Security Considerations Regarding Compression Dictionaries
draft-kucherawy-httpbis-dict-sec-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2018-11-05
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Individual submission                                       M. Kucherawy
Internet-Draft                                            Facebook, Inc.
Intended status: Informational                          November 5, 2018
Expires: May 9, 2019

       Security Considerations Regarding Compression Dictionaries
                  draft-kucherawy-httpbis-dict-sec-00

Abstract

   Data compression algorithms benefit from blocks of tuning data called
   "dictionaries".  These can greatly improve data compression speed
   and/or ratios, but their use and application has numerous potential
   security issues of concern to the communities using them.  This
   document enumerates security issues known about compression
   dictionaries at the time of publication so that future proposals for
   use of dictionaries can benefit from this collected material.

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 http://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 May 9, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   (http://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

Kucherawy                  Expires May 9, 2019                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft       Compression Dictionary Security       November 2018

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Dictionary Security Concerns  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   Appendix B.  Prior Art  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Kucherawy                  Expires May 9, 2019                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft       Compression Dictionary Security       November 2018

1.  Introduction

   Brotli [RFC7932] and Zstandard [RFC8478] are examples of two modern
   data compression algorithms.  While useful in their basic forms, they
   can be made far more effective with specific types of payloads when
   used with an object called a "dictionary".  A dictionary is a map
   that can be applied during compression or uncompression that provides
   an advantage when operating against specific types of content.  One
   might, for example, develop a dictionary that makes the compression
   algorithm more effective when applied to specific types of audio
   data.

   As dictionaries are being developed, some issues have come to light
   that indicate ways that use of dictionaries might introduce
   destructive side effects to the environment in which their use is
   applied.  This document is a collection of those topics, which can be
   consulted as work on dictionaries progresses; later, as RFCs are
   published advancing dictionaries, the content of this document could
   be used as a checklist to ensure that either the algorithms or their
   specification documents have been appropriately evaluated against
   these concerns.

2.  Definitions

   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.  Dictionary Security Concerns

   These subsections each describe an issue that has been raised with
   respect to use of dictionaries as input to compression and
Show full document text