NETWORK WORKING GROUP J. Altman
Internet-Draft Secure Endpoints
Expires: May 11, 2008 N. Williams
Sun
November 8, 2007
Unique Channel Bindings for TLS
draft-altman-tls-channel-bindings-03.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 11, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Altman & Williams Expires May 11, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft TLS Channel Bindings November 2007
Abstract
This document defines a form of channel bindings for TLS (Transport
Layer Security), namely the concatenation of the initial client and
server "finished" messages for a TLS connection.
Table of Contents
1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Naming TLS Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Recommended Application Programming Interfaces . . . . . . . . 5
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 10
Altman & Williams Expires May 11, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft TLS Channel Bindings November 2007
1. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Altman & Williams Expires May 11, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft TLS Channel Bindings November 2007
2. Naming TLS Connections
Whenever a "name" is needed for a TLS connection such that the "name"
is cryptographically bound to the said TLS [RFC4346]connection (its
pre-master secret, negotiation, messages, etc...) such a name may be
constructed as described below; we term this a "channel binding."
The channel bindings for TLS connections consist of one, the other or
both of the initial client or server "finished" TLS messages section
7.4.9 [RFC4346] (note: the unencrypted messages). The initial TLS
finished messages are the first pair of TLS finished messages
exchanged after TLS channel establishment. It is irrelevant whether
the TLS channel was established with a previous SessionID section
7.4.1.2 [RFC4346] or not.
Application protocols MUST specify which of the two initial finished
messages, or combination of both of them, to use.
The process by which applications perform "channel binding," that is,
the process by which applications establish that the channel bindings
for a given TLS connection are observed to be the same at both
application ends of the TLS connection is not described here.
Altman & Williams Expires May 11, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft TLS Channel Bindings November 2007
3. Recommended Application Programming Interfaces
TLS implementations supporting the use of initial TLS finished
messages as channel bindings should provide application programming
interfaces to enable higher level protocol implementations to obtain
the initial TLS finished messages for both the client and server
endpoints.
Altman & Williams Expires May 11, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft TLS Channel Bindings November 2007
4. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations for this document.
Altman & Williams Expires May 11, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft TLS Channel Bindings November 2007
5. Security Considerations
The TLS finished messages section7.4.9 [RFC4346] are known to both
TLS endpoints and can therefore be safely used as a channel binding
provided that the higher level protocol binding to the TLS channel
provides integrity protection for the TLS finished messages and only
communicates the TLS finished messages across the TLS channel that it
is binding to.
If there is an active man-in-the-middle attack, the attacker will
already possess knowledge of the TLS finished messages for both
inbound and outbound TLS channels. Therefore, there is no additional
information obtained by the attacker via the use of the TLS finished
messages as a channel binding
The Security Considerations section of
[I-D.williams-on-channel-bindings] applies to this document.
Altman & Williams Expires May 11, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft TLS Channel Bindings November 2007
6. Normative References
[I-D.williams-on-channel-bindings]
Williams, N., "On Channel Binding",
draft-williams-on-channel-bindings-00 (work in progress),
July 2006.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4346] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006.
Altman & Williams Expires May 11, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft TLS Channel Bindings November 2007
Authors' Addresses
Jeff Altman
Secure Endpoints
255 W 94TH ST PHB
New York, NY 10025
US
Email: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com
Nicolas Williams
Sun Microsystems
5300 Riata Trace Ct
Austin, TX 78727
US
Email: Nicolas.Williams@sun.com
Altman & Williams Expires May 11, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft TLS Channel Bindings November 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Altman & Williams Expires May 11, 2008 [Page 10]
