Delay-Tolerant Networking                                       B. Sipos
Internet-Draft                                           RKF Engineering
Intended status: Standards Track                             3 June 2021
Expires: 5 December 2021


           DTN Bundle Protocol Security COSE Security Context
                     draft-bsipos-dtn-bpsec-cose-06

Abstract

   This document defines a security context suitable for using CBOR
   Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) algorithms within Bundle
   Protocol Security (BPSec) integrity and confidentiality blocks.  A
   profile of COSE and for PKIX certificates are also defined for BPSec
   interoperation.

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 5 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.




Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  PKIX Environments and CA Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.3.  Use of CDDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.4.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  BPSec Security Context  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Security Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.2.1.  Raw Public Key Containers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.2.2.  Additional Header Maps  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.2.3.  AAD Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.3.  Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.3.1.  Integrity Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.3.2.  Confidentiality Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     2.4.  Key Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     2.5.  Canonicalization Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       2.5.1.  Generating AAD  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       2.5.2.  Payload Data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     2.6.  Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       2.6.1.  Node Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       2.6.2.  Policy Recommendations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   3.  COSE Profile for BPSec  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     3.1.  COSE Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     3.2.  Interoperability Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     3.3.  Asymmetric Key Types and Identifiers  . . . . . . . . . .  18
       3.3.1.  Policy Recommendations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   4.  PKIX Certificate Profile  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     4.1.  Multiple-Certificate Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   5.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     6.1.  Threat: BPSec Block Replay  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     6.2.  Threat: Untrusted End-Entity Certificate  . . . . . . . .  23
     6.3.  Threat: Certificate Validation Vulnerabilities  . . . . .  23
     6.4.  Threat: BP Node Impersonation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     6.5.  Threat: Unidentifiable Key  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     6.6.  Threat: Non-Trusted Public Key  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     6.7.  Threat: Passive Leak of Key Material  . . . . . . . . . .  24
     6.8.  Threat: Algorithm Vulnerabilities . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     7.1.  BPSec Security Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   8.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   Appendix A.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     A.1.  Symmetric Key COSE_Mac0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30



Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


     A.2.  EC Keypair COSE_Sign1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     A.3.  RSA Keypair COSE_Sign1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     A.4.  Symmetric KEK COSE_Encrypt  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     A.5.  EC Keypair COSE_Encrypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
     A.6.  RSA Keypair COSE_Encrypt  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45

1.  Introduction

   The Bundle Protocol Security (BPSec) Specification
   [I-D.ietf-dtn-bpsec] defines structure and encoding for Block
   Integrity Block (BIB) and Block Confidentiality Block (BCB) types but
   does not specify any security contexts to be used by either of the
   security block types.  The CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)
   specification [RFC8152] defines a structure, encoding, and algorithms
   to use for cryptographic signing and encryption.

   This document describes how to use the algorithms and encodings of
   COSE within BPSec blocks to apply those algorithms to Bundle security
   in Section 2.  A bare minimum of interoperability algorithms and
   algorithm parameters is specified by this document in Section 3.  The
   focus of the recommended algorithms is to allow BPSec to be used in a
   Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) as described in Section 1.2.

   Examples of specific uses are provided in Appendix A to aid in
   implementation support of the interoperability algorithms.

1.1.  Scope

   This document describes a profile of COSE which is tailored for use
   in BPSec and a method of including full COSE messages within BPSec
   security blocks.  This document does not address:

   *  Policies or mechanisms for issuing Public Key Infrastructure Using
      X.509 (PKIX) certificates; provisioning, deploying, or accessing
      certificates and private keys; deploying or accessing certificate
      revocation lists (CRLs); or configuring security parameters on an
      individual entity or across a network.

   *  Uses of COSE beyond the profile defined in this document.

   *  How those COSE algorithms are intended to be used within a larger
      security context.  Many header parameters used by COSE (e.g., key
      identifiers) depend on the network environment and security policy
      related to that environment.






Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


1.2.  PKIX Environments and CA Policy

   This specification gives requirements about how to use PKIX
   certificates issued by a Certificate Authority (CA), but does not
   define any mechanisms for how those certificates come to be.

   To support the PKIX uses defined in this document, the CA(s) issuing
   certificates for BP nodes are aware of the end use of the
   certificate, have a mechanism for verifying ownership of a Node ID,
   and are issuing certificates directly for that Node ID.  BPSec
   security acceptors authenticate the Node ID of security sources when
   verifying integrity (see Section 2.6.1) using a public key provided
   by a PKIX certificate (see Section 2.6.1) following the certificate
   profile of Section 4.

1.3.  Use of CDDL

   This document defines CBOR structure using the Concise Data
   Definition Language (CDDL) of [RFC8610].  The entire CDDL structure
   can be extracted from the XML version of this document using the
   XPath expression:

   '//sourcecode[@type="cddl"]'

   The following initial fragment defines the top-level symbols of this
   document's CDDL, including the ASB data structure with its parameter/
   result sockets.

   start = bpsec-cose-asb / AAD-structure /
     primary-block / extension-block /
     MAC_structure / Sig_structure / Enc_structure / COSE_KeySet

1.4.  Requirements Language

   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.  BPSec Security Context

   This document specifies a single security context for use in both
   BPSec integrity and confidentiality blocks.  This is done to save
   code points allocated to this specification and to simplify the
   encoding of COSE-in-BPSec; the BPSec block type uniquely defines the
   acceptable parameters and COSE messages which can be present.




Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   The COSE security context SHALL have the Security Context ID
   specified in Section 7.1.

   Both types of security block can use the same parameters, defined in
   Section 2.2, to carry public key-related information and each type of
   security block allows specific COSE message results, defined in
   Section 2.3.

   ; Specialize the ASB for this context
   bpsec-cose-asb = bpsec-context-use<
     0, ; Context ID TBD-COSE
     $bpsec-cose-param,
     $bpsec-cose-result
   >
   $ext-data-asb /= bpsec-cose-asb

                  Figure 1: COSE context declaration CDDL

2.1.  Security Scope

   The scope here refers to the set of information used by the security
   context to cryptographically bind with the plaintext data being
   integrity-protected or confidentiality-protected.  This information
   is generically referred to as additional authenticated data (AAD),
   which is also the term used by COSE to describe the same data.

   The sources for AAD within the COSE context are described below,
   controlled by the AAD Scope Flags parameter of Section 2.2.3, and
   implemented as defined in Section 2.5.1.

   Bundle Primary Block  The primary block identifies a bundle and, once
      created, the contents of this block are immutable.  Changes to the
      primary block associated with the security target indicate that
      the target is no longer in its original bundle.  Including this
      data as part of AAD ensures that security target appears in the
      same bundle that the security source intended.

   Target Block Metadata  When the target block is a canonical block
      (i.e., not the primary block) it contains its block-type-specific
      data, which is the subject of the security operation, but also
      metadata identifying the block.  This metadata explicitly excludes
      the CRC type and value fields because the CRC is derived from the
      block-type-specific data.  Including this data as part of AAD
      ensures that the target data appears in the same block that the
      security source intended.

   Security Block Metadata  The BPSec block containing the security




Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


      result for which the AAD is assembled also has metadata
      identifying the block.  Including this data as part of AAD ensures
      that the security result appears in the same block that the
      security source intended.

2.2.  Parameters

   Each COSE context parameter value SHALL consist of the COSE structure
   indicated by Table 1 in its decoded (CBOR item) form.  Each security
   block MAY contain any number of each parameter type.  When a
   parameter is not present, the security acceptor SHALL use the Default
   Value of Table 1.

   +===========+========================+==================+===========+
   | Parameter | Parameter Structure    | Reference        | Default   |
   | ID        |                        |                  | Value     |
   +===========+========================+==================+===========+
   | 1         | COSE_Key               | [RFC8152]        | none      |
   +-----------+------------------------+------------------+-----------+
   | 2         | COSE_KeySet            | [RFC8152]        | none      |
   +-----------+------------------------+------------------+-----------+
   | 3         | additional-protected   | Section 2.2.2    | "''"      |
   |           |                        | of this          | (empty    |
   |           |                        | document         | bstr)     |
   +-----------+------------------------+------------------+-----------+
   | 4         | additional-unprotected | Section 2.2.2    | "{}"      |
   |           |                        | of this          | (empty    |
   |           |                        | document         | map)      |
   +-----------+------------------------+------------------+-----------+
   | 5         | AAD_Scope              | Section 2.2.3    | "0x7"     |
   |           |                        | of this          | (all AAD  |
   |           |                        | document         | contexts) |
   +-----------+------------------------+------------------+-----------+

                     Table 1: COSE Security Parameters

2.2.1.  Raw Public Key Containers

   Implementations capable of handling asymmetric-keyed algorithms
   SHOULD support raw public key handling in COSE_Key and COSE_KeySet
   parameters.

   No more than one total COSE_Key or COSE_KeySet parameter SHALL be
   present in a single security block.  Security acceptors are sill
   required to aggregate multiple parameters, if present, in
   Section 3.3.





Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   Key container parameters SHALL NOT contain any private key material.
   The security parameters are all stored in the bundle as plaintext and
   are visible to any bundle handlers.

   $bpsec-cose-param /= [1, COSE_Key]
   $bpsec-cose-param /= [2, COSE_KeySet]

                       Figure 2: Key Containers CDDL

2.2.2.  Additional Header Maps

   The two parameters Additional Protected and Additional Unprotected
   allow de-duplicating header items which are common to all COSE
   results.  Both additional header values contain a CBOR map which is
   to be merged with each of the result's unprotected headers.  Although
   the additional header items are all treated as unprotected from the
   perspective of the COSE message, the additional protected map is
   included within the "external_aad" (see Section 2.5.1).  The expected
   use of additional header map is to contain a certificate (chain) or
   identifier (see Section 3.3) which applies to all results in the same
   security block.

   Following the same pattern as COSE, when both additional header maps
   are present in a single security block they SHALL not contain any
   duplicated labels.  Security acceptors SHALL treat a pair of
   additional header maps containing duplicated labels as invalid.

   No more than one of each Additional Protected and Additional
   Unprotected parameter SHALL be present in a single security block.
   Security acceptors SHALL treat a security block with multiple
   instances of either additional header type as invalid.  There is no
   well-defined behavior for a security acceptor to handle multiple
   Additional Protected parameters.

   Security sources SHOULD NOT include an additional header parameter
   which represents an empty map.  Security acceptors SHALL handle empty
   header map parameters, specifically the Additional Protected
   parameter because it is part of the external_aad.













Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   Security acceptors SHALL treat the aggregate of both additional
   header maps as being present in the "unprotected" header map of the
   highest-layers of the COSE message of each result.  For single-layer
   messages (i.e., COSE_Encrypt0, COSE_MAC0, and COSE_Sign1) the
   additional headers apply to the message itself (layer 1) and for
   other messages the additional headers apply to the final recipients.
   If the same header label is present in a additional header map and a
   COSE layer's headers the item in the result header SHALL take
   precedence (i.e., the additional header items are added only if they
   are not already present in a layer's header).

   Additional header maps SHALL NOT contain any private key material.
   The security parameters are all stored in the bundle as plaintext and
   are visible to any bundle handlers.

   $bpsec-cose-param /= [3, additional-protected]
   additional-protected = empty_or_serialized_map

   $bpsec-cose-param /= [4, additional-unprotected]
   additional-unprotected = header_map

                     Figure 3: Additional Headers CDDL

2.2.3.  AAD Scope

   The AAD Scope parameter controls what data is included in the AAD for
   both integrity and confidentiality operations.  The AAD Scope
   parameter SHALL be encoded as a uint value with bit flags defined in
   Table 2.  All reserved bits SHALL be set to zero (which will be
   elided by CBOR encoding) by security sources.  All reserved bits
   SHALL be ignored by security acceptors.  The default value for this
   parameter has all flags set, meaning the AAD includes all available
   context.

   A CDDL representation of this definition is included in Figure 4 for
   reference.















Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


       +==================+========+===============================+
       | Name             | Code   | Description                   |
       +==================+========+===============================+
       | has-primary-ctx  | 0x01   | If bit is set, indicates that |
       |                  |        | the primary block is included |
       |                  |        | in AAD scope.                 |
       +------------------+--------+-------------------------------+
       | has-target-ctx   | 0x02   | If bit is set, indicates that |
       |                  |        | the target block metadata is  |
       |                  |        | included in AAD scope.        |
       +------------------+--------+-------------------------------+
       | has-security-ctx | 0x04   | If bit is set, indicates that |
       |                  |        | the security block metadata   |
       |                  |        | is included in AAD scope.     |
       +------------------+--------+-------------------------------+
       | Reserved         | others |                               |
       +------------------+--------+-------------------------------+

                          Table 2: AAD Scope Flags

   $bpsec-cose-param /= [5, AAD-scope]
   AAD-scope = uint .bits AAD-scope-flags
   AAD-scope-flags = &(
       has-primary-ctx: 0,
       has-target-ctx: 1,
       has-security-ctx: 2,
   )

                          Figure 4: AAD Scope CDDL

2.3.  Results

   Although each COSE context result is a COSE message, the types of
   message allowed depend upon the security block type in which the
   result is present: only MAC or signature messages are allowed in a
   BIB and only encryption messages are allowed in a BCB.

   The code points for Result ID values are identical to the existing
   COSE message-marking tags in Section 2 of [RFC8152].  This avoids the
   need for value-mapping between code points of the two registries.

   When embedding COSE messages, the message CBOR structure SHALL be
   encoded as a byte string used as the result value.  This allows a
   security acceptor to skip over unwanted results without needing to
   decode the result structure.  When embedding COSE messages, the CBOR-
   tagged form SHALL NOT be used.  The Result ID values already provide
   the same information as the COSE tags (using the same code points).




Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   These generic requirements are formalized in the CDDL fragment of
   Figure 5.

   $bpsec-cose-result /= [16, bstr .cbor COSE_Encrypt0]
   $bpsec-cose-result /= [17, bstr .cbor COSE_Mac0]
   $bpsec-cose-result /= [18, bstr .cbor COSE_Sign1]
   $bpsec-cose-result /= [96, bstr .cbor COSE_Encrypt]
   $bpsec-cose-result /= [97, bstr .cbor COSE_Mac]
   $bpsec-cose-result /= [98, bstr .cbor COSE_Sign]

                    Figure 5: COSE context results CDDL

2.3.1.  Integrity Messages

   When used within a Block Integrity Block, the COSE context SHALL
   allow only the Result IDs from Table 3.  Each integrity result value
   SHALL consist of the COSE message indicated by Table 3 in its non-
   tagged encoded form.

              +===========+====================+===========+
              | Result ID | Result Structure   | Reference |
              +===========+====================+===========+
              | 97        | encoded COSE_Mac   | [RFC8152] |
              +-----------+--------------------+-----------+
              | 17        | encoded COSE_Mac0  | [RFC8152] |
              +-----------+--------------------+-----------+
              | 98        | encoded COSE_Sign  | [RFC8152] |
              +-----------+--------------------+-----------+
              | 18        | encoded COSE_Sign1 | [RFC8152] |
              +-----------+--------------------+-----------+

                     Table 3: COSE Integrity Results

   Each integrity result SHALL use the "detached" payload form with
   "null" payload value.  The integrity result for COSE_Mac and
   COSE_Mac0 messages are computed by the procedure in Section 6.3 of
   [RFC8152].  The integrity result for COSE_Sign and COSE_Sign1
   messages are computed by the procedure in Section 4.4 of [RFC8152].

   The COSE "protected attributes from the application" used for a
   signature or MAC result SHALL be the encoded data defined in
   Section 2.5.1.  The COSE payload used for a signature or MAC result
   SHALL be either the block-type-specific data of the target, if the
   target is not the primary block, or an empty byte string if the
   target is the primary block.






Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


2.3.2.  Confidentiality Messages

   When used within a Block Confidentiality Block, COSE context SHALL
   allow only the Result IDs from Table 4.  Each confidentiality result
   value SHALL consist of the COSE message indicated by Table 4 in its
   non-tagged encoded form.

             +===========+=======================+===========+
             | Result ID | Result Structure      | Reference |
             +===========+=======================+===========+
             | 96        | encoded COSE_Encrypt  | [RFC8152] |
             +-----------+-----------------------+-----------+
             | 16        | encoded COSE_Encrypt0 | [RFC8152] |
             +-----------+-----------------------+-----------+

                   Table 4: COSE Confidentiality Results

   Only algorithms which support Authenticated Encryption with
   Authenticated Data (AEAD) SHALL be usable in the first (content)
   layer of a confidentiality result.  Because COSE encryption with AEAD
   appends the authentication tag with the ciphertext, the size of the
   block-type-specific-data will grow after an encryption operation.
   Security acceptors MUST NOT assume that the size of the plaintext is
   the same as the size of the ciphertext.

   Each confidentiality result SHALL use the "detached" payload form
   with "null" payload value.  The confidentiality result for
   COSE_Encrypt and COSE_Encrypt0 messages are computed by the procedure
   in Section 5.3 of [RFC8152].

   The COSE "protected attributes from the application" used for an
   encryption result SHALL be the encoded data defined in Section 2.5.1.
   The COSE payload used for an encryption result SHALL be the block-
   type-specific data of the target.  Because confidentiality of the
   primary block is disallowed by BPSec, there is no logic here for
   handling a BCB with a target on the primary block.

2.4.  Key Considerations

   This specification does not impose any additional key requirements
   beyond those already specified for each COSE algorithm required in
   Section 3.









Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


2.5.  Canonicalization Algorithms

   Generating or processing COSE messages for the COSE context follows
   the profile defined in Section 3 with the "protected attributes from
   the application" (i.e., the "external_aad" item) generated as defined
   in Section 2.5.1.

2.5.1.  Generating AAD

   The AAD used for both integrity and confidentiality messages SHALL be
   the deterministically encoded form of a CBOR array containing the
   following:

   1.  The first item SHALL be either: the CBOR array (unencoded) form
       of the primary block of the bundle if the AAD Scope has the has-
       primary-ctx flag set, otherwise the null value.

   2.  The second item SHALL be either: a CBOR array containing the
       first three fields of the target block (i.e., the block type
       code, block number, and control flags) if the AAD Scope has the
       has-target-ctx flag set, otherwise the null value.

   3.  The third item SHALL be either: a CBOR array containing the first
       three fields of the security block containing the result (i.e.,
       the block type code, block number, and control flags) if the AAD
       Scope has the has-security-ctx flag set, otherwise the null
       value.

   4.  The fourth item SHALL be the Additional Protected header map,
       which is a bstr value and has a default value of the empty bstr.

   A CDDL representation of this data is shown below in Figure 6.



















Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   AAD-structure = [
       ; non-null if has-primary-ctx is set
       primary-ctx:  null / primary-block,
       ; non-null if has-target-ctx is set
       target-ctx:   null / block-metadata,
       ; non-null if has-security-ctx is set
       security-ctx: null / block-metadata,
       ; copy of additional-protected (or default)
       additional-protected
   ]
   ; The first three fields of BP "canonical-block-structure"
   block-metadata = [
       block-type-code: uint,
       block-number: uint,
       block-control-flags,
   ]

                      Figure 6: COSE context AAD CDDL

2.5.2.  Payload Data

   When correlating between BPSec target block-type-specific-data and
   COSE plaintext or payload, any byte string SHALL be handled in its
   decoded (CBOR item) form.  This means any CBOR header or tag in a
   source encoding are ignored for the purposes of security processing.
   This also means that if the source byte string was encoded in a non-
   conforming way, for example in indefinite-length form or with a non-
   minimum-size length, the security processing always treats it in a
   deterministically encoded CBOR form.

2.6.  Processing

   This section describes block-level requirements for handling COSE
   security data.

   All security results generated for BIB or BCB blocks SHALL conform to
   the COSE profile of Section 3 with header augmentation as defined in
   Section 2.2.2.

2.6.1.  Node Authentication

   This section explains how the certificate profile of Section 4 is
   used by a security acceptor to both validate an end-entity
   certificate and to use that certificate to authenticate the security
   source for an integrity result.  For a confidentiality result, some
   of the requirements in this section are implicit in an implementation
   using a private key associated with a certificate used by a result
   recipient.  It is an implementation matter to ensure that a BP agent



Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   is configured to generate or receive results associated with valid
   certificates.

   A security source MAY prohibit generating a result (either integrity
   or confidentiality) for an end-entity certificate which is not
   considered valid according to Section 2.6.1.2.  Generating a result
   which is likely to be discarded is wasteful of bundle size and
   transport resources.

2.6.1.1.  Certificate Identification

   Because of the standard policy of using separate certificates for
   transport, signing, and encryption (see Section 4.1) a single Node ID
   is likely to be associated with multiple certificates, and any or all
   of those certificates MAY be present within an "x5bag" in an
   Additional Protected parameter (see Section 2.2.2).  When present, a
   security acceptor SHALL use an "x5chain" or "x5t" to identify an end-
   entity certificate to use for result processing.  Security acceptors
   SHALL NOT assume that a validated certificate containing a NODE-ID
   matching a security source is enough to associate a certificate with
   a COSE message or recipient (see Section 3.3).

2.6.1.2.  Certificate Validation

   For each end-entity certificate contained in or identified by by a
   COSE result, the security acceptor SHALL perform the certification
   path validation of Section 6 of [RFC5280] up to one of the acceptor's
   trusted CA certificates.  When evaluating a certificate Validity
   period, the security acceptor SHALL use the bundle Creation Timestamp
   time (if not unknown) as the reference instead of the current time.
   If enabled by local policy, the entity SHALL perform an OCSP check of
   each certificate providing OCSP authority information in accordance
   with [RFC6960].  If certificate validation fails or if security
   policy disallows a certificate for any reason, the acceptor SHALL
   treat the associated security result as failed.  Leaving out part of
   the certification chain can cause the entity to fail to validate a
   certificate if the left-out certificates are unknown to the entity
   (see Section 6.2).

   For each end-entity certificate contained in or identified by a COSE
   context result, the security acceptor SHALL apply security policy to
   the Key Usage extension (if present) and Extended Key Usage extension
   (if present) in accordance with Section 4.2.1.12 of [RFC5280] and the
   profile in Section 4.







Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


2.6.1.3.  Node ID Authentication

   If required by security policy, for each end-entity certificate
   referenced by a COSE context integrity result the security acceptor
   SHALL validate the certificate NODE-ID in accordance with Section 6
   of [RFC6125] using the NODE-ID reference identifier from the Security
   Source of the containing security block.  If the NODE-ID validation
   result is Failure or if the result is Absent and security policy
   requires an authenticated Node ID, the security acceptor SHALL treat
   the result as failed.

2.6.2.  Policy Recommendations

   A RECOMMENDED security policy is to enable the use of OCSP checking
   when internet connectivity is present.  A RECOMMENDED security policy
   is that if an Extended Key Usage is present that it needs to contain
   "id-kp-bundleSecurity" of [IANA-SMI] to be usable as an end-entity
   certificate for COSE security results.  A RECOMMENDED security policy
   is to require a validated Node ID (of Section 2.6.1.3) and to ignore
   any other identifiers in the end-entity certificate.

   This policy relies on and informs the certificate requirements in
   Section 3.3.1 and Section 4.  This policy assumes that a DTN-aware CA
   (see Section 1.2) will only issue a certificate for a Node ID when it
   has verified that the private key holder actually controls the DTN
   node; this is needed to avoid the threat identified in Section 6.4.
   This policy requires that a certificate contain a NODE-ID and allows
   the certificate to also contain network-level identifiers.  A
   tailored policy on a more controlled network could relax the
   requirement on Node ID validation and/or Extended Key Usage presence.

3.  COSE Profile for BPSec

   This section contains requirements which apply to the use of COSE
   within the BPSec security context defined in this document.

3.1.  COSE Messages

   When generating a BPSec result, security sources SHALL use only COSE
   labels with a uint value.  When processing a BPSec result, security
   acceptors MAY handle COSE labels with with a tstr value.

   When used in a BPSec result, each COSE message SHALL contain an
   explicit algorithm identifier in the lower (content) layers.  When
   available and not implied by the bundle source, a COSE message SHALL
   contain a key identifier in the highest (recipient) layer.  See
   Section 3.3 for specifics about asymmetric key identifiers.  When a
   key identifier is not available, BPSec acceptors SHALL use the



Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   Security Source (if available) and the Bundle Source to imply which
   keys can be used for security operations.  Using implied keys has an
   interoperability risk, see Section 6.5 for details.  A BPSec security
   operation always occurs within the context of the immutable primary
   block with its parameters (specifically the Source Node ID) and the
   security block with its optional Security Source.

   The algorithms required by this profile focuses on networks using
   shared symmetric-keys, with recommended algorithms for Elliptic Curve
   (EC) keypairs and RSA keypairs.  The focus of this profile is to
   enable interoperation between security sources and acceptors on an
   open network, where more explicit COSE parameters make it easier for
   BPSec acceptors to avoid assumptions and avoid out-of-band
   parameters.  The requirements of this profile still allow the use of
   potentially not-easily-interoperable algorithms and message/recipient
   configurations for use by private networks, where message size is
   more important than explicit COSE parameters.

3.2.  Interoperability Algorithms

   The set of integrity algorithms needed for interoperability is listed
   here.  The full set of COSE algorithms available is managed at
   [IANA-COSE].

   Implementations conforming to this specification SHALL support the
   symmetric keyed and key-encryption algorithms of Table 5.
   Implementations capable of doing so SHOULD support the asymmetric
   keyed and key-encryption algorithms of Table 5.

      |  The layer-1 required list is identical to the
      |  [I-D.ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc] context list.




















Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   +=================+============+============+======+================+
   | BPSec Block     | COSE       | Name       | Code | Implementation |
   |                 | Layer      |            |      | Requirements   |
   +=================+============+============+======+================+
   | Integrity       | 1          | HMAC       | 5    | Required       |
   |                 |            | 256/256    |      |                |
   +-----------------+------------+------------+------+----------------+
   | Integrity       | 1          | ES256      | -7   | Recommended    |
   +-----------------+------------+------------+------+----------------+
   | Integrity       | 1          | EdDSA      | -8   | Recommended    |
   +-----------------+------------+------------+------+----------------+
   | Integrity       | 1          | PS256      | -37  | Recommended    |
   +-----------------+------------+------------+------+----------------+
   | Confidentiality | 1          | A256GCM    | 3    | Required       |
   +-----------------+------------+------------+------+----------------+
   | Confidentiality | 2          | A256KW     | -5   | Required       |
   +-----------------+------------+------------+------+----------------+
   | Confidentiality | 2          | ECDH-ES +  | -31  | Recommended    |
   |                 |            | A256KW     |      |                |
   +-----------------+------------+------------+------+----------------+
   | Confidentiality | 2          | ECDH-SS +  | -34  | Recommended    |
   |                 |            | A256KW     |      |                |
   +-----------------+------------+------------+------+----------------+
   | Confidentiality | 2          | RSAES-OAEP | -41  | Recommended    |
   |                 |            | w/ SHA-256 |      |                |
   +-----------------+------------+------------+------+----------------+

                    Table 5: Interoperability Algorithms

   The following are recommended key and recipient uses within COSE/
   BPSec:

   Symmetric Key Integrity:  When generating a BIB result from a
      symmetric key, implementations SHALL use a COSE_Mac0 using the
      private key directly.  When a COSE_Mac0 is used with a direct key,
      the headers SHALL include a key identifier ("kid" header).

   EC Keypair Integrity:  When generating a BIB result from an EC
      keypair, implementations SHALL use a COSE_Sign1 using the private
      key directly.  When a COSE_Sign1 is used with an EC keypair, the
      headers SHALL include a public key identifier (see Section 3.3).

   RSA Keypair Integrity:  When generating a BIB result from an RSA








Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


      keypair, implementations SHALL use a COSE_Sign1 using the private
      key directly.  When a COSE_Sign1 is used with an RSA keypair, the
      headers SHALL include a public key identifier (see Section 3.3).
      When a COSE signature is generated with an RSA keypair, the
      signature uses a PSS salt in accordance with Section 2 of
      [RFC8230].

   Symmetric Key Confidentiality:  When generating a BCB result from an
      symmetric key, implementations SHALL use a COSE_Encrypt message
      with a recipient containing an indirect (wrapped or derived)
      content encryption key (CEK).  When generating a BCB result from a
      symmetric key, implementations SHOULD NOT use COSE_Encrypt0 or
      COSE_Encrypt with direct CEK.  Doing so risks key overuse and the
      vulnerabilities associated with large amount of ciphertext from
      the same key.  When a COSE_Encrypt is used with an overall key-
      encryption key (KEK), the recipient layer SHALL include a key
      identifier for the KEK.

   EC Keypair Confidentiality:  When generating a BCB result from an EC
      keypair, implementations SHALL use a COSE_Encrypt message with a
      recipient containing an indirect (wrapped or derived) CEK.  When a
      COSE_Encrypt is used with an EC keypair, the recipient layer SHALL
      include a public key identifier (see Section 3.3).  When a
      COSE_Encrypt is used with an EC keypair, the security source SHALL
      either generate an ephemeral EC keypair or choose a unique PartyU
      Nonce for each security operation.  When processing a COSE_Encrypt
      with an EC keypair, the security acceptor SHALL process all KDF
      and HMAC context data from the recipient headers in accordance
      with Section 11.2 of [RFC8152] even though the source is not
      required to provide any of those parameters.

   RSA Keypair Confidentiality:  When generating a BCB result from an
      RSA keypair, implementations SHALL use a COSE_Encrypt message with
      a recipient containing a key-wrapped CEK.  When a COSE_Encrypt is
      used with an RSA keypair, the recipient layer SHALL include a
      public key identifier (see Section 3.3).

3.3.  Asymmetric Key Types and Identifiers

   This section applies when a BIB uses a public key for verification or
   key-wrap, or when a BCB uses a public key for encryption or key-wrap.
   When using asymmetric keyed algorithms, the security source SHALL
   include a public key container or public key identifier as a
   recipient header.  The public key identifier SHALL be either a "kid"
   of [RFC8152], an "x5t" or "x5chain" of [I-D.ietf-cose-x509], or an
   equivalent identifier.





Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   When a BIB result contains a "kid" identifier, the security source
   MAY include an appropriate COSE public key "COSE_Key" in a key
   container security parameter (see Section 2.2.1).  When BIB result
   contains a "x5t" identifier, the security source MAY include an
   appropriate PKIX certificate container ("x5chain" or "x5bag" of
   [I-D.ietf-cose-x509]) in a direct COSE header or an additional header
   security parameter (see Section 2.2.2).  When a BIB result contains
   an "x5chain", the security source SHOULD NOT also include an "x5t" as
   the first certificate in the chain is implicitly the applicable end-
   entity certificate.  For a BIB, if all potential security acceptors
   are known to possess related public key and/or certificate data then
   the public key or additional header parameters can be omitted.  Risks
   of not including related data are described in Section 6.5 and
   Section 6.6.

   When present, public keys and certificates SHOULD be included as
   additional header parameters rather than within result COSE messages.
   This provides size efficiency when multiple security results are
   present because they will all be from the same security source and
   likely share the same public key material.  Security acceptors SHALL
   still process public keys or certificates present in a result message
   or recipient as applying to that individual COSE level.

   Security acceptors SHALL aggregate all COSE_Key objects from all
   parameters within a single BIB or BCB, independent of encoded type or
   order of parameters.  Because each context contains a single set of
   security parameters which apply to all results in the same context,
   security acceptors SHALL treat all public keys as being related to
   the security source itself and potentially applying to every result.

3.3.1.  Policy Recommendations

   The RECOMMENDED priority policy for including PKIX material for BIB
   results is as follows:

   1.  When receivers are not known to possess certificate chains, a
       full chain is included (as an "x5chain").

   2.  When receivers are known to possess root and intermediate CAs,
       just the end-entity certificate is included (again as an
       "x5chain").

   3.  When receivers are known to possess associated chains including
       end-entity certificates, a certificate thumbnail (as an "x5t").

   4.  Some arbitrary identifier is used to correlate to an end-entity
       certificate (as a "kid").




Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   5.  The BIB Security Source is used to imply an associated end-entity
       certificate which identifies that Node ID.

   When PKIX certificates are used by security acceptors and the end-
   entity certificate is not explicitly trusted (i.e. pinned), the
   security acceptor SHALL perform the certification path validation of
   Section 2.6.1.2 up to one or more trusted CA certificates.  Leaving
   out part of the certification chain can cause the security acceptor
   to fail to validate a BIB if the left-out certificates are unknown to
   the acceptor (see Section 6.6).

   Any end-entity certificate associated with a BPSec security source
   SHALL adhere to the profile of Section 4.

4.  PKIX Certificate Profile

   This section contains requirements on certificates used for the COSE
   context, while Section 3.3 contains requirements for how such
   certificates are transported or identified.

   All end-entity certificates used for BPSec SHALL conform to
   [RFC5280], or any updates or successors to that profile.

   This profile requires Version 3 certificates due to the extensions
   used by this profile.  Security acceptors SHALL reject as invalid
   Version 1 and Version 2 end-entity certificates.

   Security acceptors SHALL accept certificates that contain an empty
   Subject field or contain a Subject without a Common Name.  Identity
   information in end-entity certificates is contained entirely in the
   subjectAltName extension as a NODE-ID, as defined in
   [I-D.ietf-dtn-tcpclv4].

   All end-entity and CA certificates used for BPSec SHOULD contain both
   a Subject Key Identifier extension in accordance with Section 4.2.1.2
   of [RFC5280] and an Authority Key Identifier extension in accordance
   with Section 4.2.1.1 of [RFC5280].  Security acceptors SHOULD NOT
   rely on either a Subject Key Identifier and an Authority Key
   Identifier being present in any received certificate.  Including key
   identifiers simplifies the work of an entity needing to assemble a
   certification chain.

   A BPSec end-entity certificate SHALL contain a NODE-ID which
   authenticates the Node ID of the security source (for integrity) or
   the security acceptor (for confidentiality).  The identifier type
   NODE-ID is defined in [I-D.ietf-dtn-tcpclv4].





Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   When allowed by CA policy, a BPSec end-entity certificate SHOULD
   contain a PKIX Extended Key Usage extension in accordance with
   Section 4.2.1.12 of [RFC5280].  When the PKIX Extended Key Usage
   extension is present, it SHALL contain a key purpose "id-kp-
   bundleSecurity" of [IANA-SMI].  The "id-kp-bundleSecurity" purpose
   MAY be combined with other purposes in the same certificate.

   When allowed by CA policy, a BPSec end-entity certificate SHALL
   contain a PKIX Key Usage extension in accordance with Section 4.2.1.3
   of [RFC5280].  The PKIX Key Usage bits which are consistent with COSE
   security are: digitalSignature, nonRepudiation, keyEncipherment, and
   keyAgreement.  The specific algorithms used by COSE messages in
   security results determine which of those key uses are exercised.
   See Section 4.1 for discussion of key use policies across multiple
   certificates.

   A BPSec end-entity certificate MAY contain an Online Certificate
   Status Protocol (OCSP) URI within an Authority Information Access
   extension in accordance with Section 4.2.2.1 of [RFC5280].  Security
   acceptors are not expected to have continuous internet connectivity
   sufficient to perform OCSP verification.

4.1.  Multiple-Certificate Uses

   A RECOMMENDED security policy is to limit asymmetric keys (and thus
   public key certificates) to single uses among the following:

   Bundle transport:  With key uses as defined in the convergence layer
      specification(s).

   Block signing:  With key use digitalSignature and/or nonRepudiation.

   Block encryption:  With key use keyEncipherment and/or keyAgreement.

   This policy is the same one recommended by Section 6 of [RFC8551] for
   email security and by Section 5.2 of [NIST-SP800-57] more generally.
   Effectively this means that a BP node uses separate certificates for
   transport (e.g., as a TCPCL entity), BIB signing (as a security
   source), and BCB encryption (as a security acceptor).

5.  Implementation Status

   This section is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   [NOTE to the RFC Editor: please remove this section before
   publication, as well as the reference to [RFC7942] and
   [github-dtn-bpsec-cose].]




Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   This section records the status of known implementations of the
   protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
   Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
   The description of implementations in this section is intended to
   assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
   RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
   here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.  Furthermore, no effort
   has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
   supplied by IETF contributors.  This is not intended as, and must not
   be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
   features.  Readers are advised to note that other implementations can
   exist.

   An example implementation of COSE over Blocks has been created as a
   GitHub project [github-dtn-bpsec-cose] and is intended to use as a
   proof-of-concept and as a possible source of interoperability
   testing.  This example implementation only handles CBOR encoding/
   decoding and cryptographic functions, it does not construct actual
   BIB or BCB and does not integrate with a BP Agent.

6.  Security Considerations

   This section separates security considerations into threat categories
   based on guidance of BCP 72 [RFC3552].

   All of the security considerations of the underlying BPSec
   [I-D.ietf-dtn-bpsec] apply to these new security contexts.

6.1.  Threat: BPSec Block Replay

   The bundle's primary block contains fields which uniquely identify a
   bundle: the Source Node ID, Creation Timestamp, and fragment
   parameters (see Section 4.3.1 of [I-D.ietf-dtn-bpbis]).  These same
   fields are used to correlate Administrative Records with the bundles
   for which the records were generated.  Including the primary block in
   the AAD Scope for integrity and confidentiality (see Section 2.2.3)
   binds the verification of the secured block to its parent bundle and
   disallows replay of any block with its BIB or BCB.

   This profile of COSE limits the encryption algorithms to only AEAD in
   order to include the context of the encrypted data as AAD.  If an
   agent mistakenly allows the use of non-AEAD encryption when
   decrypting and verifying a BCB, the possibility of block replay
   attack is present.







Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


6.2.  Threat: Untrusted End-Entity Certificate

   The profile in Section 2.6.1 uses end-entity certificates chained up
   to a trusted root CA.  A security source can include a certificate
   set which does not contain the full chain, possibly excluding
   intermediate or root CAs.  In an environment where security acceptors
   are known to already contain needed root and intermediate CAs there
   is no need to include those CAs, but this has a risk of an acceptor
   not actually having one of the needed CAs.

6.3.  Threat: Certificate Validation Vulnerabilities

   Even when a security acceptor is operating properly an attacker can
   attempt to exploit vulnerabilities within certificate check
   algorithms or configuration to authenticate using an invalid
   certificate.  An invalid certificate exploit could lead to higher-
   level security issues and/or denial of service to the Node ID being
   impersonated.

   There are many reasons, described in [RFC5280] and [RFC6125], why a
   certificate can fail to validate, including using the certificate
   outside of its valid time interval, using purposes for which it was
   not authorized, or using it after it has been revoked by its CA.
   Validating a certificate is a complex task and can require network
   connectivity outside of the primary BP convergence layer network
   path(s) if a mechanism such as OCSP [RFC6960] is used by the CA.  The
   configuration and use of particular certificate validation methods
   are outside of the scope of this document.

6.4.  Threat: BP Node Impersonation

   When certificates are referenced by BIB results it is possible that
   the certificate does not contain a NODE-ID or does contain one but
   has a mismatch with the actual security source (see Section 1.2).
   Having a CA-validated certificate does not alone guarantee the
   identity of the security source from which the certificate is
   provided; additional validation procedures in Section 2.6.1 bind the
   Node ID based on the contents of the certificate.

6.5.  Threat: Unidentifiable Key

   The profile in Section 3.2 recommends key identifiers when possible
   and the parameters in section Section 2.2 allow encoding public keys
   where available.  If the application using a COSE Integrity or COSE
   Confidentiality context leaves out key identification data (in a COSE
   recipient structure), the security acceptor for those BPSec blocks
   only has the primary block available to use when verifying or
   decrypting the target block.  This leads to a situation, identified



Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   in BPSec Security Considerations, where a signature is verified to be
   valid but not from the expected Security Source.

   Because the key identifier headers are unprotected (see Section 3.3),
   there is still the possibility that an active attacker removes or
   alters key identifier(s) in the result.  This can cause the security
   acceptor to not be able to properly verify a valid signature or not
   use the correct private key to decrypt valid ciphertext.

6.6.  Threat: Non-Trusted Public Key

   The profile in Section 3.2 allows the use of PKIX which typically
   involves end-entity certificates chained up to a trusted root CA.
   This allows a BIB to contain end-entity certificates not previously
   known to a security acceptor but still trust the certificate by
   verifying it up to a trusted CA.  In an environment where security
   acceptors are known to already contain needed root and intermediate
   CAs there is no need to include those CAs in a proper chain within
   the security parameters, but this has a risk of an acceptor not
   actually having one of the needed CAs.

   Because the security parameters are not included as AAD, there is
   still the possibility that an active attacker removes or alters
   certification chain data in the parameters.  This can cause the
   security acceptor to be able to verify a valid signature but not
   trust the public key used to perform the verification.

6.7.  Threat: Passive Leak of Key Material

   It is important that the key requirements of Section 2.2 apply only
   to public keys and PKIX certificates.  Including non-public key
   material in ASB parameters will expose that material in the bundle
   data and over the bundle convergence layer during transport.

6.8.  Threat: Algorithm Vulnerabilities

   Because this use of COSE leaves the specific algorithms chosen for
   BIB and BCB use up to the applications securing bundle data, it is
   important to use only COSE algorithms which are marked as recommended
   in the IANA registry [IANA-COSE].

7.  IANA Considerations

   Registration procedures referred to in this section are defined in
   [RFC8126].






Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


7.1.  BPSec Security Contexts

   Within the "Bundle Protocol" registry [IANA-BUNDLE], the following
   entry has been added to the "BPSec Security Context Identifiers" sub-
   registry.

             +==========+=============+=====================+
             | Value    | Description | Reference           |
             +==========+=============+=====================+
             | TBD-COSE | COSE        | This specification. |
             +----------+-------------+---------------------+

                                 Table 6

8.  Acknowledgments

   The interoperability minimum algorithms and parameters are based on
   the draft [I-D.ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc].

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [IANA-BUNDLE]
              IANA, "Bundle Protocol",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/bundle/>.

   [IANA-COSE]
              IANA, "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/>.

   [IANA-SMI] IANA, "Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC6125]  Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and
              Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity
              within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509



Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


              (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer
              Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March
              2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6125>.

   [RFC6960]  Santesson, S., Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A.,
              Galperin, S., and C. Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key
              Infrastructure Online Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP",
              RFC 6960, DOI 10.17487/RFC6960, June 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6960>.

   [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/info/rfc8126>.

   [RFC8152]  Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",
              RFC 8152, DOI 10.17487/RFC8152, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8152>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8230]  Jones, M., "Using RSA Algorithms with CBOR Object Signing
              and Encryption (COSE) Messages", RFC 8230,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8230, September 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8230>.

   [RFC8551]  Schaad, J., Ramsdell, B., and S. Turner, "Secure/
              Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 4.0
              Message Specification", RFC 8551, DOI 10.17487/RFC8551,
              April 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8551>.

   [RFC8610]  Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
              Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
              Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
              JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
              June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.

   [I-D.ietf-dtn-bpsec]
              III, E. J. B. and K. McKeever, "Bundle Protocol Security
              Specification", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-dtn-bpsec-27, 16 February 2021,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-27>.

   [I-D.ietf-dtn-tcpclv4]
              Sipos, B., Demmer, M., Ott, J., and S. Perreault, "Delay-
              Tolerant Networking TCP Convergence Layer Protocol Version



Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


              4", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-dtn-
              tcpclv4-26, 15 February 2021,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-26>.

   [I-D.ietf-cose-x509]
              Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
              Header parameters for carrying and referencing X.509
              certificates", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-cose-x509-08, 14 December 2020,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cose-x509-08>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [NIST-SP800-57]
              National Institute of Standards and Technology,
              "Recommendation for Key Management - Part 1: General",
              NIST Special Publication 800-57 Revision 4, DOI 10.6028/
              NIST.SP.800-57pt1r5, May 2020,
              <https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/
              NIST.SP.800-57pt1r5.pdf>.

   [RFC3552]  Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3552>.

   [RFC7942]  Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
              Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
              RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.

   [I-D.ietf-dtn-bpbis]
              Burleigh, S., Fall, K., and E. J. Birrane, "Bundle
              Protocol Version 7", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-31, 25 January 2021,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-31>.

   [I-D.ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc]
              III, E. J. B., White, A., and S. Heiner, "BPSec Default
              Security Contexts", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc-05, 26 April 2021,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-
              sc-05>.

   [github-dtn-bpsec-cose]
              Sipos, B., "DTN Bundle Protocol Security COSE Security
              Context", <https://github.com/BSipos-RKF/dtn-bpsec-cose/>.




Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   [github-dtn-demo-agent]
              Sipos, B., "Demo Convergence Layer Agent",
              <https://github.com/BSipos-RKF/dtn-demo-agent/>.

Appendix A.  Examples

   These examples are intended to have the correct structure of COSE
   security blocks but in some cases use simplified algorithm parameters
   or smaller key sizes than are required by the actual COSE profile
   defined in this documents.  Each example indicates how it differs
   from the actual profile if there is a meaningful difference.

   All of these examples operate within the context of the bundle
   primary block of Figure 7 with a security target block of Figure 8.
   All example figures use the extended diagnostic notation [RFC8610].

   [
     7, / BP version /
     0, / flags /
     0, / CRC type /
     [1, "//dst/svc"], / destination /
     [1, "//src/"], / source /
     [1, "//src/"], / report-to /
     [0, 40], / timestamp /
     1000000 / lifetime /
   ]

                  Figure 7: Primary block CBOR diagnostic

   [
     1, / type code: payload /
     1, / block num /
     0, / flags /
     0, / CRC type /
     <<"hello">> / block-type-specific-data /
   ]

                   Figure 8: Target block CBOR diagnostic

   All of the block integrity block examples operate within the context
   of the "frame" block of Figure 9, and block confidentiality block
   examples within the frame block of Figure 10.









Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   [
     11, / type code: BIB /
     3, / block num /
     0, / flags /
     0, / CRC type /
     b'' / block-type-specific-data to be replaced /
   ]

           Figure 9: Block integrity block frame CBOR diagnostic

   [
     12, / type code: BCB /
     3, / block num /
     0, / flags /
     0, / CRC type /
     b'' / block-type-specific-data to be replaced /
   ]

        Figure 10: Block confidentiality block frame CBOR diagnostic

   All of the examples also operate within a security block containing
   the AAD Scope parameter with only "has-primary-ctx" and "has-target-
   ctx" flags set.  This results in a consistent AAD-structure as shown
   in Figure 11, which is encoded as the byte string for COSE
   external_aad in all of the examples.

   [
     [ 7, 0, 0, [ 1, "//dst/svc" ], [ 1, "//src/" ], [ 1, "//src/" ],
       [ 0, 40 ], 1000000 ], / primary-ctx /
     [ 1, 1, 0 ], / target-ctx /
     null, / security-ctx /
     '' / additional-protected /
   ]

           Figure 11: Example scope AAD-structure CBOR diagnostic

   The only differences between these examples which use EC or RSA
   keypairs and a use of a PKIX public key certificate are: the
   parameters would have an x5chain parameter instead of a COSE_Key
   type, and the recipient would contain an "x5t" value instead of a
   "kid" value.  Neither of these is a change to a protected header so,
   given the same private key, there would be no change to the signature
   or wrapped-key data.

   Because each of the encryption examples use the same CEK within the
   same AAD, the target ciphertext is also identical.  The target block
   after application of the encryption is shown in Figure 12.




Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 29]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   [
     1, / type code: payload /
     1, / block num /
     0, / flags /
     0, / CRC type /
     h'1fd25f64a2eea12d4bb6c02d25bf33cec45f3e4f96b1' / ciphertext /
   ]

             Figure 12: Encrypted Target block CBOR diagnostic

A.1.  Symmetric Key COSE_Mac0

   This is an example of a MAC with recipient having a 256-bit symmetric
   key identified by a "kid".

   [
     {
       / kty / 1: 4, / symmetric /
       / kid / 2: 'ExampleMAC',
       / k / -1: h'13bf9cead057c0aca2c9e52471ca4b19ddfaf4c0784e3f3e8e39
   99dbae4ce45c'
     }
   ]

                          Figure 13: Symmetric Key

   The external_aad is the encoded data from Figure 11.  The payload is
   the encoded target block-type-specific data from Figure 8.

   [
     "MAC0", / context /
     h'a10105', / protected /
     h'84880700008201692f2f6473742f7376638201662f2f7372632f8201662f2f73
   72632f820018281a000f424083010100f640', / external_aad /
     h'6568656c6c6f' / payload /
   ]

                  Figure 14: MAC_structure CBOR diagnostic













Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 30]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   [1], / targets /
   0, / security context TBD-COSE /
   1, / flags: params-present /
   [1, "//src/"], / security source /
   [ / parameters /
     [
       5, / AAD-scope /
       0x03 / has-primary-ctx | has-target-ctx /
     ]
   ],
   [
     [ / target block #1 /
       [ / result /
         17, / COSE_Mac0 tag /
         <<[
           <<{ / protected /
              / alg / 1:5 / HMAC 256//256 /
           }>>,
           { / unprotected /
             / kid / 4:'ExampleMAC'
           },
           null, / payload detached /
           h'cea75ab637d2c4499ceca970ec1acc9f789f382b06571a0bdba9cd5a0a
   b48f0e' / tag /
         ]>>
       ]
     ]
   ]

             Figure 15: Abstract Security Block CBOR diagnostic

   The final bundle is encoded as the byte string:

   h'9f880700008201692f2f6473742f7376638201662f2f7372632f8201662f2f7372
   632f820018281a000f4240850b030000584c810100018201662f2f7372632f818205
   038181821158358443a10105a1044a4578616d706c654b6579f65820cea75ab637d2
   c4499ceca970ec1acc9f789f382b06571a0bdba9cd5a0ab48f0e8501010000466568
   656c6c6fff'

A.2.  EC Keypair COSE_Sign1

   This is an example of a signature with a recipient having a P-256
   curve EC keypair identified by a "kid".  The associated public key is
   included as a security parameter.







Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 31]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   [
     { / signing private key /
       / kty / 1: 2, / EC2 /
       / kid / 2: 'ExampleEC2',
       / crv / -1: 1, / P-256 /
       / x / -2: h'44c1fa63b84f172b50541339c50beb0e630241ecb4eebbddb8b5
   e4fe0a1787a8',
       / y / -3: h'059451c7630d95d0b550acbd02e979b3f4f74e645b74715fafbc
   1639960a0c7a',
       / d / -4: h'dd6e7d8c4c0e0c0bd3ae1b4a2fa86b9a09b7efee4a233772cf51
   89786ea63842'
     }
   ]

                          Figure 16: Example Keys

   The external_aad is the encoded data from Figure 11.  The payload is
   the encoded target block-type-specific data from Figure 8.

   [
     "Signature1", / context /
     h'a10126', / protected /
     h'84880700008201692f2f6473742f7376638201662f2f7372632f8201662f2f73
   72632f820018281a000f424083010100f640', / external_aad /
     h'6568656c6c6f' / payload /
   ]

                  Figure 17: Sig_structure CBOR diagnostic























Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 32]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   [1], / targets /
   0, / security context TBD-COSE /
   1, / flags: params-present /
   [1, "//src/"], / security source /
   [ / parameters /
     [
       5, / AAD-scope /
       0x03 / has-primary-ctx | has-target-ctx /
     ]
   ],
   [
     [ / target block #1 /
       [ / result /
         18, / COSE_Sign1 tag /
         <<[
           <<{ / protected /
              / alg / 1:-7 / ES256 /
           }>>,
           { / unprotected /
             / kid / 4:'ExampleEC2'
           },
           null, / payload detached /
           h'b9e130d0b26d35d02299ca27601aab5c36efabefe1608da0c065368ce9
   a78e76e90a26c20caf294d2735861a16ff53b0173a801ceb6993da62c76863a8261a
   ee' / signature /
         ]>>
       ]
     ]
   ]

             Figure 18: Abstract Security Block CBOR diagnostic

   The final bundle is encoded as the byte string:

   h'9f880700008201692f2f6473742f7376638201662f2f7372632f8201662f2f7372
   632f820018281a000f4240850b030000586c810100018201662f2f7372632f818205
   038181821258558443a10126a1044a4578616d706c65454332f65840b9e130d0b26d
   35d02299ca27601aab5c36efabefe1608da0c065368ce9a78e76e90a26c20caf294d
   2735861a16ff53b0173a801ceb6993da62c76863a8261aee8501010000466568656c
   6c6fff'

A.3.  RSA Keypair COSE_Sign1

   This is an example of a signature with a recipient having a 1024-bit
   RSA keypair identified by a "kid".  The associated public key is
   included as a security parameter.





Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 33]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   This key strength is not supposed to be a secure configuration, only
   intended to explain the procedure.  This signature uses a random
   salt, so the full signature output is not deterministic.

   [
     { / signing private key /
       / kty / 1: 3, / RSA /
       / kid / 2: 'ExampleRSA',
       / n / -1: h'b0b5fd85f52c91844007443c9f9371980025f76d51fc9c676812
   31da610cb291ba637ce813bffdb2e9c653258607389ec97dad3db295fded67744ed6
   20707db36804e74e56a494030a73608fc8d92f2f0578d2d85cc201ef0ff22d7835d2
   d147d3b90a6884276235a01c2be99dfc597f79554362fc1eb03639cac5ccaddb29
   25',
       / e / -2: h'010001',
       / d / -3: h'9b5d26ad6445ef1aab80b809e4f329684e9912d556c4166f041d
   1b1fb93c04b4037ffd0dbe6f8a8a86e70bab6e0f6344983a9ada27ed9ff7de816fde
   eb5e7be48e607ce5fda4581ca6338a9e019fb3689b28934192b6a190cdda910abb5a
   86a2f7b6f9cd5011049d8de52ddfef73aa06df401c55623ec196720f54920deb4f
   01',
       / p / -4: h'db22d94e7784a27b568cbf985307ea8d6430ff6b88c18a7086fd
   4f57a326572f2250c39e48a6f8e2201661c2dfe12c7386835b649714d050aa36123e
   c3d00e75',
       / q / -5: h'ce7016adc5f326b7520397c5978ee2f50e69279983d54c5d76f0
   5bcd61de0879d7056c923540dff9cbae95dcc0e5e86b52b3c902dc9669c8021c6955
   7effb9f1',
       / dP / -6: h'6a6fcaccea106a3b2e16bf18e57b7ad9a2488a4758ed68a8af6
   86a194f0d585b7477760c738d6665aee0302bcf4237ad0530d83b4b86b887f5a4bdc
   7eea427e1',
       / dQ / -7: h'28a4cae245b1dcb285142e027a1768b9c4af915b59285a93a04
   22c60e05edd9e57663afd023d169bd0ad3bd62da8563d231840802ebbf271ad70b89
   05ba3af91',
       / qInv / -8: h'07b5a61733896270a6bd2bb1654194c54e2bc0e061b543a4e
   d9fa73c4bc79c87148aa92a451c4ab8262b6377a9c7b97f869160ca6f5d853ee4b65
   f4f92865ca3'
     }
   ]

                          Figure 19: Example Keys

   The external_aad is the encoded data from Figure 11.  The payload is
   the encoded target block-type-specific data from Figure 8.










Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 34]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   [
     "Signature1", / context /
     h'a1013824', / protected /
     h'84880700008201692f2f6473742f7376638201662f2f7372632f8201662f2f73
   72632f820018281a000f424083010100f640', / external_aad /
     h'6568656c6c6f' / payload /
   ]

                  Figure 20: Sig_structure CBOR diagnostic

   [1], / targets /
   0, / security context TBD-COSE /
   1, / flags: params-present /
   [1, "//src/"], / security source /
   [ / parameters /
     [
       5, / AAD-scope /
       0x03 / has-primary-ctx | has-target-ctx /
     ]
   ],
   [
     [ / target block #1 /
       [ / result /
         18, / COSE_Sign1 tag /
         <<[
           <<{ / protected /
              / alg / 1:-37 / PS256 /
           }>>,
           { / unprotected /
             / kid / 4:'ExampleRSA'
           },
           null, / payload detached /
           h'55dac638eb2b6e31386189e2e5afe0f2f6888c017013bf7ecbdb585c38
   2845dcb305ca1b43d727113c4616d4185bbbafcef83ca3cea8c583bddbddabc3c412
   590de368ccc695d887037f3afc97766edfddfaadd43c4d5a48725159d2fad2b9dee1
   30b0a4e990410d7d91a294747a9f53780f72987ed2a488d8b84e7590b418
   5a' / signature /
         ]>>
       ]
     ]
   ]

             Figure 21: Abstract Security Block CBOR diagnostic

   The final bundle is encoded as the byte string:






Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 35]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   h'9f880700008201692f2f6473742f7376638201662f2f7372632f8201662f2f7372
   632f820018281a000f4240850b03000058ad810100018201662f2f7372632f818205
   038181821258968444a1013824a1044a4578616d706c65525341f6588055dac638eb
   2b6e31386189e2e5afe0f2f6888c017013bf7ecbdb585c382845dcb305ca1b43d727
   113c4616d4185bbbafcef83ca3cea8c583bddbddabc3c412590de368ccc695d88703
   7f3afc97766edfddfaadd43c4d5a48725159d2fad2b9dee130b0a4e990410d7d91a2
   94747a9f53780f72987ed2a488d8b84e7590b4185a8501010000466568656c6c6fff'

A.4.  Symmetric KEK COSE_Encrypt

   This is an example of an encryption with a random CEK and an explicit
   key-encryption key (KEK) identified by a "kid".  The keys used are
   shown in Figure 22.

   [
     {
       / kty / 1: 4, / symmetric /
       / kid / 2: 'ExampleKEK',
       / k / -1: h'0e8a982b921d1086241798032fedc1f883eab72e4e43bb2d11cf
   ae38ad7a972e'
     },
     {
       / kty / 1: 4, / symmetric /
       / kid / 2: 'ExampleCEK',
       / k / -1: h'13bf9cead057c0aca2c9e52471ca4b19ddfaf4c0784e3f3e8e39
   99dbae4ce45c'
     }
   ]

                          Figure 22: Example Keys

   The external_aad is the encoded data from Figure 11.

   [
     "Encrypt", / context /
     h'a10103', / protected /
     h'84880700008201692f2f6473742f7376638201662f2f7372632f8201662f2f73
   72632f820018281a000f424083010100f640' / external_aad /
   ]

                  Figure 23: Enc_structure CBOR diagnostic

   The ASB item for this encryption operation is shown in Figure 24 and
   corresponds with the updated target block (containing the ciphertext)
   of Figure 12.






Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 36]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   [1], / targets /
   0, / security context TBD-COSE /
   1, / flags: params-present /
   [1, "//src/"], / security source /
   [ / parameters /
     [
       5, / AAD-scope /
       0x03 / has-primary-ctx | has-target-ctx /
     ]
   ],
   [
     [ / target block #1 /
       [ / result /
         96, / COSE_Encrypt tag /
         <<[
           <<{ / protected /
              / alg / 1:3 / A256GCM /
           }>>,
           { / unprotected /
             / iv / 5: h'6f3093eba5d85143c3dc484a'
           },
           null, / payload detached /
           [
             [ / recipient /
               h'', / protected /
               { / unprotected /
                 / alg / 1:-5, / A256KW /
                 / kid / 4:'ExampleKEK'
               },
               h'917f2045e1169502756252bf119a94cdac6a9d8944245b5a9a26d4
   03a6331159e3d691a708e9984d' / key-wrapped /
             ]
           ]
         ]>>
       ]
     ]
   ]

             Figure 24: Abstract Security Block CBOR diagnostic

   The final bundle is encoded as the byte string:

   h'9f880700008201692f2f6473742f7376638201662f2f7372632f8201662f2f7372
   632f820018281a000f4240850c0300005869810100018201662f2f7372632f818205
   03818182186058518443a10103a1054c6f3093eba5d85143c3dc484af6818340a201
   24044a4578616d706c654b454b5828917f2045e1169502756252bf119a94cdac6a9d
   8944245b5a9a26d403a6331159e3d691a708e9984d8501010000561fd25f64a2eea1
   2d4bb6c02d25bf33cec45f3e4f96b1ff'



Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 37]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


A.5.  EC Keypair COSE_Encrypt

   This is an example of an encryption with an P-256 curve ephemeral
   sender keypair and a static recipient keypair identified by a "kid".
   The keys used are shown in Figure 25.

   [
     { / sender ephemeral private key /
       / kty / 1: 2, / EC2 /
       / crv / -1: 1, / P-256 /
       / x / -2: h'fedaba748882050d1bef8ba992911898f554450952070aeb4788
   ca57d1df6bcc',
       / y / -3: h'ceaa8e7ff4751a4f81c70e98f1713378b0bd82a1414a2f493c1c
   9c0670f28d62',
       / d / -4: h'a2e4ed4f2e21842999b0e9ebdaad7465efd5c29bd5761f5c2088
   0f9d9c3b122a'
     },
     { / recipient private key /
       / kty / 1: 2, / EC2 /
       / kid / 2: 'ExampleEC2',
       / crv / -1: 1, / P-256 /
       / x / -2: h'44c1fa63b84f172b50541339c50beb0e630241ecb4eebbddb8b5
   e4fe0a1787a8',
       / y / -3: h'059451c7630d95d0b550acbd02e979b3f4f74e645b74715fafbc
   1639960a0c7a',
       / d / -4: h'dd6e7d8c4c0e0c0bd3ae1b4a2fa86b9a09b7efee4a233772cf51
   89786ea63842'
     },
     {
       / kty / 1: 4, / symmetric /
       / kid / 2: 'ExampleCEK',
       / k / -1: h'13bf9cead057c0aca2c9e52471ca4b19ddfaf4c0784e3f3e8e39
   99dbae4ce45c'
     }
   ]

                          Figure 25: Example Keys

   The external_aad is the encoded data from Figure 11.

   [
     "Encrypt", / context /
     h'a10103', / protected /
     h'84880700008201692f2f6473742f7376638201662f2f7372632f8201662f2f73
   72632f820018281a000f424083010100f640' / external_aad /
   ]

                  Figure 26: Enc_structure CBOR diagnostic



Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 38]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   The ASB item for this encryption operation is shown in Figure 27 and
   corresponds with the updated target block (containing the ciphertext)
   of Figure 12.
















































Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 39]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   [1], / targets /
   0, / security context TBD-COSE /
   1, / flags: params-present /
   [1, "//src/"], / security source /
   [ / parameters /
     [
       5, / AAD-scope /
       0x03 / has-primary-ctx | has-target-ctx /
     ]
   ],
   [
     [ / target block #1 /
       [ / result /
         96, / COSE_Encrypt tag /
         <<[
           <<{ / protected /
              / alg / 1:3 / A256GCM /
           }>>,
           { / unprotected /
             / iv / 5: h'6f3093eba5d85143c3dc484a'
           },
           null, / payload detached /
           [
             [ / recipient /
               h'', / protected /
               { / unprotected /
                 / alg / 1:-31, / ECDH-ES + A256KW /
                 / kid / 4:'ExampleEC2',
                 / ephemeral key / -1:{
                   1:2,
                   -1:1,
                   -2:h'fedaba748882050d1bef8ba992911898f554450952070ae
   b4788ca57d1df6bcc',
                   -3:h'ceaa8e7ff4751a4f81c70e98f1713378b0bd82a1414a2f4
   93c1c9c0670f28d62'
                 }
               },
               h'cb530b03f1e4b09ec1a0ca19afafbf280284106ab407aaf9bfed6e
   666c8f2f9ab5465cf11ef02756' / key-wrapped /
             ]
           ]
         ]>>
       ]
     ]
   ]

             Figure 27: Abstract Security Block CBOR diagnostic




Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 40]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   The final bundle is encoded as the byte string:

   h'9f880700008201692f2f6473742f7376638201662f2f7372632f8201662f2f7372
   632f820018281a000f4240850c03000058b6810100018201662f2f7372632f818205
   038181821860589e8443a10103a1054c6f3093eba5d85143c3dc484af6818340a301
   381e044a4578616d706c6545433220a401022001215820fedaba748882050d1bef8b
   a992911898f554450952070aeb4788ca57d1df6bcc225820ceaa8e7ff4751a4f81c7
   0e98f1713378b0bd82a1414a2f493c1c9c0670f28d625828cb530b03f1e4b09ec1a0
   ca19afafbf280284106ab407aaf9bfed6e666c8f2f9ab5465cf11ef0275685010100
   00561fd25f64a2eea12d4bb6c02d25bf33cec45f3e4f96b1ff'

A.6.  RSA Keypair COSE_Encrypt

   This is an example of an encryption with a recipient having a
   1024-bit RSA keypair identified by a "kid".  The associated public
   key is included as a security parameter.

   This key strength is not supposed to be a secure configuration, only
   intended to explain the procedure.  This padding scheme uses a random
   salt, so the full layer-2 ciphertext output is not deterministic.































Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 41]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   [
     { / recipient private key /
       / kty / 1: 3, / RSA /
       / kid / 2: 'ExampleRSA',
       / n / -1: h'b0b5fd85f52c91844007443c9f9371980025f76d51fc9c676812
   31da610cb291ba637ce813bffdb2e9c653258607389ec97dad3db295fded67744ed6
   20707db36804e74e56a494030a73608fc8d92f2f0578d2d85cc201ef0ff22d7835d2
   d147d3b90a6884276235a01c2be99dfc597f79554362fc1eb03639cac5ccaddb29
   25',
       / e / -2: h'010001',
       / d / -3: h'9b5d26ad6445ef1aab80b809e4f329684e9912d556c4166f041d
   1b1fb93c04b4037ffd0dbe6f8a8a86e70bab6e0f6344983a9ada27ed9ff7de816fde
   eb5e7be48e607ce5fda4581ca6338a9e019fb3689b28934192b6a190cdda910abb5a
   86a2f7b6f9cd5011049d8de52ddfef73aa06df401c55623ec196720f54920deb4f
   01',
       / p / -4: h'db22d94e7784a27b568cbf985307ea8d6430ff6b88c18a7086fd
   4f57a326572f2250c39e48a6f8e2201661c2dfe12c7386835b649714d050aa36123e
   c3d00e75',
       / q / -5: h'ce7016adc5f326b7520397c5978ee2f50e69279983d54c5d76f0
   5bcd61de0879d7056c923540dff9cbae95dcc0e5e86b52b3c902dc9669c8021c6955
   7effb9f1',
       / dP / -6: h'6a6fcaccea106a3b2e16bf18e57b7ad9a2488a4758ed68a8af6
   86a194f0d585b7477760c738d6665aee0302bcf4237ad0530d83b4b86b887f5a4bdc
   7eea427e1',
       / dQ / -7: h'28a4cae245b1dcb285142e027a1768b9c4af915b59285a93a04
   22c60e05edd9e57663afd023d169bd0ad3bd62da8563d231840802ebbf271ad70b89
   05ba3af91',
       / qInv / -8: h'07b5a61733896270a6bd2bb1654194c54e2bc0e061b543a4e
   d9fa73c4bc79c87148aa92a451c4ab8262b6377a9c7b97f869160ca6f5d853ee4b65
   f4f92865ca3'
     },
     {
       / kty / 1: 4, / symmetric /
       / kid / 2: 'ExampleCEK',
       / k / -1: h'13bf9cead057c0aca2c9e52471ca4b19ddfaf4c0784e3f3e8e39
   99dbae4ce45c'
     }
   ]

                          Figure 28: Example Keys

   The external_aad is the encoded data from Figure 11.









Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 42]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   [
     "Encrypt", / context /
     h'a10103', / protected /
     h'84880700008201692f2f6473742f7376638201662f2f7372632f8201662f2f73
   72632f820018281a000f424083010100f640' / external_aad /
   ]

                  Figure 29: Enc_structure CBOR diagnostic

   The ASB item for this encryption operation is shown in Figure 30 and
   corresponds with the updated target block (containing the ciphertext)
   of Figure 12.







































Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 43]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   [1], / targets /
   0, / security context TBD-COSE /
   1, / flags: params-present /
   [1, "//src/"], / security source /
   [ / parameters /
     [
       5, / AAD-scope /
       0x03 / has-primary-ctx | has-target-ctx /
     ]
   ],
   [
     [ / target block #1 /
       [ / result /
         96, / COSE_Encrypt tag /
         <<[
           <<{ / protected /
              / alg / 1:3 / A256GCM /
           }>>,
           { / unprotected /
             / iv / 5: h'6f3093eba5d85143c3dc484a'
           },
           null, / payload detached /
           [
             [ / recipient /
               h'', / protected /
               { / unprotected /
                 / alg / 1:-41, / RSAES-OAEP w SHA-256 /
                 / kid / 4:'ExampleRSA'
               },
               h'89d4367b14e3c663bf0352f8fc4b206f197d78f3f05dda90b3a88c
   db2354bdd25eee0cab60f987b6f1441afea8301fc4be22607569a5571bef86900ff8
   00a1b52764557382220afa2d115ddbe06729f8c621c440b6341deae871426a9038d0
   281d348d6fdf7c130139f5d1bb84c07d93f6d1eed15af81305cc634088fc3f79
   32' / key-wrapped /
             ]
           ]
         ]>>
       ]
     ]
   ]

             Figure 30: Abstract Security Block CBOR diagnostic

   The final bundle is encoded as the byte string:







Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 44]


Internet-Draft               DTN BPSec COSE                    June 2021


   h'9f880700008201692f2f6473742f7376638201662f2f7372632f8201662f2f7372
   632f820018281a000f4240850c03000058c2810100018201662f2f7372632f818205
   03818182186058aa8443a10103a1054c6f3093eba5d85143c3dc484af6818340a201
   3828044a4578616d706c65525341588089d4367b14e3c663bf0352f8fc4b206f197d
   78f3f05dda90b3a88cdb2354bdd25eee0cab60f987b6f1441afea8301fc4be226075
   69a5571bef86900ff800a1b52764557382220afa2d115ddbe06729f8c621c440b634
   1deae871426a9038d0281d348d6fdf7c130139f5d1bb84c07d93f6d1eed15af81305
   cc634088fc3f79328501010000561fd25f64a2eea12d4bb6c02d25bf33cec45f3e4f
   96b1ff'

Author's Address

   Brian Sipos
   RKF Engineering Solutions, LLC
   7500 Old Georgetown Road
   Suite 1275
   Bethesda, MD 20814-6198
   United States of America

   Email: BSipos@rkf-eng.com































Sipos                    Expires 5 December 2021               [Page 45]