UAS Operator Privacy for RemoteID Messages
draft-moskowitz-drip-operator-privacy-06
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 | Robert Moskowitz , Stuart W. Card , Adam Wiethuechter | ||
| Last updated | 2020-10-23 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-moskowitz-drip-operator-privacy-06
DRIP R. Moskowitz
Internet-Draft HTT Consulting
Intended status: Standards Track S. Card
Expires: April 26, 2021 A. Wiethuechter
AX Enterprize
October 23, 2020
UAS Operator Privacy for RemoteID Messages
draft-moskowitz-drip-operator-privacy-06
Abstract
This document describes a method of providing privacy for UAS
Operator/Pilot information specified in the ASTM UAS Remote ID and
Tracking messages. This is achieved by encrypting, in place, those
fields containing Operator sensitive data using a hybrid ECIES.
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 April 26, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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.
Moskowitz, et al. Expires April 26, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Operator Privacy October 2020
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirements Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The Operator - USS Security Relationship . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. ECIES Shared Secret Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. System Message Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Rules for encrypting System Message content . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Rules for decrypting System Message content . . . . . . . 6
5. Operator ID Message Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Rules for encrypting Operator ID Message content . . . . 6
5.2. Rules for decrypting Operator ID Message content . . . . 7
6. Cipher choices for Operator PII encryption . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Using AES-CFB32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Using a Feistel scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.3. Using AES-CTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. DRIP Requirements addressed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. ASTM Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. CFB32 Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Crypto Agility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.3. Key Derivation vulnerabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.4. KMAC Security as a KDF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Feistel Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
This document defines a mechanism to provide privacy in the ASTM
Remote ID and Tracking messages [F3411-19] by encrypting, in place,
those fields that contain sensitive UAS Operator/Pilot information.
Encrypting in place means that the ciphertext is exactly the same
length as the cleartext, and directly replaces it.
An example of and an initial application of this mechanism is the 8
bytes of UAS Operator/Pilot (hereafter called simply Operator)
longitude and latitude location in the ASTM System Message (Msg Type
0x4). This meets the Drip Requirements [drip-requirements], Priv-01.
It is assumed that the Operator, via the UAS, registers an operation
with its USS. During this operation registration, the UAS and USS
exchange public keys to use in the hybrid ECIES. The USS key may be
Moskowitz, et al. Expires April 26, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Operator Privacy October 2020
long lived, but the UAS key SHOULD be unique to a specific operation.
This provides protection if the ECIES secret is exposed from prior
operations.
The actual Tracking message field encryption MUST be an "encrypt in
place" cipher. There is rarely any room in the tracking messages for
a cipher IV or encryption MAC (AEAD tag). There is rarely any data
in the messages that can be used as an IV. The AES-CFB32 mode of
operation proposed here can encrypt a multiple of 4 bytes.
The System Message is not a simple, one-time, encrypt the PII with
the ECIES derived key. The Operator may move during a operation and
these fields change, correspondingly. Further, not all messages will
be received by the USS, so each message's encryption must stand on
its own and not be at risk of attack by the content of other
messages.
Another candidate message is the optional ASTM Operator ID Message
(Msg Type 0x5) with its 20 character Operator ID field. The Operator
ID does not change during an operation, so this is a one-time
encryption operation for the operation. The same cipher SHOULD be
used for all messages from the UAS and this will influence the cipher
selection.
Future applications of this mechanism may be provided. The content
of the System Message may change to meet CAA requirements, requiring
encrypting a different amount of data. At that time, they will be
added to this document.
2. Terms and Definitions
2.1. Requirements 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.
2.2. Definitions
See Drip Requirements [drip-requirements] for common DRIP terms.
ECIES
Elliptic Curve Integrated Encryption Scheme. A hybrid encryption
scheme which provides semantic security against an adversary who
is allowed to use chosen-plaintext and chosen-ciphertext attacks.
Moskowitz, et al. Expires April 26, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Operator Privacy October 2020
Keccak (KECCAK Message Authentication Code):
The family of all sponge functions with a KECCAK-f permutation as
the underlying function and multi-rate padding as the padding
rule.
KMAC (KECCAK Message Authentication Code):
A PRF and keyed hash function based on KECCAK.
3. The Operator - USS Security Relationship
All CAAs have rules defining which UAS must be registered to operate
in their National Airspace. This includes UAS and Operator
registration in a USS. Further, operator's are expected to report
flight operations to their USS. This operation reporting provides a
mechanism for the USS and operator to establish an operation security
context. Here it will be used to exchange public keys for use in
ECIES.
The operator's ECIES public key SHOULD be unique for each operation.
The USS ECIES public key may be unique for each operator and
operation, but not required. For best post-compromise security
(PCS), the USS ECIES public key should be changed over some
operational window.
The public key algorithm should be Curve25519 [RFC7748].
Correspondingly, the ECIES 128 bit shared secret should be generated
using KMAC.
3.1. ECIES Shared Secret Generation
The KMAC function provides a new, more efficient, key derivation
function over HKDF [RFC5869]. This will be referred to as KKDF.
HKDF needs a minimum of 4 hash functions (e.g. SHA256). KKDF does
an equivalent shared secret generation in a single Keccak Sponge
operation.
When the USS - UAS Operation Security Context is established, the UAS
provides a 20 Character USS ID and a 256 bit random nonce to the USS.
These are inputs, along with the ECDH keys to produce the shared
secret as follows.
Per [NIST.SP.800-56Cr1], Section 4.1, Option 3:
Shared Secret = KMAC128(salt, IKM, L, S)
L is the derived key bit length. Since only a single key is needed,
L=128.
Moskowitz, et al. Expires April 26, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Operator Privacy October 2020
S is the byte string 01001011 || 01000100 || 01000110, which
represents the sequence of characters "K", "D", and "F" in 8-bit
ASCII.
salt = Nonce-USS | Nonce-UAS
There are special security considerations for IKM per [RFC7748]. The
IKM as follows:
IKM = Diffie-Hellman secret | USS-ID | RID
4. System Message Privacy
The System Message contains 8 bytes of Operator specific information:
Longitude and Latitude of the Remote Operator (Pilot in the field
description) of the UA. The GCS MAY encrypt these as follows.
The 8 bytes of Operator information are encrypted, using the ECIES
derived 128 bit shared secret, with one of the cipher's specified
below. The choice of cipher is based on USS policy and is agreed to
as part of the operation registration. AES-CFB32 is the recommended
default cipher.
ASTM Remote ID and Tracking messages [F3411-19] SHOULD be updated to
allow Bit 2 of the Flags byte in the System Message set to "1" to
indicate the Operator information is encrypted.
The USS similarly decrypts these 8 bytes and provides the information
to authorized entities.
4.1. Rules for encrypting System Message content
If the Operator location is encrypted the encrypted bit flag MUST be
set to 1.
The Operator MAY be notified by the USS that the operation has
entered a location or time where privacy of Operator location is not
allowed. In this case the Operator MUST disable this privacy feature
and send the location unencrypted or land the UA or route around the
restricted area.
If the UAS looses connectivity to the USS, the privacy feature SHOULD
be disabled or land the UA.
If the operation is in an area or time with no Internet Connectivity,
the privacy feature MUST NOT be used.
Moskowitz, et al. Expires April 26, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Operator Privacy October 2020
4.2. Rules for decrypting System Message content
An Observer receives a System Message with the encrypt bit set to 1.
The Observer sends a query to its USS Display Provider containing the
UA's ID and the encrypted fields.
The USS Display Provider MAY deny the request if the Observer does
not have the proper authorization.
The USS Display Provider MAY reply to the request with the decrypted
fields if the Observer has the proper authorization.
The USS Display Provider MAY reply to the request with the decrypting
key if the Observer has the proper authorization.
The Observer MAY notify the USS through its USS Display Provider that
content privacy for a UAS in this location/time is not allowed. If
the Observer has the proper authorization for this action, the USS
notifies the Operator to disable this privacy feature.
5. Operator ID Message Privacy
The Operator ID Message contains 20 bytes for Operator the ID. The
GCS MAY encrypt these as follows.
The 20 bytes Operator ID is encrypted, using the ECIES derived 128
bit shared secret, with one of the cipher's specified below. The
choice of cipher is based on USS policy and is agreed to as part of
the operation registration. AES-CFB32 is the recommended default
cipher.
ASTM Remote ID and Tracking messages [F3411-19] SHOULD be updated to
allow Operator ID Type in the Operator ID Message set to "1" to
indicate the Operator ID is encrypted.
The USS similarly decrypts these 20 bytes and provides the
information to authorized entities.
5.1. Rules for encrypting Operator ID Message content
If the Operator ID is encrypted the Operator ID Type field MUST be
set to 1.
The Operator MAY be notified by the USS that the operation has
entered a location or time where privacy of Operator ID is not
allowed. In this case the Operator MUST disable this privacy feature
and send the ID unencrypted or land the UA or route around the
restricted area.
Moskowitz, et al. Expires April 26, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Operator Privacy October 2020
If the UAS looses connectivity to the USS, the privacy feature SHOULD
be disabled or land the UA.
If the operation is in an area or time with no Internet Connectivity,
the privacy feature MUST NOT be used.
5.2. Rules for decrypting Operator ID Message content
An Observer receives a Operator ID Message with the Operator ID Type
field set to 1. The Observer sends a query to its USS Display
Provider containing the UA's ID and the encrypted fields.
The USS Display Provider MAY deny the request if the Observer does
not have the proper authorization.
The USS Display Provider MAY reply to the request with the decrypted
fields if the Observer has the proper authorization.
The USS Display Provider MAY reply to the request with the decrypting
key if the Observer has the proper authorization.
The Observer MAY notify the USS through its USS Display Provider that
content privacy for a UAS in this location/time is not allowed. If
the Observer has the proper authorization for this action, the USS
notifies the Operator to disable this privacy feature.
6. Cipher choices for Operator PII encryption
6.1. Using AES-CFB32
CFB32 is defined in [NIST.SP.800-38A], Section 6.3. This is the
Cipher Feedback (CFB) mode operating on 32 bits at a time. This
variant of CFB can be used to encrypt any multiple of 4 bytes of
cleartext.
The Operator includes a 64 bit UNIX timestamp for the operation time,
along with its operation pubic key. The Operator also includes the
UA MAC address (or multiple addresses if flying multiple UA).
The 128 bit IV for AES-CFB32 is constructed by the Operator and USS
as: SHAKE128(MAC|UTCTime|Message_Type, 128). Inclusion of the ASTM
Message_Type ensures a unique IV for each Message type that contains
PII to encrypt.
AES-CFB32 would then be used to encrypt the Operator information.
Moskowitz, et al. Expires April 26, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Operator Privacy October 2020
6.2. Using a Feistel scheme
If the encryption speed doesn't matter, we can use the following
approach based on the Feistel scheme. This approach is already being
used in format-preserving encryption (e.g. credit card numbers). The
Feistal scheme is explained in Appendix A.
6.3. Using AES-CTR
If 2 bytes of the Message can be set aside to contain a counter that
is incremented each time the Operator information changes, AES-CTR
can be used as follows.
The Operator includes a 64 bit UNIX timestamp for the operation time,
along with its operation pubic key. The Operator also includes the
UA MAC address (or multiple addresses if flying multiple UA).
The high order bits of an AES-CTR counter is constructed by the
Operator and USS as: SHAKE128(MAC|UTCTime|Message_Type, 112).
Inclusion of the ASTM Message_Type ensures a unique IV for each
Message type that contains PII to encrypt.
AES-CTR would then be used to encrypt the Operator information.
7. DRIP Requirements addressed
This document provides solution to PRIV-1 for PII in the ASTM System
Message.
8. ASTM Considerations
ASTM will need to make the following changes to the "Flags" in the
System Message (Msg Type 0x4):
Bit 2:
Value 1 for encrypted; 0 for cleartext (see Section 4).
ASTM will need to make the following changes to the "Operator ID
Type" in the Operator ID Message (Msg Type 0x5):
Operator ID Type
Value 1 for encrypted Operator ID (see Section 5).
9. IANA Considerations
TBD
Moskowitz, et al. Expires April 26, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Operator Privacy October 2020
10. Security Considerations
An attacker has no known text after decrypting to determine a
successful attack. An attacker can make assumptions about the high
order byte values for Operator Longitude and Latitude that may
substitute for known cleartext. There is no knowledge of where the
operator is in relation to the UA. Only if changing location values
"make sense" might an attacker assume to have revealed the operator's
location.
10.1. CFB32 Risks
Using the same IV for different Operator information values with
CFB32 presents a cyptoanalysis risk. Typically only the low order
bits would change as the Operators position changes. The risk is
mitigated due to the short-term value of the data. Further analysis
is need to properly place risk.
10.2. Crypto Agility
The ASTM Remote ID Messages do not provide any space for a crypto
suite indicator or any other method to manage crypto agility.
All crypto agility is left to the USS policy and the relation between
the USS and operator/UAS. The selection of the ECIES public key
algorithm, the shared secret key derivation function, and the actual
symmetric cipher used for on the System Message are set by the USS
which informs the operator what to do.
10.3. Key Derivation vulnerabilities
[RFC7748] warns about using Curve25519 and Curve448 in Diffie-Hellman
for key derivation:
Designers using these curves should be aware that for each public
key, there are several publicly computable public keys that are
equivalent to it, i.e., they produce the same shared secrets. Thus
using a public key as an identifier and knowledge of a shared secret
as proof of ownership (without including the public keys in the key
derivation) might lead to subtle vulnerabilities.
This applies here, but may have broader consequences. Thus two
endpoint IDs are included with the Diffie-Hellman secret.
10.4. KMAC Security as a KDF
Section 4.1 of NIST SP 800-185 [NIST.SP.800-185] states:
Moskowitz, et al. Expires April 26, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Operator Privacy October 2020
"The KECCAK Message Authentication Code (KMAC) algorithm is a PRF and
keyed hash function based on KECCAK . It provides variable-length
output"
That is, the output of KMAC is indistinguishable from a random
string, regardless of the length of the output. As such, the output
of KMAC can be divided into multiple substrings, each with the
strength of the function (KMAC128 or KMAC256) and provided that a
long enough key is used, as discussed in Sec. 8.4.1 of SP 800-185.
For example KMAC128(K, X, 512, S), where K is at least 128 bits, can
produce 4 128 bit keys each with a strength of 128 bits. That is a
single sponge operation is replacing perhaps 5 HMAC-SHA256 operations
(each 2 SHA256 operations) in HKDF.
11. Normative References
[NIST.SP.800-185]
Kelsey, J., Change, S., and R. Perlner, "SHA-3 derived
functions: cSHAKE, KMAC, TupleHash and ParallelHash",
National Institute of Standards and Technology report,
DOI 10.6028/nist.sp.800-185, December 2016,
<https://doi.org/10.6028/nist.sp.800-185>.
[NIST.SP.800-38A]
Dworkin, M., "Recommendation for block cipher modes of
operation :", National Institute of Standards and
Technology report, DOI 10.6028/nist.sp.800-38a, 2001,
<https://doi.org/10.6028/nist.sp.800-38a>.
[NIST.SP.800-56Cr1]
Barker, E., Chen, L., and R. Davis, "Recommendation for
key-derivation methods in key-establishment schemes",
National Institute of Standards and Technology report,
DOI 10.6028/nist.sp.800-56cr1, April 2018,
<https://doi.org/10.6028/nist.sp.800-56cr1>.
[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/info/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/info/rfc8174>.
12. Informative References
Moskowitz, et al. Expires April 26, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Operator Privacy October 2020
[drip-requirements]
Card, S., Wiethuechter, A., Moskowitz, R., and A. Gurtov,
"Drone Remote Identification Protocol (DRIP)
Requirements", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-drip-reqs-05, October 16, 2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-drip-reqs-05>.
[F3411-19] ASTM International, "Standard Specification for Remote ID
and Tracking", February 2020,
<http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/resolver.cgi?F3411>.
[RFC5869] Krawczyk, H. and P. Eronen, "HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand
Key Derivation Function (HKDF)", RFC 5869,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5869, May 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5869>.
[RFC7748] Langley, A., Hamburg, M., and S. Turner, "Elliptic Curves
for Security", RFC 7748, DOI 10.17487/RFC7748, January
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7748>.
Appendix A. Feistel Scheme
This approach is already being used in format-preserving encryption.
According to the theory, to provide CCA security guarantees (CCA =
Chosen Ciphertext Attacks) for m-bit encryption X |-> Y, we should
choose d >= 6. It seems very ineffective that when shortening the
block length, we have to use 6 times more block encryptions. On the
other hand, we preserve both the block cipher interface and security
guarantees in a simple way.
Moskowitz, et al. Expires April 26, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Operator Privacy October 2020
How to encrypt an m-bit plaintext X using an n-bit block cipher
E = {E_K} for n > m?
Enc(X, K):
1. Y <- X.
2. Split Y into 2 equal parts: Y = Y1 || Y2
(let us assume for simplicity that m is even).
3. For i = 1, 2, ..., d do:
Y <- Y2 || (Y1 ^ first_m/2_bits(E_K(Y2 || Ci)),
where Ci is a (n - m/2)-bit round constant.
4. Y <- Y2 || Y1.
5. Return Y.
Dec(Y, K):
1. X <- Y.
2. Split X into 2 equal parts: X = X1 || X2.
3. For i = d, ..., 2, 1 do:
X <- X2 || (X1 ^ first_m/2_bits(E_K(X2 || Ci)).
4. X <- X2 || X1.
5. Return X.
Acknowledgments
The recommended ciphers come from discussions on the IRTF CFRG
mailing list.
Authors' Addresses
Robert Moskowitz
HTT Consulting
Oak Park, MI 48237
United States of America
Email: rgm@labs.htt-consult.com
Stuart W. Card
AX Enterprize
4947 Commercial Drive
Yorkville, NY 13495
United States of America
Email: stu.card@axenterprize.com
Adam Wiethuechter
AX Enterprize
4947 Commercial Drive
Moskowitz, et al. Expires April 26, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Operator Privacy October 2020
Yorkville, NY 13495
United States of America
Email: adam.wiethuechter@axenterprize.com
Moskowitz, et al. Expires April 26, 2021 [Page 13]