Skip to main content

Updates to the Cipher Suites in Secure Syslog
draft-ietf-uta-ciphersuites-in-sec-syslog-05

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 "Active".
Authors Chris M. Lonvick , Sean Turner , Joseph A. Salowey
Last updated 2024-05-31 (Latest revision 2023-09-21)
Replaces draft-ciphersuites-in-sec-syslog
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats
Reviews
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Associated WG milestone
Feb 2024
Updates to the Cipher Suites in Secure Syslog to IETF LC
Document shepherd Kent Watsen
Shepherd write-up Show Last changed 2024-02-29
IESG IESG state IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed
Consensus boilerplate Yes
Telechat date (None)
Has enough positions to pass.
Responsible AD Francesca Palombini
Send notices to (None)
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - No Actions Needed
draft-ietf-uta-ciphersuites-in-sec-syslog-05
Internet Engineering Task Force                               C. Lonvick
Internet-Draft                                                          
Updates: 5425 6012 (if approved)                               S. Turner
Intended status: Standards Track                                   sn3rd
Expires: 24 March 2024                                        J. Salowey
                                                                  Venafi
                                                       21 September 2023

             Updates to the Cipher Suites in Secure Syslog
              draft-ietf-uta-ciphersuites-in-sec-syslog-05

Abstract

   The Syslog Working Group published two specifications, namely RFC
   5425 and RFC 6012, for securing the Syslog protocol using TLS and
   DTLS, respectively.

   This document updates the cipher suites in RFC 5425, Transport Layer
   Security (TLS) Transport Mapping for Syslog, and RFC 6012, Datagram
   Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Transport Mapping for Syslog.  It
   also updates the transport protocol in RFC 6012.

Status of This Memo

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 24 March 2024.

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.

Lonvick, et al.           Expires 24 March 2024                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft       Cipher Suites in Secure Syslog       September 2023

   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.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Support for Updating  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Updates to RFC 5425 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Updates to RFC 6012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Early Data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  Authors Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   8.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   The Syslog Working Group published RFC 5425, Transport Layer Security
   (TLS) Transport Mapping for Syslog, and RFC 6012, Datagram Transport
   Layer Security (DTLS) Transport Mapping for Syslog.

   Both specifications, [RFC5425] and [RFC6012], require the use of RSA-
   based certificates and the use of out-of-date TLS/DTLS versions.

   [RFC5425] requires that implementations "MUST" support TLS 1.2
   [RFC5246] and are "REQUIRED" to support the mandatory to implement
   cipher suite TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (Section 4.2).

   [RFC6012] requires that implementations "MUST" support DTLS 1.0
   [RFC4347] and are also "REQUIRED" to support the mandatory to
   implement cipher suite TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (Section 5.2).

   The TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA cipher suite has been found to be
   weak and the community is moving away from it and towards more robust
   suites.

   The DTLS 1.0 transport [RFC4347] has been deprecated by [BCP195] and
   the community is moving to DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347] and DTLS 1.3 [RFC9147].

Lonvick, et al.           Expires 24 March 2024                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft       Cipher Suites in Secure Syslog       September 2023

   This document updates [RFC5425] and [RFC6012] to deprecate the use of
   TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA and to make new recommendations to a
   mandatory to implement cipher suite to be used for implementations.

   This document also updates [RFC6012] to make a recommendation of a
   mandatory to implement secure datagram transport.

2.  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.

3.  Support for Updating

   [draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-04] generally reminds us that
   cryptographic algorithms and parameters will be broken or weakened
   over time.  Blindly implementing the cryptographic algorithms listed
   in any specification is not advised.  Implementers and users need to
   check that the cryptographic algorithms specified continue to provide
   the expected level of security.

   As the Syslog Working Group determined, Syslog clients and servers
   MUST use certificates as defined in [RFC5280].  Since both [RFC5425]
   and [RFC6012] REQUIRED the use of TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA, it is
   very likely that RSA certificates have been implemented in devices
   adhering to those specifications.  [BCP195] notes that ECDHE cipher
   suites exist for both RSA and ECDSA certificates, so moving to an
   ECDHE cipher suite will not require replacing or moving away from any
   currently installed RSA-based certificates.

   [draft-ietf-tls-deprecate-obsolete-kex-02] documents that the cipher
   suite TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA has been found to be weak.  As
   such, the community is moving away from that and other weak suites
   and towards more robust suites such as
   TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256, which is also listed as a
   currently Recommended algorithm in [draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-04].

   Along those lines, [BCP195] [RFC9325] notes that
   TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA does not provide forward secrecy, a
   feature that is highly desirable in securing event messages.  That
   document also goes on to recommend
   TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 as a cipher suite that does
   provide forward secrecy.

Lonvick, et al.           Expires 24 March 2024                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft       Cipher Suites in Secure Syslog       September 2023

   Therefore, the mandatory to implement cipher suites listed in
   [RFC5425] and [RFC6012] must be updated so that implementations of
   secure syslog are still considered to provide an acceptable and
   expected level of security.

   Additionally, [BCP195] [RFC8996] deprecates the use of DTLS 1.0
   [RFC4347], which is the mandatory to implement transport protocol for
   [RFC6012].  Therefore, the transport protocol for [RFC6012] must be
   updated.

   Finally, [BCP195] [RFC9325] provides guidance on the support of
   [[RFC8446] and [RFC9147].

4.  Updates to RFC 5425

   Implementations of [RFC5425] SHOULD NOT offer
   TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA.  The mandatory to implement cipher
   suite is REQUIRED to be TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256.

   Implementations of [RFC5425] MUST continue to use TLS 1.2 [RFC5246]
   as the mandatory to implement transport protocol.

   As per [BCP195], implementations of [RFC5425] SHOULD support TLS 1.3
   [RFC8446] and, if implemented, MUST prefer to negotiate TLS 1.3 over
   earlier versions of TLS.

5.  Updates to RFC 6012

   Implementations of [RFC6012] SHOULD NOT offer
   TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA.  The mandatory to implement cipher
   suite is REQUIRED to be TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256.

   As specified in [BCP195], implementations of [RFC6012] must not use
   DTLS 1.0 [RFC4347].  Implementations MUST use DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347].

   DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347] implementations are REQUIRED to support the
   mandatory to implement cipher suite, which is
   TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256.

   As per [BCP195], implementations of [RFC6012] SHOULD support DTLS 1.3
   [RFC9147] and, if implemented, MUST prefer to negotiate DTLS version
   1.3 over earlier versions of DTLS.

Lonvick, et al.           Expires 24 March 2024                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft       Cipher Suites in Secure Syslog       September 2023

6.  Early Data

   Early data (aka 0-RTT data) is a mechanism defined in TLS 1.3
   [RFC8446] that allows a client to send data ("early data") as part of
   the first flight of messages to a server.  Early data is permitted by
   TLS 1.3 when the client and server share a PSK, either obtained
   externally or via a previous handshake.  The client uses the PSK to
   authenticate the server and to encrypt the early data.

   As noted in Section 2.3 of [draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis-09], the
   security properties for early data are weaker than those for
   subsequent TLS-protected data.  In particular, early data is not
   forward secret, and there are no protections against the replay of
   early data between connections.  Appendix E.5 of
   [draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis-09] requires applications not use early
   data without a profile that defines its use.  Because syslog does not
   support replay protection, see Section 8.4 of [RFC5424]", and most
   implementations establish a long-lived connection, this document
   specifies that implementations MUST NOT use early data.

7.  Authors Notes

   This section will be removed prior to publication.

   This is version -05 for the UTA Working Group.  These edits reflect
   comments from the WGLC discussions.

   This version changed the MUST NOTs to SHOULD NOTs in Sections 4 and
   5.  This better conforms with BCP 195 and does not break
   interoperability from clients that may not yet have been upgraded to
   current MTI cipher suites.

   The Security Considerations section has been updated to reflect this.

8.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Arijit Kumar Bose, Steffen Fries and
   the members of IEC TC57 WG15 for their review, comments, and
   suggestions.  The authors would also like to thank Tom Petch, Juergen
   Schoenwaelder, Hannes Tschofenig, and Viktor Dukhovni for their
   comments and constructive feedback.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no requests to IANA.

Lonvick, et al.           Expires 24 March 2024                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft       Cipher Suites in Secure Syslog       September 2023

10.  Security Considerations

   [BCP195] deprecates an insecure DTLS transport protocol from
   [RFC6012] and deprecates insecure cipher suits from [RFC5425] and
   [RFC6012].  This document updates the mandatory to implement cipher
   suites to conform with those RFCs and the latest version of the DTLS
   protocol [RFC6012].

   The insecure cipher suites SHOULD NOT be offered.  If a device
   currently only has an insecure cipher suite, an administrator of the
   network should evaluate the conditions and determine if the insecure
   cipher suite should be allowed so that syslog messages may continue
   to be delivered until the device is updated to have a secure cipher
   suite.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [BCP14]    Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

              Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, May 2017.

              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp14>

   [BCP195]   Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
              "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
              Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
              (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, May 2015.

              Moriarty, K. and S. Farrell, "Deprecating TLS 1.0 and TLS
              1.1", BCP 195, RFC 8996, March 2021.

              Sheffer, Y., Saint-Andre, P., and T. Fossati,
              "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
              Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
              (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 9325, November 2022.

              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp195>

   [RFC4347]  Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security", RFC 4347, DOI 10.17487/RFC4347, April 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4347>.

Lonvick, et al.           Expires 24 March 2024                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft       Cipher Suites in Secure Syslog       September 2023

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.

   [RFC5280]  Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
              Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
              Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
              (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.

   [RFC5424]  Gerhards, R., "The Syslog Protocol", RFC 5424, March 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5424.txt>.

   [RFC5425]  Miao, F., Ed., Ma, Y., Ed., and J. Salowey, Ed.,
              "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Mapping for
              Syslog", RFC 5425, DOI 10.17487/RFC5425, March 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5425>.

   [RFC6012]  Salowey, J., Petch, T., Gerhards, R., and H. Feng,
              "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Transport
              Mapping for Syslog", RFC 6012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6012,
              October 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6012>.

   [RFC6347]  Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
              January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.

   [RFC9147]  Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The
              Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version
              1.3", RFC 9147, DOI 10.17487/RFC9147, April 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9147>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [draft-ietf-tls-deprecate-obsolete-kex-02]
              Bartle, C. and N. Aviram, "Deprecating Obsolete Key
              Exchange Methods in TLS", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-ietf-tls-deprecate-obsolete-kex-02, 11 July
              2023, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-tls-
              deprecate-obsolete-kex-02.txt>.

Lonvick, et al.           Expires 24 March 2024                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft       Cipher Suites in Secure Syslog       September 2023

   [draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis-09]
              Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-tls-rfc8446bis-09, 7 July 2023,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-tls-
              rfc8446bis-09.txt>.

   [draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-04]
              Salowey, J. A. and S. Turner, "IANA Registry Updates for
              TLS and DTLS", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-04, 28 March 2023,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-
              rfc8447bis-04>.

Authors' Addresses

   Chris Lonvick
   Email: lonvick.ietf@gmail.com

   Sean Turner
   sn3rd
   Email: sean@sn3rd.com

   Joe Salowey
   Venafi
   Email: joe@salowey.net

Lonvick, et al.           Expires 24 March 2024                 [Page 8]