatibilities between this specification and various versions of other drafts could lead to unexpected problems. It is recommended that implementers first detect and validate the "Signature-Input" header defined in this specification to detect that this standard is in use and not an alternative. If the "Signature- Input" header is present, all "Signature" headers can be parsed and interpreted in the context of this draft. Appendix B. Examples B.1. Example Keys This section provides cryptographic keys that are referenced in example signatures throughout this document. These keys MUST NOT be used for any purpose other than testing. The key identifiers for each key are used throughout the examples in this specification. It is assumed for these examples that the signer and verifier can unambiguously dereference all key identifiers used here, and that the keys and algorithms used are appropriate for the context in which the signature is presented. Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 32] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 B.1.1. Example Key RSA test The following key is a 2048-bit RSA public and private key pair, referred to in this document as "test-key-rsa": -----BEGIN RSA PUBLIC KEY----- MIIBCgKCAQEAhAKYdtoeoy8zcAcR874L8cnZxKzAGwd7v36APp7Pv6Q2jdsPBRrw WEBnez6d0UDKDwGbc6nxfEXAy5mbhgajzrw3MOEt8uA5txSKobBpKDeBLOsdJKFq MGmXCQvEG7YemcxDTRPxAleIAgYYRjTSd/QBwVW9OwNFhekro3RtlinV0a75jfZg kne/YiktSvLG34lw2zqXBDTC5NHROUqGTlML4PlNZS5Ri2U4aCNx2rUPRcKIlE0P uKxI4T+HIaFpv8+rdV6eUgOrB2xeI1dSFFn/nnv5OoZJEIB+VmuKn3DCUcCZSFlQ PSXSfBDiUGhwOw76WuSSsf1D4b/vLoJ10wIDAQAB -----END RSA PUBLIC KEY----- -----BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY----- MIIEqAIBAAKCAQEAhAKYdtoeoy8zcAcR874L8cnZxKzAGwd7v36APp7Pv6Q2jdsP BRrwWEBnez6d0UDKDwGbc6nxfEXAy5mbhgajzrw3MOEt8uA5txSKobBpKDeBLOsd JKFqMGmXCQvEG7YemcxDTRPxAleIAgYYRjTSd/QBwVW9OwNFhekro3RtlinV0a75 jfZgkne/YiktSvLG34lw2zqXBDTC5NHROUqGTlML4PlNZS5Ri2U4aCNx2rUPRcKI lE0PuKxI4T+HIaFpv8+rdV6eUgOrB2xeI1dSFFn/nnv5OoZJEIB+VmuKn3DCUcCZ SFlQPSXSfBDiUGhwOw76WuSSsf1D4b/vLoJ10wIDAQABAoIBAG/JZuSWdoVHbi56 vjgCgkjg3lkO1KrO3nrdm6nrgA9P9qaPjxuKoWaKO1cBQlE1pSWp/cKncYgD5WxE CpAnRUXG2pG4zdkzCYzAh1i+c34L6oZoHsirK6oNcEnHveydfzJL5934egm6p8DW +m1RQ70yUt4uRc0YSor+q1LGJvGQHReF0WmJBZHrhz5e63Pq7lE0gIwuBqL8SMaA yRXtK+JGxZpImTq+NHvEWWCu09SCq0r838ceQI55SvzmTkwqtC+8AT2zFviMZkKR Qo6SPsrqItxZWRty2izawTF0Bf5S2VAx7O+6t3wBsQ1sLptoSgX3QblELY5asI0J YFz7LJECgYkAsqeUJmqXE3LP8tYoIjMIAKiTm9o6psPlc8CrLI9CH0UbuaA2JCOM cCNq8SyYbTqgnWlB9ZfcAm/cFpA8tYci9m5vYK8HNxQr+8FS3Qo8N9RJ8d0U5Csw DzMYfRghAfUGwmlWj5hp1pQzAuhwbOXFtxKHVsMPhz1IBtF9Y8jvgqgYHLbmyiu1 mwJ5AL0pYF0G7x81prlARURwHo0Yf52kEw1dxpx+JXER7hQRWQki5/NsUEtv+8RT qn2m6qte5DXLyn83b1qRscSdnCCwKtKWUug5q2ZbwVOCJCtmRwmnP131lWRYfj67 B/xJ1ZA6X3GEf4sNReNAtaucPEelgR2nsN0gKQKBiGoqHWbK1qYvBxX2X3kbPDkv 9C+celgZd2PW7aGYLCHq7nPbmfDV0yHcWjOhXZ8jRMjmANVR/eLQ2EfsRLdW69bn f3ZD7JS1fwGnO3exGmHO3HZG+6AvberKYVYNHahNFEw5TsAcQWDLRpkGybBcxqZo 81YCqlqidwfeO5YtlO7etx1xLyqa2NsCeG9A86UjG+aeNnXEIDk1PDK+EuiThIUa /2IxKzJKWl1BKr2d4xAfR0ZnEYuRrbeDQYgTImOlfW6/GuYIxKYgEKCFHFqJATAG IxHrq1PDOiSwXd2GmVVYyEmhZnbcp8CxaEMQoevxAta0ssMK3w6UsDtvUvYvF22m qQKBiD5GwESzsFPy3Ga0MvZpn3D6EJQLgsnrtUPZx+z2Ep2x0xc5orneB5fGyF1P WtP+fG5Q6Dpdz3LRfm+KwBCWFKQjg7uTxcjerhBWEYPmEMKYwTJF5PBG9/ddvHLQ EQeNC8fHGg4UXU8mhHnSBt3EA10qQJfRDs15M38eG2cYwB1PZpDHScDnDA0= -----END RSA PRIVATE KEY----- B.1.2. Example RSA PSS Key The following key is a 2048-bit RSA public and private key pair, referred to in this document as "test-key-rsa-pss": Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 33] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 -----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY----- MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAr4tmm3r20Wd/PbqvP1s2 +QEtvpuRaV8Yq40gjUR8y2Rjxa6dpG2GXHbPfvMs8ct+Lh1GH45x28Rw3Ry53mm+ oAXjyQ86OnDkZ5N8lYbggD4O3w6M6pAvLkhk95AndTrifbIFPNU8PPMO7OyrFAHq gDsznjPFmTOtCEcN2Z1FpWgchwuYLPL+Wokqltd11nqqzi+bJ9cvSKADYdUAAN5W Utzdpiy6LbTgSxP7ociU4Tn0g5I6aDZJ7A8Lzo0KSyZYoA485mqcO0GVAdVw9lq4 aOT9v6d+nb4bnNkQVklLQ3fVAvJm+xdDOp9LCNCN48V2pnDOkFV6+U9nV5oyc6XI 2wIDAQAB -----END PUBLIC KEY----- -----BEGIN PRIVATE KEY----- MIIEvgIBADALBgkqhkiG9w0BAQoEggSqMIIEpgIBAAKCAQEAr4tmm3r20Wd/Pbqv P1s2+QEtvpuRaV8Yq40gjUR8y2Rjxa6dpG2GXHbPfvMs8ct+Lh1GH45x28Rw3Ry5 3mm+oAXjyQ86OnDkZ5N8lYbggD4O3w6M6pAvLkhk95AndTrifbIFPNU8PPMO7Oyr FAHqgDsznjPFmTOtCEcN2Z1FpWgchwuYLPL+Wokqltd11nqqzi+bJ9cvSKADYdUA AN5WUtzdpiy6LbTgSxP7ociU4Tn0g5I6aDZJ7A8Lzo0KSyZYoA485mqcO0GVAdVw 9lq4aOT9v6d+nb4bnNkQVklLQ3fVAvJm+xdDOp9LCNCN48V2pnDOkFV6+U9nV5oy c6XI2wIDAQABAoIBAQCUB8ip+kJiiZVKF8AqfB/aUP0jTAqOQewK1kKJ/iQCXBCq pbo360gvdt05H5VZ/RDVkEgO2k73VSsbulqezKs8RFs2tEmU+JgTI9MeQJPWcP6X aKy6LIYs0E2cWgp8GADgoBs8llBq0UhX0KffglIeek3n7Z6Gt4YFge2TAcW2WbN4 XfK7lupFyo6HHyWRiYHMMARQXLJeOSdTn5aMBP0PO4bQyk5ORxTUSeOciPJUFktQ HkvGbym7KryEfwH8Tks0L7WhzyP60PL3xS9FNOJi9m+zztwYIXGDQuKM2GDsITeD 2mI2oHoPMyAD0wdI7BwSVW18p1h+jgfc4dlexKYRAoGBAOVfuiEiOchGghV5vn5N RDNscAFnpHj1QgMr6/UG05RTgmcLfVsI1I4bSkbrIuVKviGGf7atlkROALOG/xRx DLadgBEeNyHL5lz6ihQaFJLVQ0u3U4SB67J0YtVO3R6lXcIjBDHuY8SjYJ7Ci6Z6 vuDcoaEujnlrtUhaMxvSfcUJAoGBAMPsCHXte1uWNAqYad2WdLjPDlKtQJK1diCm rqmB2g8QE99hDOHItjDBEdpyFBKOIP+NpVtM2KLhRajjcL9Ph8jrID6XUqikQuVi 4J9FV2m42jXMuioTT13idAILanYg8D3idvy/3isDVkON0X3UAVKrgMEne0hJpkPL FYqgetvDAoGBAKLQ6JZMbSe0pPIJkSamQhsehgL5Rs51iX4m1z7+sYFAJfhvN3Q/ OGIHDRp6HjMUcxHpHw7U+S1TETxePwKLnLKj6hw8jnX2/nZRgWHzgVcY+sPsReRx NJVf+Cfh6yOtznfX00p+JWOXdSY8glSSHJwRAMog+hFGW1AYdt7w80XBAoGBAImR NUugqapgaEA8TrFxkJmngXYaAqpA0iYRA7kv3S4QavPBUGtFJHBNULzitydkNtVZ 3w6hgce0h9YThTo/nKc+OZDZbgfN9s7cQ75x0PQCAO4fx2P91Q+mDzDUVTeG30mE t2m3S0dGe47JiJxifV9P3wNBNrZGSIF3mrORBVNDAoGBAI0QKn2Iv7Sgo4T/XjND dl2kZTXqGAk8dOhpUiw/HdM3OGWbhHj2NdCzBliOmPyQtAr770GITWvbAI+IRYyF S7Fnk6ZVVVHsxjtaHy1uJGFlaZzKR4AGNaUTOJMs6NadzCmGPAxNQQOCqoUjn4XR rOjr9w349JooGXhOxbu8nOxX -----END PRIVATE KEY----- B.1.3. Example ECC P-256 Test Key The following key is an elliptical curve key over the curve P-256, referred to in this document as "test-key-ecc-p256". Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 34] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 -----BEGIN EC PRIVATE KEY----- MHcCAQEEIFKbhfNZfpDsW43+0+JjUr9K+bTeuxopu653+hBaXGA7oAoGCCqGSM49 AwEHoUQDQgAEqIVYZVLCrPZHGHjP17CTW0/+D9Lfw0EkjqF7xB4FivAxzic30tMM 4GF+hR6Dxh71Z50VGGdldkkDXZCnTNnoXQ== -----END EC PRIVATE KEY----- -----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY----- MFkwEwYHKoZIzj0CAQYIKoZIzj0DAQcDQgAEqIVYZVLCrPZHGHjP17CTW0/+D9Lf w0EkjqF7xB4FivAxzic30tMM4GF+hR6Dxh71Z50VGGdldkkDXZCnTNnoXQ== -----END PUBLIC KEY----- B.1.4. Example Shared Secret The following shared secret is 64 randomly-generated bytes encoded in Base64, referred to in this document as "test-shared-secret". uzvJfB4u3N0Jy4T7NZ75MDVcr8zSTInedJtkgcu46YW4XByzNJjxBdtjUkdJPBt\ bmHhIDi6pcl8jsasjlTMtDQ== B.2. Test Cases This section provides non-normative examples that may be used as test cases to validate implementation correctness. These examples are based on the following HTTP messages: For requests, this "test-request" message is used: POST /foo?param=value&pet=dog HTTP/1.1 Host: example.com Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 02:07:55 GMT Content-Type: application/json Digest: SHA-256=X48E9qOokqqrvdts8nOJRJN3OWDUoyWxBf7kbu9DBPE= Content-Length: 18 {"hello": "world"} For responses, this "test-response" message is used: HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 02:07:56 GMT Content-Type: application/json Digest: SHA-256=X48E9qOokqqrvdts8nOJRJN3OWDUoyWxBf7kbu9DBPE= Content-Length: 18 {"hello": "world"} Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 35] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 B.2.1. Minimal Signature Header using rsa-pss-sha512 This example presents a minimal "Signature-Input" and "Signature" header for a signature using the "rsa-pss-sha512" algorithm over "test-request", covering none of the content of the HTTP message request but providing a timestamped signature proof of possession of the key. The corresponding signature input is: "@signature-params": ();created=1618884475\ ;keyid="test-key-rsa-pss";alg="rsa-pss-sha512" This results in the following "Signature-Input" and "Signature" headers being added to the message: Signature-Input: sig1=();created=1618884475\ ;keyid="test-key-rsa-pss";alg="rsa-pss-sha512" Signature: sig1=:VrfdC2KEFFLoGMYTbQz4PSlKat4hAxcr5XkVN7Mm/7OQQJG+uX\ gOez7kA6n/yTCaR1VL+FmJd2IVFCsUfcc/jO9siZK3siadoK1Dfgp2ieh9eO781ty\ SS70OwvAkdORuQLWDnaDMRDlQhg5sNP6JaQghFLqD4qgFrM9HMPxLrznhAQugJ0Fd\ RZLtSpnjECW6qsu2PVRoCYfnwe4gu8TfqH5GDx2SkpCF9BQ8CijuIWlOg7QP73tKt\ QNp65u14Si9VEVXHWGiLw4blyPLzWz/fqJbdLaq94Ep60Nq8WjYEAInYH6KyV7EAD\ 60LXdspwF50R3dkWXJP/x+gkAHSMsxbg==: B.2.2. Header Coverage using rsa-pss-sha512 This example covers all the specified headers in "test-request" except for the body digest header using the "rsa-pss-sha512" algorithm. The corresponding signature input is: "host": example.com "date": Tue, 20 Apr 2021 02:07:55 GMT "content-type": application/json "@signature-params": ("host" "date" "content-type")\ ;created=1618884475;keyid="test-key-rsa-pss" This results in the following "Signature-Input" and "Signature" headers being added to the message: Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 36] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 Signature-Input: sig1=("host" "date" "content-type")\ ;created=1618884475;keyid="test-key-rsa-pss" Signature: sig1=:Zu48JBrHlXN+hVj3T5fPQUjMNEEhABM5vNmiWuUUl7BWNid5Rz\ OH1tEjVi+jObYkYT8p09lZ2hrNuU3xm+JUBT8WNIlopJtt0EzxFnjGlHvkhu3KbJf\ xNlvCJVlOEdR4AivDLMeK/ZgASpZ7py1UNHJqRyGCYkYpeedinXUertL/ySNp+VbK\ 2O/qCoui2jFgff2kXQd6rjL1Up83Fpr+/KoZ6HQkv3qwBdMBDyHQykfZHhLn4AO1I\ G+vKhOLJQDfaLsJ/fYfzsgc1s46j3GpPPD/W2nEEtdhNwu7oXq81qVRsENChIu1XI\ FKR9q7WpyHDKEWTtaNZDS8TFvIQRU22w==: B.2.3. Full Coverage using rsa-pss-sha512 This example covers all headers in "test-request" plus the request target and message body digest using the "rsa-pss-sha512" algorithm. The corresponding signature input is: "@request-target": post /foo?param=value&pet=dog "host": example.com "date": Tue, 20 Apr 2021 02:07:55 GMT "content-type": application/json "digest": SHA-256=X48E9qOokqqrvdts8nOJRJN3OWDUoyWxBf7kbu9DBPE= "content-length": 18 "@signature-params": ("@request-target" "host" "date" \ "content-type" "digest" "content-length");created=1618884475\ ;keyid="test-key-rsa-pss" This results in the following "Signature-Input" and "Signature" headers being added to the message: Signature-Input: sig1=("@request-target" "host" "date" \ "content-type" "digest" "content-length");created=1618884475\ ;keyid="test-key-rsa-pss" Signature: \ sig1=:iD5NhkJoGSuuTpWMzS0BI47DfbWwsGmHHLTwOxT0n+0cQFSC+1c26B7IOfI\ RTYofqD0sfYYrnSwCvWJfA1zthAEv9J1CxS/CZXe7CQvFpuKuFJxMpkAzVYdE/TA6\ fELxNZy9RJEWZUPBU4+aJ26d8PC0XhPObXe6JkP6/C7XvG2QinsDde7rduMdhFN/H\ j2MuX1Ipzvv4EgbHJdKwmWRNamfmKJZC4U5Tn0F58lzGF+WIpU73V67/6aSGvJGM5\ 7U9bRHrBB7ExuQhOX2J2dvJMYkE33pEJA70XBUp9ZvciTI+vjIUgUQ2oRww3huWML\ mMMqEc95CliwIoL5aBdCnlQ==: B.2.4. Signing a Response using ecdsa-p256-sha256 This example covers portions of the "test-response" response message using the "ecdsa-p256-sha256" algorithm and the key "test-key-ecc- p256". The corresponding signature input is: Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 37] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 "date": Tue, 20 Apr 2021 02:07:56 GMT "content-type": application/json "digest": SHA-256=X48E9qOokqqrvdts8nOJRJN3OWDUoyWxBf7kbu9DBPE= "content-length": 18 "@signature-params": ("date" "content-type" "digest" \ "content-length");created=1618884475;keyid="test-key-ecc-p256" This results in the following "Signature-Input" and "Signature" headers being added to the message: Signature-Input: sig1=("date" "content-type" "digest" \ "content-length");created=1618884475;keyid="test-key-ecc-p256" Signature: \ sig1=:3zmRDW6r50/RETqqhtx/N5sdd5eTh8xmHdsrYRK9wK4rCNEwLjCOBlcQxTL\ 2oJTCWGRkuqE2r9KyqZFY9jd+NQ==: B.2.5. Signing a Request using hmac-sha256 This example covers portions of the "test-request" using the "hmac- sha256" algorithm and the secret "test-shared-secret". The corresponding signature input is: "host": example.com "date": Tue, 20 Apr 2021 02:07:55 GMT "content-type": application/json "@signature-params": ("host" "date" "content-type")\ ;created=1618884475;keyid="test-shared-secret" This results in the following "Signature-Input" and "Signature" headers being added to the message: Signature-Input: sig1=("host" "date" "content-type")\ ;created=1618884475;keyid="test-shared-secret" Signature: sig1=:x54VEvVOb0TMw8fUbsWdUHqqqOre+K7sB/LqHQvnfaQ=: Acknowledgements This specification was initially based on the draft-cavage-http- signatures internet draft. The editors would like to thank the authors of that draft, Mark Cavage and Manu Sporny, for their work on that draft and their continuing contributions. The editors would also like to thank the following individuals for feedback, insight, and implementation of this draft and its predecessors (in alphabetical order): Mark Adamcin, Mark Allen, Paul Annesley, Karl Boehlmark, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Sarven Capadisli, Liam Dennehy, ductm54, Stephen Farrell, Phillip Hallam-Baker, Eric Holmes, Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 38] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 Andrey Kislyuk, Adam Knight, Dave Lehn, Dave Longley, Ilari Liusvaara, James H. Manger, Kathleen Moriarty, Mark Nottingham, Yoav Nir, Adrian Palmer, Lucas Pardue, Roberto Polli, Julian Reschke, Michael Richardson, Wojciech Rygielski, Adam Scarr, Cory J. Slep, Dirk Stein, Henry Story, Lukasz Szewc, Chris Webber, and Jeffrey Yasskin. Document History _RFC EDITOR: please remove this section before publication_ * draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures - -05 o Remove list prefixes. o Clarify signature algorithm parameters. o Update and fix examples. o Add examples for ECC and HMAC. - -04 o Moved signature component definitions up to intro. o Created formal function definitions for algorithms to fulfill. o Updated all examples. o Added nonce parameter field. - -03 o Clarified signing and verification processes. o Updated algorithm and key selection method. o Clearly defined core algorithm set. o Defined JOSE signature mapping process. o Removed legacy signature methods. o Define signature parameters separately from "signature" object model. Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 39] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 o Define serialization values for signature-input header based on signature input. - -02 o Removed editorial comments on document sources. o Removed in-document issues list in favor of tracked issues. o Replaced unstructured "Signature" header with "Signature- Input" and "Signature" Dictionary Structured Header Fields. o Defined content identifiers for individual Dictionary members, e.g., ""x-dictionary-field";key=member-name". o Defined content identifiers for first N members of a List, e.g., ""x-list-field":prefix=4". o Fixed up examples. o Updated introduction now that it's adopted. o Defined specialty content identifiers and a means to extend them. o Required signature parameters to be included in signature. o Added guidance on backwards compatibility, detection, and use of signature methods. - -01 o Strengthened requirement for content identifiers for header fields to be lower-case (changed from SHOULD to MUST). o Added real example values for Creation Time and Expiration Time. o Minor editorial corrections and readability improvements. - -00 o Initialized from draft-richanna-http-message-signatures-00, following adoption by the working group. * draft-richanna-http-message-signatures - -00 Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 40] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 o Converted to xml2rfc v3 and reformatted to comply with RFC style guides. o Removed Signature auth-scheme definition and related content. o Removed conflicting normative requirements for use of algorithm parameter. Now MUST NOT be relied upon. o Removed Extensions appendix. o Rewrote abstract and introduction to explain context and need, and challenges inherent in signing HTTP messages. o Rewrote and heavily expanded algorithm definition, retaining normative requirements. o Added definitions for key terms, referenced RFC 7230 for HTTP terms. o Added examples for canonicalization and signature generation steps. o Rewrote Signature header definition, retaining normative requirements. o Added default values for algorithm and expires parameters. o Rewrote HTTP Signature Algorithms registry definition. Added change control policy and registry template. Removed suggested URI. o Added IANA HTTP Signature Parameter registry. o Added additional normative and informative references. o Added Topics for Working Group Discussion section, to be removed prior to publication as an RFC. Authors' Addresses Annabelle Backman (editor) Amazon P.O. Box 81226 Seattle, WA 98108-1226 United States of America Email: richanna@amazon.com Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 41] Internet-Draft Signing HTTP Messages June 2021 URI: https://www.amazon.com/ Justin Richer Bespoke Engineering Email: ietf@justin.richer.org URI: https://bspk.io/ Manu Sporny Digital Bazaar 203 Roanoke Street W. Blacksburg, VA 24060 United States of America Email: msporny@digitalbazaar.com URI: https://manu.sporny.org/ Backman, et al. Expires 10 December 2021 [Page 42]