Network Working Group B. Campbell
Internet-Draft Standard Velocity
Updates: RFC 3261, RFC 3428, RFC 4975 R. Housley
(if approved) Vigil Security
Intended status: Standards Track June 25, 2018
Expires: December 27, 2018
Securing Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) based Messaging with S/MIME
draft-campbell-sip-messaging-smime-03
Abstract
Mobile messaging applications used with the Session Initiation
Protocol (SIP) commonly use some combination of the SIP MESSAGE
method and the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP). While these
provide mechanisms for hop-by-hop security, neither natively provides
end-to-end protection. This document offers guidance on how to
provide end-to-end authentication, integrity protection, and
confidentiality using the Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (S/MIME). It updates and provides clarifications for RFC
3261, RFC 3428, and RFC 4975.
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 December 27, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Problem Statement and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Applicability of S/MIME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Signed Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Encrypted Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Signed and Encrypted Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Certificate Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4.1. Subject Alternative Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4.2. Certificate Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Transfer Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. User Agent Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Using S/MIME with the SIP MESSAGE Method . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Size Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. User Agent Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.3. Failure Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Using S/MIME with MSRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. Chunking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. Streamed Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.3. Indicating support for S/MIME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.4. MSRP URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.5. Failure Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. S/MIME Interaction with other SIP Messaging Features . . . . 13
9.1. Common Profile for Instant Messaging . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2. Instant Message Delivery Notifications . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.1. Signed Message in SIP Including the Sender's Certificate 15
10.2. Signed Message in SIP with No Certificate . . . . . . . 17
10.3. MSRP Signed and Encrypted Message in a Single Chunk . . 17
10.4. MSRP Signed and Encrypted Message sent in Multiple
Chunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix A. Message Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.1. Signed Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.2. Short Signed Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
A.3. Signed and Encrypted Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
A.3.1. Signed Message Prior to Encryption . . . . . . . . . 31
A.3.2. Encrypted Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
1. Introduction
Several Mobile Messaging systems use the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) [RFC3261], typically as some combination of the SIP MESSAGE
method [RFC3428] and the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)
[RFC4975]. For example, Voice over LTE (VoLTE) uses the SIP MESSAGE
method to send Short Message Service (SMS) messages. The Open Mobile
Alliance (OMA) Converged IP Messaging (CPM) [CPM], [RCS] system uses
the SIP Message Method for short "pager mode" messages and MSRP for
large messages and for sessions of messages. The GSM Association
(GMSA) rich communication services (RCS) uses CPM for messaging.
At the same time, organizations increasingly depend on mobile
messaging systems to send notifications to their customers. Many of
these notifications are security sensitive. For example, such
notifications are commonly used for notice of financial transactions,
notice of login or password change attempts, and sending of two-
factor authentication codes.
Both SIP and MSRP can be used to transport any content using
Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) formats. The SIP
MESSAGE method is typically limited to short messages (under 1300
octets for the MESSAGE request). MSRP can carry arbitrarily large
messages, and can break large messages into chunks.
While both SIP and MSRP provide mechanisms for hop-by-hop security,
neither provides native end-to-end protection. Instead, they depend
on S/MIME [RFC5750][RFC5751]. However at the time of this writing,
S/MIME is not in common use for SIP and MSRP based messaging
services. This document updates and clarifies RFC 3261, RFC 3428,
and RFC 4975 in an attempt to make the S/MIME for SIP and MSRP easier
to implement and deploy in an interoperable fashion.
This document updates RFC 3261, RFC 3428, and RFC 4975 to update the
cryptographic algorithm recommendations and the handling of S/MIME
data objects. It updates RFC 3261 to allow S/MIME signed messages to
be sent without imbedded certificates in some situations. Finally,
it updates RFC 3261, RFC 3428 and RFC 4975 to clarify error reporting
requirements for certain situations.
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Problem Statement and Scope
This document discusses the use of S/MIME with SIP based messaging.
Other standardized messaging protocols exist, such as the Extensible
Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) [RFC6121]. Likewise, other
end-to-end protection formats exist, such as JSON Web Signatures
[RFC7515] and JSON Web Encryption [RFC7516].
This document focuses on SIP-based messaging because its use is
becoming more common in mobile environments. It focuses on S/MIME
since several mobile operating systems already have S/MIME libraries
installed. While there may also be value in specifying end-to-end
security for other messaging and security mechanisms, it is out of
scope for this document.
MSRP sessions are negotiated using the Session Description Protocol
(SDP) [RFC4566] offer/answer mechanism [RFC3264] or similar
mechanisms. This document assumes that SIP is used for the offer/
answer exchange. However, the techniques should be adaptable to
other signaling protocols.
[RFC3261], [RFC3428], and [RFC4975] already describe the use of
S/MIME. [RFC3853] updates SIP to support the Advanced Encryption
Standard (AES). In aggregate that guidance is incomplete, contains
inconsistencies, and is still out of date in terms of supported and
recommended algorithms.
The guidance in RFC 3261 is based on an implicit assumption that
S/MIME is being used to secure signaling applications. That advice
is not entirely appropriate for messaging application. For example,
it assumes that message decryption always happens before the SIP
transaction completes.
This document offers normative updates and clarifications to the use
of S/MIME with the SIP MESSAGE method and MSRP. It does not attempt
to define a complete secure messaging system. Such system would
require considerable work around user enrollment, certificate and key
generation and management, multiparty chats, device management, etc.
While nothing herein should preclude those efforts, they are out of
scope for this document.
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
This document primarily covers the sending of single messages, for
example "pager-mode messages" send using the SIP MESSAGE method and
"large messages" sent in MSRP. Techniques to use a common signing or
encryption key across a session of messages are out of scope for this
document.
Cryptographic algorithm requirements in this document are intended
supplement those already specified for SIP and MSRP.
4. Applicability of S/MIME
The Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) [RFC5652] is an encapsulation
syntax that is used to digitally sign, digest, authenticate, or
encrypt arbitrary message content. The CMS supports a variety of
architectures for certificate-based key management, especially the
one defined by the IETF PKIX (Public Key Infrastructure using X.509)
working group [RFC5280]. The CMS values are generated using ASN.1
[X680], using the Basic Encoding Rules (BER) and Distinguished
Encoding Rules (DER) [X690].
The S/MIME Message Specification version 3.2 [RFC5751] defines MIME
body parts based on the CMS. In this document, the application/
pkcs7-mime media type is used to digitally sign an encapsulated body
part, and it is also is used to encrypt an encapsulated body part.
4.1. Signed Messages
While both SIP and MSRP require support for the multipart/signed
format, this document recommends the use of application/pkcs7-mime
for most signed messages. Experience with the use of S/MIME in
electronic mail has shown that multipart/signed bodies are at greater
risk of "helpful" tampering by intermediaries, a common cause of
signature validation failure. This risk is also present for
messaging applications; for example, intermediaries might insert
Instant Message Delivery notification requests into messages (see
Section 9.2). The application/pkcs7-mime format is also more
compact, which can be important for messaging applications,
especially when using the SIP MESSAGE method (see Section 7.1). The
use of multipart/signed may still make sense if the message needs to
be readable by receiving agents that do not support S/MIME.
When generating a signed message, sending user agents (UAs) SHOULD
follow the conventions specified in [RFC5751] for the application/
pkcs7-mime media type with smime-type=signed-data. When validating a
signed message, receiving UAs MUST follow the conventions specified
in [RFC5751] for the application/pkcs7-mime media type with smime-
type=signed-data.
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
Sending and receiving UAs MUST support the SHA-256 message digest
algorithm [RFC5754]. For convenience, the SHA-256 algorithm
identifier is repeated here:
id-sha256 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
joint-iso-itu-t(2) country(16) us(840) organization(1) gov(101)
csor(3) nistalgorithm(4) hashalgs(2) 1 }
Sending and receiving UAs MAY support other message digest
algorithms.
Sending and receiving UAs MUST support the Elliptic Curve Digital
Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) using the NIST P256 elliptic curve and
the SHA-256 message digest algorithm [RFC5480][RFC5753]. Sending and
receiving UAs SHOULD support the Edwards-curve Digital Signature
Algorithm (EdDSA) with curve25519 (Ed25519)
[RFC8032][I-D.ietf-curdle-cms-eddsa-signatures]. For convenience,
the ECDSA with SHA-256 algorithm identifier, the object identifier
for the well-known NIST P256 elliptic curve, and the Ed25519
algorithm identifier are repeated here:
ecdsa-with-SHA256 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) ansi-X9-62(10045) signatures(4)
ecdsa-with-SHA2(3) 2 }
-- Note: the NIST P256 elliptic curve is also known as secp256r1.
secp256r1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) ansi-X9-62(10045) curves(3)
prime(1) 7 }
id-Ed25519 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { 1 3 101 112 }
4.2. Encrypted Messages
When generating an encrypted message, sending UAs MUST follow the
conventions specified in [RFC5751] for the application/pkcs7-mime
media type with smime-type=enveloped-data. When decrypting a
received message, receiving UAs MUST follow the conventions specified
in [RFC5751] for the application/pkcs7-mime media type with smime-
type=enveloped-data.
Sending and receiving UAs MUST support the AES-128-CBC for content
encryption [RFC3565]. For convenience, the AES-128-CBC algorithm
identifier is repeated here:
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
id-aes128-CBC OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
joint-iso-itu-t(2) country(16) us(840) organization(1) gov(101)
csor(3) nistAlgorithm(4) aes(1) 2 }
Sending and receiving UAs MAY support other content encryption
algorithms.
Sending and receiving UAs MUST support the AES-128-WRAP for
encryption of one AES key with another AES key [RFC3565]. For
convenience, the AES-128-WRAP algorithm identifier is repeated here:
id-aes128-wrap OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
joint-iso-itu-t(2) country(16) us(840) organization(1) gov(101)
csor(3) nistAlgorithm(4) aes(1) 5 }
Sending and receiving UAs MAY support other key encryption
algorithms.
Symmetric key-encryption keys can be distributed before messages are
sent. If sending and receiving UAs support previously distributed
key-encryption keys, then they MUST assign a KEK identifier [RFC5652]
to the previously distributed symmetric key.
Alternatively, a key agreement algorithm can be used to establish a
single-use key-encryption key. If sending and receiving UAs support
key agreement, then they MUST support the Elliptic Curve Diffie-
Hellman (ECDH) using the NIST P256 elliptic curve and the ANSI-
X9.63-KDF key derivation function with the SHA-256 message digest
algorithm [RFC5753]. If sending and receiving UAs support key
agreement, then they SHOULD support the Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman
(ECDH) using curve25519 (X25519)
[RFC7748][I-D.ietf-curdle-cms-ecdh-new-curves]. For convenience, the
ECDH using the ANSI-X9.63-KDF with SHA-256 algorithm identifier and
the X25519 algorithm identifier are repeated here:
dhSinglePass-stdDH-sha256kdf-scheme OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
iso(1) identified-organization(3) certicom(132)
schemes(1) 11 1 }
id-X25519 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { 1 3 101 110 }
4.3. Signed and Encrypted Messages
RFC 3261 section 23.2 says that when a UAC sends signed and encrypted
data, it should send an EnvelopedData object encapsulated within a
SignedData message. That essentially says that one should encrypt
first, then sign. This document updates RFC 3261 to say that, when
sending signed and encrypted user content in a SIP MESSAGE request,
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
the sending UAs MUST sign the message first, and then encrypt it.
That is, it must send the SignedData object inside an EnvelopedData
object.
4.4. Certificate Handling
Sending and receiving UAs MUST follow the S/MIME certificate handling
procedures [RFC5750], with a few exceptions detailed below.
4.4.1. Subject Alternative Name
In both SIP and MSRP, the identity of the sender of a message is
typically expressed a SIP URI.
The subject alternative name extension is used as the preferred means
to convey the SIP URI of the subject of a certificate. Any SIP URI
present MUST be encoded using the uniformResourceIdentifier CHOICE of
the GeneralName type as described in [RFC5280], Section 4.2.1.6.
Since the SubjectAltName type is a SEQUENCE OF GeneralName, multiple
URIs MAY be present.
Other methods of identifying a certificate subject MAY be used.
4.4.2. Certificate Validation
When validating a certificate, receiving UAs MUST support the
Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) using the NIST
P256 elliptic curve and the SHA-256 message digest algorithm
[RFC5480].
Sending and receiving UAs MAY support other digital signature
algorithms for certificate validation.
5. Transfer Encoding
SIP and MSRP UAs are always capable of receiving binary data. Inner
S/MIME entities do not require base64 encoding [RFC4648].
Both SIP and MSRP provide 8-bit safe transport channels; base64
encoding is not generally needed for the outer S/MIME entities.
However, if there is a chance a message might cross a 7-bit transport
(for example, gateways that convert to a 7-bit transport for
intermediate transfer), base64 encoding may be needed for the outer
entity.
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
6. User Agent Capabilities
Messaging UAs may implement a subset of S/MIME capabilities. Even
when implemented, some features may not be available due to
configuration. For example, UAs that do not have user certificates
cannot sign messages on behalf of the user or decrypt encrypted
messages sent to the user. At a minimum, a UA that supports S/MIME
MUST be able to validate a signed message.
End-user certificates have long been a barrier to large-scale S/MIME
deployment. But since UAs can validate signatures even without local
certificates, the use case of organizations sending secure
notifications to their users becomes a sort of "low hanging fruit".
SIP and MSRP UAs advertise their level of support for S/MIME by
indicating their capability to receive the "application/pkcs7-mime"
media type.
The fact that a UA indicates support for the "multipart/signed" media
type does not necessarily imply support for S/MIME. The UA might
just be able to display clear-signed content without validating the
signature. UAs that wish to indicate the ability to validate
signatures for clear-signed messages MUST also indicate support for
"application/pkcs7-signature".
A UA can indicate that it can receive all smime-types by advertising
"application/pkcs7-mime" with no parameters. If a UA does not accept
all smime-types, it advertises the media type with the appropriate
parameters. If more than one are supported, the UA includes a
separate instance of the media-type string, appropriately
parameterized, for each.
For example, a UA that can only received signed-data would advertise
"application/pkcs7-mime; smime-type=signed-data".
SIP signaling can fork to multiple destinations for a given Address
of Record (AoR). A user might have multiple UAs with different
capabilities; the capabilities remembered from an interaction with
one such UA might not apply to another.
UAs can also advertise or discover S/MIME using out of band
mechanisms. Such mechanisms are beyond the scope of this document.
7. Using S/MIME with the SIP MESSAGE Method
The use of S/MIME with the SIP MESSAGE method is described in section
11.3 of [RFC3428], and for SIP in general in section 23 of [RFC3261].
This section and its child sections offer clarifications for the use
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
of S/MIME with the SIP MESSAGE method, along with related updates to
RFC 3261 and RFC 3428.
7.1. Size Limit
SIP MESSAGE requests are typically limited to 1300 octets. That
limit applies to the entire message, including both SIP header fields
and the message content. This is due to the potential for
fragmentation of larger requests sent over UDP. In general, it is
hard to be sure that no proxy or other intermediary will forward a
SIP request over UDP somewhere along the path. Therefore, S/MIME
messages sent via SIP MESSAGE should be kept as small as possible.
Messages that will not fit within the limit can be sent using MSRP.
Section 23.2 of [RFC3261] says that a SignedData message must contain
a certificate to be used to validate the signature. In order to
reduce the message size, this document updates that to say that a
SignedData message sent in a SIP MESSAGE request SHOULD contain the
certificate, but MAY omit it if the sender has reason to believe that
the recipient already has the certificate in its keychain, or has
some other method of accessing the certificate.
7.2. User Agent Capabilities
SIP user agents (UA) can indicate support for S/MIME by including the
appropriate media type or types in the SIP Accept header field in a
response to an OPTIONS request, or in a 415 response to a SIP request
that contained an unsupported media type in the body.
UAs might be able to use the user agent capabilities framework
[RFC3840] to indicate support. However doing so would require the
registration of one or more media feature tags with IANA.
UAs MAY use other out-of-band methods to indicate their level of
support for S/MIME.
7.3. Failure Cases
Section 23.2 of [RFC3261] requires that the recipient of a SIP
request that includes a body part of an unsupported media type and a
Content-Disposition header "handling" parameter of "required" return
a 415 "Unsupported Media Type" response. Given that SIP MESSAGE
exists for no reason other than to deliver content in the body, it is
reasonable to treat the top-level body part as always required.
However [RFC3428] makes no such assertion. This document updates
section 11.3 [RFC3428] to add the statement that a UAC that receives
a SIP MESSAGE request with an unsupported media type MUST return a
415 Unsupported Media Type" response.
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
Section 23.2 of [RFC3261] says that if a recipient receives an S/MIME
body encrypted to the wrong certificate, it MUST return a SIP 493
(Undecipherable) response, and SHOULD send a valid certificate in
that response. This is not always possible in practice for SIP
MESSAGE requests. The User Agent Server (UAS) may choose not to
decrypt a message until the user is ready to read it. Messages may
be delivered to a message store, or sent via a store-and-forward
service. This document updates RFC 3261 to say that the UAS SHOULD
return a SIP 493 response if it immediately attempts to decrypt the
message and determines the message was encrypted to the wrong
certificate. However, it MAY return a 2XX class response if
decryption is deferred.
8. Using S/MIME with MSRP
MSRP has features that interact with the use of S/MIME. In
particular, the ability to send messages in chunks, the ability to
send messages of unknown size, and the use of SDP to indicate media-
type support create considerations for the use of S/MIME.
8.1. Chunking
MSRP allows a message to be broken into "chunks" for transmission.
In this context, the term "message" refers to an entire message that
one user might send to another. A chunk is a fragment of that
message sent in a single MSRP SEND request. All of the chunks that
make up a particular message share the same Message-ID value.
The sending user agent may break a message into chunks, which the
receiving user agent will reassemble to form the complete message.
Intermediaries such as MSRP Relays [RFC4976] might break chunks into
smaller chunks, or might reassemble chunks into larger ones;
therefore the message received by the recipient may be broken into a
different number of chunks than were sent by the recipient.
Intermediaries might also cause chunks to be received in a different
order than sent.
The sender MUST apply any S/MIME operations to the whole message
prior to breaking it into chunks. Likewise, the receiver needs to
reassemble the message from its chunks prior to decrypting,
validating a signature, etc.
MSRP chunks are framed using an end-line. The end-line comprises
seven hyphens, a 64-bit random value taken from the start line, and a
continuation flag. MRSP requires the sending user agent to scan data
sent in a specific chunk to be sent ensure that the end-line does not
accidentally occur as part of the sent data. This scanning occurs on
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
a chunk rather than a whole message, consequently it must occur after
the sender applies any S/MIME operations.
8.2. Streamed Data
MSRP allows a mode of operation where a UA sends some chunks of a
message prior to knowing the full length of the message. For
example, a sender might send streamed data over MSRP as a single
message, even though it doesn't know the full length of that data in
advance. This mode is incompatible with S/MIME, since a sending UA
must apply S/MIME operations to the entire message in advance of
breaking it into chunks.
Therefore, when sending a message in an S/MIME format, the sender
MUST include the Byte-Range header field for every chunk, including
the first chunk. The Byte-Range header field MUST include the total
length of the message.
A higher layer could choose to break such streamed data into a series
of messages prior to applying S/MIME operation, so that each fragment
appears as a distinct S/MIME separate message in MSRP. Such
mechanisms are beyond the scope for this document.
8.3. Indicating support for S/MIME
A UA that supports this specification MUST explicitly include the
appropriate media type or types in the "accept-types" attribute in
any SDP offer or answer that proposes MSRP. It MAY indicate that it
requires S/MIME wrappers for all messages by putting appropriate
S/MIME media types in the "accept-types" attribute and putting all
other supported media types in the "accept-wrapped-types" attribute.
For backwards compatibility, a sender MAY treat a peer that includes
an asterisk ("*") in the "accept-types" attribute as potentially
supporting S/MIME. If the peer returns an MSRP 415 response to an
attempt to send an S/MIME message, the sender should treat the peer
as not supporting S/MIME for the duration of the session, as
indicated in [RFC4975].
While these SDP attributes allow an endpoint to express support for
certain media types only when wrapped in a specified envelope type,
it does not allow the expression of more complex structures. For
example, an endpoint can say that it supports text/plain and text/
html, but only when inside an application/pkcs7 or message/cpim
container, but it cannot express a requirement for the leaf types to
always be contained in an application/pkcs7 container nested inside a
message/cpim container. This has implications for the use of s/mime
with the message/cpim format. (See Section 9.1.)
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
MSRP allows multiple reporting modes that provide different levels of
feedback. If the sender includes a Failure-Report header field with
a value of "no", it will not receive failure reports. This mode
should not be used carelessly, since such a sender would never see a
415 response as described above, and would have no way to learn that
the recipient could not process an S/MIME body.
8.4. MSRP URIs
MSRP URIs are ephemeral. Endpoints MUST NOT use MSRP URIs to
identify certificates, or insert MSRP URIs into certificate Subject
Alternative Name fields. When MSRP sessions are negotiated using SIP
[RFC3261], the SIP AoRs of the peers are used instead.
Note that MSRP allows messages to be sent between peers in either
direction. A given MSRP message might be sent from the SIP offerer
to the SIP answer. Thus, the the sender and recipient roles may
reverse between one message and another in a given session.
8.5. Failure Cases
Successful delivery of an S/MIME message does not indicate that the
recipient successfully decrypted the contents or validated a
signature. Decryption and/or validation may not occur immediately on
receipt, since since the recipient may not immediately view the
message, and the user agent may choose not to attempt decryption or
validation until the user requests it.
Likewise, successful delivery of S/MIME enveloped data does not, on
its own, indicate that the recipient supports the enclosed media
type. If the peer only implicitly indicated support for the enclosed
media type through the use of a wildcard in the "accept-types" or
"accept-wrapped types" SDP attributes, it may not decrypt the message
in time to send a 415 response.
9. S/MIME Interaction with other SIP Messaging Features
9.1. Common Profile for Instant Messaging
The Common Profile for Instant Messaging (CPIM) [RFC3860] defines an
abstract messaging service, with the goal of creating gateways
between different messaging protocols that could relay instant
messages without change. The SIP MESSAGE method and MSRP were
initially designed to map to the CPIM abstractions. However, at the
time of this writing, CPIM compliant gateways have not been deployed.
To the authors' knowledge, no other IM protocols have been explicitly
mapped to CPIM.
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
CPIM also defines the abstract messaging URI scheme "im:". As of the
time of this writing, the "im:" scheme is not in common use.
The Common Profile for Instant Messages Message Format [RFC3862]
allows UAs to attach transport-neutral metadata to arbitrary MIME
content. The format was designed as a canonicalization format to
allow signed data to cross protocol-converting gateways without loss
of metadata needed to verify the signature. While it has not
typically been used for that purpose, it has been used for other
metadata applications, for example, Intant Message Delivery
Notifications (IMDN)[RFC5438] and MSRP Multi-party Chat [RFC7701]
In the general case, a sender applies end-to-end signature and
encryption operations to the entire MIME body. However, some
messaging systems expect to inspect and in some cases add or modify
metadata in CPIM header fields. For example, CPM and RCS based
service include application servers that may need to insert time
stamps into chat messages, and may use additional metadata to
characterize the content and purpose of a message to determine
application behavior. The former will cause validation failure for
signatures that cover CPIM metadata, while the latter is not possible
if the metadata is encrypted. Clients intended for use in such
networks MAY choose to apply end-to-end signatures and encryption
operations to only the CPIM payload, leaving the CPIM metadata
unprotected from inspection and modification. UAs that support
S/MIME and CPIM SHOULD be able validate signatures and decrypt
enveloped data both when those operations are applied to the entire
CPIM body, and when they are applied to just the CPIM payload.
If such clients need to provide encrypt or sign CPIM metadata end-to-
end, they can nest a protected CPIM message format payload inside an
unprotected CPIM message envelope.
The use of CPIM metadata fields to identify certificates or to
authenticate SIP or MSRP header fields is out of scope for this
document.
9.2. Instant Message Delivery Notifications
The Instant Message Delivery Notification (IMDN) mechanism[RFC5438]
allows both endpoints and intermediary application servers to request
and to generate delivery notifications. The use of S/MIME does not
impact strictly end-to-end use of IMDN. IMDN recommends that devices
that are capable of doing so sign delivery notifications. It further
requires that delivery notifications that result from encrypted
messages also be encrypted.
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
However, IMDN allows intermediary application servers to insert
notification requests into messages, to add routing information to
messages, and to act on notification requests. It also allows list
servers to aggregate delivery notifications.
Such intermediaries will be unable to read end-to-end encrypted
messages in order to interpret delivery notice requests.
Intermediaries that insert information into end-to-end signed
messages will cause the signature validation to fail. (See
Section 9.1.)
10. Examples
The following sections show examples of S/MIME messages in SIP and
MSRP. The examples include the tags "[start-hex]" and "[end-hex]" to
denote binary content shown in hexadecimal. The tags are not part of
the actual message, and do not count towards the Content-Length
header field values. Some SIP header fields are folded to avoid over
running the margins. Folded lines contain leading white space at the
beginning of the line. These folds would not exist in the actual
message.
In all of these examples, the clear text message is the string
"Watson, come here - I want to see you." followed by a newline
character.
The cast of characters includes Alice, with a SIP AoR of
"alice@example.com", and Bob, with a SIP AoR of "bob@example.org".
Appendix A shows the detailed content of each S/MIME body.
10.1. Signed Message in SIP Including the Sender's Certificate
Figure 1 shows a message signed by Alice. This body uses the
"application/pcks7-mime" media type with a smime-type parameter value
of "signed-data".
The S/MIME body includes Alice's signing certificate. Even though
the original message content is fairly short and only minimal SIP
header fields are included, the total message size is 1300 octets.
This is the maximum allowed for the SIP MESSAGE method unless the UAC
has advance knowledge that no hop will use a transport protocol
without congestion control.
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
MESSAGE sip:bob@example.org SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP alice-pc.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK776sgdkfie
Max-Forwards: 70
From: sip:alice@example.com;tag=49597
To: sip:bob@example.org
Call-ID: asd88asd66b@1.2.3.4
CSeq: 1 MESSAGE
Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
Content-Type: application/pkcs7-mime; smime-type=signed-data;
name="smime.p7m"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7m"
Content-Length: 890
[start-hex]
3082037606092a864886f70d010702a082036730820363020101310d300b
0609608648016503040201305306092a864886f70d010701a0460444436f
6e74656e742d547970653a20746578742f706c61696e0d0a0d0a57617473
6f6e2c20636f6d652068657265202d20492077616e7420746f2073656520
796f752e0d0aa082016f3082016b30820110a00302010202090090238790
1727648e300a06082a8648ce3d040302302631143012060355040a0c0b65
78616d706c652e636f6d310e300c06035504030c05416c696365301e170d
3137313232303232353433395a170d3138313232303232353433395a3026
31143012060355040a0c0b6578616d706c652e636f6d310e300c06035504
030c05416c6963653059301306072a8648ce3d020106082a8648ce3d0301
0703420004d87b54729f2c22feebd9ddba0efa40642297a6093887a4dae7
990b23f87fa7ed99db8cf5a314f2ee64106ef1ed61dbfc0a4b91c953cbd0
22a751b914807bb794a327302530230603551d110101ff04193017861573
69703a616c696365406578616d706c652e636f6d300a06082a8648ce3d04
03020349003046022100f16fe739ddf3a1ff072a78142395721f9c0629b5
8458644d855dad94da9b06f20221008ffda4ba4c65087584969bfb2002ba
f5eefebd693181b43666141f363990988431820185308201810201013033
302631143012060355040a0c0b6578616d706c652e636f6d310e300c0603
5504030c05416c696365020900902387901727648e300b06096086480165
03040201a081e4301806092a864886f70d010903310b06092a864886f70d
010701301c06092a864886f70d010905310f170d31373132323032323537
35315a302f06092a864886f70d01090431220420ef778fc940d5e6dc2576
f47a599b3126195a9f1a227adaf35fa22c050d8d195a307906092a864886
f70d01090f316c306a300b060960864801650304012a300b060960864801
6503040116300b0609608648016503040102300a06082a864886f70d0307
300e06082a864886f70d030202020080300d06082a864886f70d03020201
40300706052b0e030207300d06082a864886f70d0302020128300a06082a
8648ce3d0403020447304502200f37c8d68628ed5a52e1208bb091999901
02f1de5766a45d5b4627fe4d87c9cc022100f0de29c03e7d3fcc5329b77f
e31faa10b0003c8249cb011cbb14410d4c9bf93e
[end-hex]
Figure 1: Signed Message in SIP
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
10.2. Signed Message in SIP with No Certificate
Figure 2 shows the same message from Alice without the imbedded
certificate. The resulting total length of 928 octets is more
manageable.
MESSAGE sip:bob@example.org SIP/2.0
Via: SIP/2.0/TCP alice-pc.example.com;branch=z9hG4bK776sgdkfie
Max-Forwards: 70
From: sip:alice@example.com;tag=49597
To: sip:bob@example.org
Call-ID: asd88asd66b@1.2.3.4
CSeq: 1 MESSAGE
Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
Content-Type: application/pkcs7-mime; smime-type=signed-data;
name="smime.p7m"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7m"
Content-Length: 518
[start-hex]
3082020206092a864886f70d010702a08201f3308201ef020101310d300b
0609608648016503040201305306092a864886f70d010701a0460444436f
6e74656e742d547970653a20746578742f706c61696e0d0a0d0a57617473
6f6e2c20636f6d652068657265202d20492077616e7420746f2073656520
796f752e0d0a31820184308201800201013033302631143012060355040a
0c0b6578616d706c652e636f6d310e300c06035504030c05416c69636502
0900b8793ec0e4c21530300b0609608648016503040201a081e430180609
2a864886f70d010903310b06092a864886f70d010701301c06092a864886
f70d010905310f170d3137313232313032313230345a302f06092a864886
f70d01090431220420ef778fc940d5e6dc2576f47a599b3126195a9f1a22
7adaf35fa22c050d8d195a307906092a864886f70d01090f316c306a300b
060960864801650304012a300b0609608648016503040116300b06096086
48016503040102300a06082a864886f70d0307300e06082a864886f70d03
0202020080300d06082a864886f70d0302020140300706052b0e03020730
0d06082a864886f70d0302020128300a06082a8648ce3d04030204463044
022057773352edeed4ea693455e2a87b8b098decefe50ddb0ff7e391e84f
7976208a0220089cf365467a1a49e838b51f35a62c7a158e5fc999bf7d8f
bfb5262af5afec93
[end-hex]
Figure 2: Signed Message in SIP with No Certificate Included
10.3. MSRP Signed and Encrypted Message in a Single Chunk
Figure 3 shows a signed and encrypted message from Bob to Alice sent
via MSRP.
MSRP dsdfoe38sd SEND
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
To-Path: msrp://alicepc.example.com:7777/iau39soe2843z;tcp
From-Path: msrp://bobpc.example.org:8888/9di4eae923wzd;tcp
Message-ID: 456so39s
Byte-Range: 1-1567/1567
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7m"
Content-Type: application/pkcs7-mime; smime-type=enveloped-data;
name="smime.p7m"
[start-hex]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 & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018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[end-hex]
-------dsdfoe38sd$
Figure 3: Signed and Encrypted Message in MSRP
10.4. MSRP Signed and Encrypted Message sent in Multiple Chunks
Figure 4 shows the same message as in Figure 3 except that the
message is broken into two chunks. The S/MIME operations were
performed prior to breaking the message into chunks.
MSRP d93kswow SEND
To-Path: msrp://alicepc.example.com:7777/iau39soe2843z;tcp
From-Path: msrp://bobpc.example.org:8888/9di4eae923wzd;tcp
Message-ID: 12339sdqwer
Byte-Range: 1-780/1567
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7m"
Content-Type: application/pkcs7-mime; smime-type=enveloped-data;
name="smime.p7m"
[start-hex]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 & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
c99a9629b0862945e00d1b433f6dc35e8d1cb5098597363624456dd867e6
132d8ee935cc3b4124df6baba88770708af57c9ad70727410d6bf83ec0e5
580e26c67f90608d375750ed93890256bf3f714fb676effcf363db0809b0
21e90994a437353ee41432c7cf60e48cbd45420c659e75906cede2d44a5b
b619014e73a0ba2d54ab3edbe23c63fad898411d1ac790552eadc66a358f
bd4461efec935d0b8bbc2e6cf23e863a1ee7a4e7741f072c1d465ea1e6c3
577b2e77acd1d1152f268235f85ae82f50871acf13e38b17fd69f88f973f
6818682c4043b4ec7db17b22e20ee9becbf2c9f893308203ae06092a8648
86f70d010701301d060960864801650304010204104d8757222eac529411
7f0c12d671a127808203805d4077a1547c5f4699f07531a53eb88344d1a3
b229ff91f3f69c0e94918c77c9f6bda194e35983ef9a38edca15678e65bd
76ce665ca6e999b3a845e42666aa2703a5a4f0d3322d6de01e64545cbccf
09e3c2268dfd86c336116b22cce80098619242fd482ece2fcd71a7c15ff7
[end-hex]
-------d93kswow+
MSRP op2nc9a SEND
To-Path: msrp://alicepc.example.com:8888/9di4eae923wzd;tcp
From-Path: msrp://bobpc.example.org:7654/iau39soe2843z;tcp
Message-ID: 12339sdqwer
Byte-Range: 781-1567/1567
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7m"
Content-Type: application/pkcs7-mime; smime-type=enveloped-data;
name="smime.p7m"
[start-hex]
7bf133287df0ef7c51713bdc0f6cdada9198ea8fd81a9c5a50c5e9c0958b
3347efc425038fb5b776ab469826227c697aecc6580d0a23a99e15b805ff
3ba155c252f5e72bb9db133d049d992c18f4f4dad60a18dae729ba7c5836
78ffb8604a8f7fe3cc62d0632cc66e1c4f9ba1fa9df56c6d9fd81f19c88b
a6e9710bb0bbb0c5fcf9d2d5ea04d529fda78d60dc487d867c0e392174e9
3ce2c3986cea7aef071e5b07b646c229f9069f27f3749456daea0a4e56bc
491c9be370c544399a273d50c35f160fb37e5f7314c3d389a805c8e4776f
0a2a89f555c9fe52080890abe2e39d2ed77a2b363d1c0fb375790028e962
401230ae93aa4320a5da2ad7017c599508f79c3a0c35f9846e8a2c410a5e
0d77e907c0151ce513e2e899de92ff8d177796238ade9309d75c976e9716
ced4c45e1a339213d7b0824592394076f74a70454cc46565f4a836531646
42827b2e28819ac3781afb529b7c72308b96978539d789d3d27cb1605b1a
0ce966e9c6cb5825d235e523a6c2d948ef9314c902359adf03fe4684221f
afd1f833d759c6f2559b6e0a8897d64e42b49eae0e39dfaccc94ef3e733f
ca2212eb5ccbc7c5d7f042d02bf412d14c7ede0f664d799ea556f9763e74
2cacdd3efc8822bbe6c81fea27de6b0b06448252f9adeb6667b46056f39b
42f18f4d6258111fa243b5c39fdf8961bc6e59d8bd659d46f92a8ced04d1
a6af37e5c089b547a836df6994377cf92e8e74625569df6a6065f6c93bab
ef0d07cfac7af69d8bf87c96e6ebad2ebdb553f776e69143e706e227061e
5e3d0e38a83ab9c2ce62102f3021f7d8b9e56ad6714514039f48d7fab85e
fbafee16e15d7afd8148ccfc9fb273f8bfd5bdebd0281a50095aa192c9e8
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
7a0f2c44bb57de5f86cfbda3337cd982dfae982a80879878646e03614515
cf94150479d20e3ce521617dda22d53a5829265564fa467e7db9e25f3d25
5a4f9f82fd9514ca177ac81b882acbe89d1cc640c7b980c5a9d5f70921bb
6fbf166d38aa04257e08c51b2df144e93363e0e47e8013df584b3f3130b4
df7c9ae17709f1bfd8ded1385741d80596b7b8d6a2f2e5a2f85029ce97ef
ed2c97f942f77b
[end-hex]
-------op2nc9a$
Figure 4: MSRP Chunked Signed and Encrypted Message
11. IANA Considerations
This document makes no requests of the IANA.
12. Security Considerations
The security considerations from S/MIME [RFC5750][RFC5751] and
elliptic curves in CMS [RFC5753] apply. The S/MIME related security
considerations from SIP [RFC3261][RFC3853], SIP MESSAGE [RFC3428],
and MSRP [RFC4975] apply.
The security considerations from algorithms recommended in this
document also apply, see [RFC3565], [RFC5480], [RFC5753], [RFC5754],
[RFC7748], [RFC8032], [I-D.ietf-curdle-cms-eddsa-signatures], and
[I-D.ietf-curdle-cms-ecdh-new-curves].
This document assumes that end-entity certificate validation is
provided by a chain of trust to a certification authority (CA), using
a public key infrastructure. The security considerations from
[RFC5280] apply. However, other validations methods may be possible;
for example sending a signed fingerprint for the end-entity in SDP.
The relationship of this work and the techniques discussed in
[RFC4474], [I-D.ietf-stir-rfc4474bis], and
[I-D.ietf-sipbrandy-rtpsec] are out of scope for this document.
When matching an end-entity certificate to the sender or recipient
identity, the respective SIP AoRs are used. Typically these will
match the SIP From and To header fields. Some UAs may extract sender
identity from SIP AoRs in other header fields, for example, P-
Asserted-Identity [RFC3325]. In general, the UAS should compare the
certificate to the identity that it relies upon, for example for
display to the end-user or comparison to white lists and blacklists.
The secure notification use case discussed in Section 1 has
significant vulnerabilities when used in an insecure environment.
For example, "phishing" messages could be used to trick users into
revealing credentials. Eavesdroppers could learn confirmation codes
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
from unprotected two-factor authentication messages. Unsolicited
messages sent by impersonators could tarnish the reputation of an
organization. While hop-by-hop protection can mitigate some of those
risks, it still leaves messages vulnerabile to malicious or
compromised intermediaries.
Mobile messaging is typically an online application; online
certificate revocation checks should usually be feasible.
Certain messaging services, for example those based on CPM and RCS,
may include intermediaries that attach metadata to user generated
messages. In certain cases this metadata may reveal information to
third parties that would have otherwise been encrypted. Implementors
and operators should consider whether this metadata may create
privacy leaks. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of this
document.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-curdle-cms-ecdh-new-curves]
Housley, R., "Use of the Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman Key
Agreement Algorithm with X25519 and X448 in the
Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", draft-ietf-curdle-
cms-ecdh-new-curves-10 (work in progress), August 2017.
[I-D.ietf-curdle-cms-eddsa-signatures]
Housley, R., "Use of EdDSA Signatures in the Cryptographic
Message Syntax (CMS)", draft-ietf-curdle-cms-eddsa-
signatures-08 (work in progress), October 2017.
[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>.
[RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
[RFC3264] Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3264, June 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3264>.
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
[RFC3428] Campbell, B., Ed., Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H.,
Huitema, C., and D. Gurle, "Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) Extension for Instant Messaging", RFC 3428,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3428, December 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3428>.
[RFC3565] Schaad, J., "Use of the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)
Encryption Algorithm in Cryptographic Message Syntax
(CMS)", RFC 3565, DOI 10.17487/RFC3565, July 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3565>.
[RFC3853] Peterson, J., "S/MIME Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)
Requirement for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
RFC 3853, DOI 10.17487/RFC3853, July 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3853>.
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC4566,
July 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4566>.
[RFC4975] Campbell, B., Ed., Mahy, R., Ed., and C. Jennings, Ed.,
"The Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4975,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4975, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4975>.
[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>.
[RFC5480] Turner, S., Brown, D., Yiu, K., Housley, R., and T. Polk,
"Elliptic Curve Cryptography Subject Public Key
Information", RFC 5480, DOI 10.17487/RFC5480, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5480>.
[RFC5652] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70,
RFC 5652, DOI 10.17487/RFC5652, September 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5652>.
[RFC5750] Ramsdell, B. and S. Turner, "Secure/Multipurpose Internet
Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2 Certificate
Handling", RFC 5750, DOI 10.17487/RFC5750, January 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5750>.
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
[RFC5751] Ramsdell, B. and S. Turner, "Secure/Multipurpose Internet
Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2 Message
Specification", RFC 5751, DOI 10.17487/RFC5751, January
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5751>.
[RFC5753] Turner, S. and D. Brown, "Use of Elliptic Curve
Cryptography (ECC) Algorithms in Cryptographic Message
Syntax (CMS)", RFC 5753, DOI 10.17487/RFC5753, January
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5753>.
[RFC5754] Turner, S., "Using SHA2 Algorithms with Cryptographic
Message Syntax", RFC 5754, DOI 10.17487/RFC5754, January
2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5754>.
[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>.
[X680] ITU-T, "Information technology -- Abstract Syntax Notation
One (ASN.1): Specification of basic notation",
ITU-T Recommendation X.680, 2015.
[X690] ITU-T, "Information Technology -- ASN.1 encoding rules:
Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical
Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules
(DER)", ITU-T Recommendation X.690, 2015.
13.2. Informative References
[CPM] Open Mobile Alliance, "OMA Converged IP Messaging System
Description, Candidate Version 2.2", September 2017.
[I-D.ietf-sipbrandy-rtpsec]
Peterson, J., Rescorla, E., Barnes, R., and R. Housley,
"Best Practices for Securing RTP Media Signaled with SIP",
draft-ietf-sipbrandy-rtpsec-04 (work in progress), May
2018.
[I-D.ietf-stir-rfc4474bis]
Peterson, J., Jennings, C., Rescorla, E., and C. Wendt,
"Authenticated Identity Management in the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", draft-ietf-stir-rfc4474bis-16
(work in progress), February 2017.
[RCS] GSMA, "RCS Universal Profile Service Definition Document,
Version 2.0", June 2017.
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
[RFC3325] Jennings, C., Peterson, J., and M. Watson, "Private
Extensions to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) for
Asserted Identity within Trusted Networks", RFC 3325,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3325, November 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3325>.
[RFC3840] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and P. Kyzivat,
"Indicating User Agent Capabilities in the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3840,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3840, August 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3840>.
[RFC3860] Peterson, J., "Common Profile for Instant Messaging
(CPIM)", RFC 3860, DOI 10.17487/RFC3860, August 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3860>.
[RFC3862] Klyne, G. and D. Atkins, "Common Presence and Instant
Messaging (CPIM): Message Format", RFC 3862,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3862, August 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3862>.
[RFC4474] Peterson, J. and C. Jennings, "Enhancements for
Authenticated Identity Management in the Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4474, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4474>.
[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.
[RFC4976] Jennings, C., Mahy, R., and A. Roach, "Relay Extensions
for the Message Sessions Relay Protocol (MSRP)", RFC 4976,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4976, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4976>.
[RFC5438] Burger, E. and H. Khartabil, "Instant Message Disposition
Notification (IMDN)", RFC 5438, DOI 10.17487/RFC5438,
February 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5438>.
[RFC6121] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence",
RFC 6121, DOI 10.17487/RFC6121, March 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6121>.
[RFC7515] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7515>.
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
[RFC7516] Jones, M. and J. Hildebrand, "JSON Web Encryption (JWE)",
RFC 7516, DOI 10.17487/RFC7516, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7516>.
[RFC7701] Niemi, A., Garcia-Martin, M., and G. Sandbakken, "Multi-
party Chat Using the Message Session Relay Protocol
(MSRP)", RFC 7701, DOI 10.17487/RFC7701, December 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7701>.
[RFC7748] Langley, A., Hamburg, M., and S. Turner, "Elliptic Curves
for Security", RFC 7748, DOI 10.17487/RFC7748, January
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7748>.
[RFC8032] Josefsson, S. and I. Liusvaara, "Edwards-Curve Digital
Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)", RFC 8032,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8032, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8032>.
Appendix A. Message Details
The following section shows the detailed content of the S/MIME bodies
used in Section 10.
A.1. Signed Message
Figure 5 shows the details of the message signed by Alice used in the
example in Section 10.1.
CMS_ContentInfo:
contentType: pkcs7-signedData (1.2.840.113549.1.7.2)
d.signedData:
version: 1
digestAlgorithms:
algorithm: sha256 (2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.1)
parameter: <ABSENT>
encapContentInfo:
eContentType: pkcs7-data (1.2.840.113549.1.7.1)
eContent:
0000 - 43 6f 6e 74 65 6e 74 2d-54 79 70 65 3a 20 74 Content-Type: t
000f - 65 78 74 2f 70 6c 61 69-6e 0d 0a 0d 0a 57 61 ext/plain....Wa
001e - 74 73 6f 6e 2c 20 63 6f-6d 65 20 68 65 72 65 tson, come here
002d - 20 2d 20 49 20 77 61 6e-74 20 74 6f 20 73 65 - I want to se
003c - 65 20 79 6f 75 2e 0d 0a- e you...
certificates:
d.certificate:
cert_info:
version: 2
serialNumber: 10386294218579993742
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
signature:
algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256 (1.2.840.10045.4.3.2)
parameter: <ABSENT>
issuer: O=example.com, CN=Alice
validity:
notBefore: Dec 20 22:54:39 2017 GMT
notAfter: Dec 20 22:54:39 2018 GMT
subject: O=example.com, CN=Alice
key:
algor:
algorithm: id-ecPublicKey (1.2.840.10045.2.1)
parameter: OBJECT:prime256v1 (1.2.840.10045.3.1.7)
public_key: (0 unused bits)
0000 - 04 d8 7b 54 72 9f 2c 22-fe eb d9 dd ba 0e ..{Tr.,"......
000e - fa 40 64 22 97 a6 09 38-87 a4 da e7 99 0b .@d"...8......
001c - 23 f8 7f a7 ed 99 db 8c-f5 a3 14 f2 ee 64 #............d
002a - 10 6e f1 ed 61 db fc 0a-4b 91 c9 53 cb d0 .n..a...K..S..
0038 - 22 a7 51 b9 14 80 7b b7-94 ".Q...{..
issuerUID: <ABSENT>
subjectUID: <ABSENT>
extensions:
object: X509v3 Subject Alternative Name (2.5.29.17)
critical: TRUE
value:
0000 - 30 17 86 15 73 69 70 3a-61 6c 69 63 65 0...sip:alice
000d - 40 65 78 61 6d 70 6c 65-2e 63 6f 6d @example.com
sig_alg:
algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256 (1.2.840.10045.4.3.2)
parameter: <ABSENT>
signature: (0 unused bits)
0000 - 30 46 02 21 00 f1 6f e7-39 dd f3 a1 ff 07 2a 0F.!..o.9.....*
000f - 78 14 23 95 72 1f 9c 06-29 b5 84 58 64 4d 85 x.#.r...)..XdM.
001e - 5d ad 94 da 9b 06 f2 02-21 00 8f fd a4 ba 4c ].......!.....L
002d - 65 08 75 84 96 9b fb 20-02 ba f5 ee fe bd 69 e.u.... ......i
003c - 31 81 b4 36 66 14 1f 36-39 90 98 84 1..6f..69...
crls:
<EMPTY>
signerInfos:
version: 1
d.issuerAndSerialNumber:
issuer: O=example.com, CN=Alice
serialNumber: 10386294218579993742
digestAlgorithm:
algorithm: sha256 (2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.1)
parameter: <ABSENT>
signedAttrs:
object: contentType (1.2.840.113549.1.9.3)
value.set:
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
OBJECT:pkcs7-data (1.2.840.113549.1.7.1)
object: signingTime (1.2.840.113549.1.9.5)
value.set:
UTCTIME:Dec 20 22:57:51 2017 GMT
object: messageDigest (1.2.840.113549.1.9.4)
value.set:
OCTET STRING:
0000 - ef 77 8f c9 40 d5 e6 dc-25 76 f4 7a 59 .w..@...%v.zY
000d - 9b 31 26 19 5a 9f 1a 22-7a da f3 5f a2 .1&.Z.."z.._.
001a - 2c 05 0d 8d 19 5a ,....Z
object: S/MIME Capabilities (1.2.840.113549.1.9.15)
value.set:
SEQUENCE:
0:d=0 hl=2 l= 106 cons: SEQUENCE
2:d=1 hl=2 l= 11 cons: SEQUENCE
4:d=2 hl=2 l= 9 prim: OBJECT :aes-256-cbc
15:d=1 hl=2 l= 11 cons: SEQUENCE
17:d=2 hl=2 l= 9 prim: OBJECT :aes-192-cbc
28:d=1 hl=2 l= 11 cons: SEQUENCE
30:d=2 hl=2 l= 9 prim: OBJECT :aes-128-cbc
41:d=1 hl=2 l= 10 cons: SEQUENCE
43:d=2 hl=2 l= 8 prim: OBJECT :des-ede3-cbc
53:d=1 hl=2 l= 14 cons: SEQUENCE
55:d=2 hl=2 l= 8 prim: OBJECT :rc2-cbc
65:d=2 hl=2 l= 2 prim: INTEGER :80
69:d=1 hl=2 l= 13 cons: SEQUENCE
71:d=2 hl=2 l= 8 prim: OBJECT :rc2-cbc
81:d=2 hl=2 l= 1 prim: INTEGER :40
84:d=1 hl=2 l= 7 cons: SEQUENCE
86:d=2 hl=2 l= 5 prim: OBJECT :des-cbc
93:d=1 hl=2 l= 13 cons: SEQUENCE
95:d=2 hl=2 l= 8 prim: OBJECT :rc2-cbc
105:d=2 hl=2 l= 1 prim: INTEGER :28
signatureAlgorithm:
algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256 (1.2.840.10045.4.3.2)
parameter: <ABSENT>
signature:
0000 - 30 45 02 20 0f 37 c8 d6-86 28 ed 5a 52 e1 20 0E. .7...(.ZR.
000f - 8b b0 91 99 99 01 02 f1-de 57 66 a4 5d 5b 46 .........Wf.][F
001e - 27 fe 4d 87 c9 cc 02 21-00 f0 de 29 c0 3e 7d '.M....!...).>}
002d - 3f cc 53 29 b7 7f e3 1f-aa 10 b0 00 3c 82 49 ?.S)........<.I
003c - cb 01 1c bb 14 41 0d 4c-9b f9 3e .....A.L..>
unsignedAttrs:
<EMPTY>
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
Figure 5: Signed Message
A.2. Short Signed Message
Figure 6 shows the message signed by Alice with no imbedded
certificate, as used in the example in Section 10.2.
CMS_ContentInfo:
contentType: pkcs7-signedData (1.2.840.113549.1.7.2)
d.signedData:
version: 1
digestAlgorithms:
algorithm: sha256 (2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.1)
parameter: <ABSENT>
encapContentInfo:
eContentType: pkcs7-data (1.2.840.113549.1.7.1)
eContent:
0000 - 43 6f 6e 74 65 6e 74 2d-54 79 70 65 3a 20 74 Content-Type: t
000f - 65 78 74 2f 70 6c 61 69-6e 0d 0a 0d 0a 57 61 ext/plain....Wa
001e - 74 73 6f 6e 2c 20 63 6f-6d 65 20 68 65 72 65 tson, come here
002d - 20 2d 20 49 20 77 61 6e-74 20 74 6f 20 73 65 - I want to se
003c - 65 20 79 6f 75 2e 0d 0a- e you...
certificates:
<EMPTY>
crls:
<EMPTY>
signerInfos:
version: 1
d.issuerAndSerialNumber:
issuer: O=example.com, CN=Alice
serialNumber: 13292724773353297200
digestAlgorithm:
algorithm: sha256 (2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.1)
parameter: <ABSENT>
signedAttrs:
object: contentType (1.2.840.113549.1.9.3)
value.set:
OBJECT:pkcs7-data (1.2.840.113549.1.7.1)
object: signingTime (1.2.840.113549.1.9.5)
value.set:
UTCTIME:Dec 21 02:12:04 2017 GMT
object: messageDigest (1.2.840.113549.1.9.4)
value.set:
OCTET STRING:
0000 - ef 77 8f c9 40 d5 e6 dc-25 76 f4 7a 59 .w..@...%v.zY
000d - 9b 31 26 19 5a 9f 1a 22-7a da f3 5f a2 .1&.Z.."z.._.
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
001a - 2c 05 0d 8d 19 5a ,....Z
object: S/MIME Capabilities (1.2.840.113549.1.9.15)
value.set:
SEQUENCE:
0:d=0 hl=2 l= 106 cons: SEQUENCE
2:d=1 hl=2 l= 11 cons: SEQUENCE
4:d=2 hl=2 l= 9 prim: OBJECT :aes-256-cbc
15:d=1 hl=2 l= 11 cons: SEQUENCE
17:d=2 hl=2 l= 9 prim: OBJECT :aes-192-cbc
28:d=1 hl=2 l= 11 cons: SEQUENCE
30:d=2 hl=2 l= 9 prim: OBJECT :aes-128-cbc
41:d=1 hl=2 l= 10 cons: SEQUENCE
43:d=2 hl=2 l= 8 prim: OBJECT :des-ede3-cbc
53:d=1 hl=2 l= 14 cons: SEQUENCE
55:d=2 hl=2 l= 8 prim: OBJECT :rc2-cbc
65:d=2 hl=2 l= 2 prim: INTEGER :80
69:d=1 hl=2 l= 13 cons: SEQUENCE
71:d=2 hl=2 l= 8 prim: OBJECT :rc2-cbc
81:d=2 hl=2 l= 1 prim: INTEGER :40
84:d=1 hl=2 l= 7 cons: SEQUENCE
86:d=2 hl=2 l= 5 prim: OBJECT :des-cbc
93:d=1 hl=2 l= 13 cons: SEQUENCE
95:d=2 hl=2 l= 8 prim: OBJECT :rc2-cbc
105:d=2 hl=2 l= 1 prim: INTEGER :28
signatureAlgorithm:
algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256 (1.2.840.10045.4.3.2)
parameter: <ABSENT>
signature:
0000 - 30 44 02 20 57 77 33 52-ed ee d4 ea 69 34 55 0D. Ww3R....i4U
000f - e2 a8 7b 8b 09 8d ec ef-e5 0d db 0f f7 e3 91 ..{............
001e - e8 4f 79 76 20 8a 02 20-08 9c f3 65 46 7a 1a .Oyv .. ...eFz.
002d - 49 e8 38 b5 1f 35 a6 2c-7a 15 8e 5f c9 99 bf I.8..5.,z.._...
003c - 7d 8f bf b5 26 2a f5 af-ec 93 }...&*....
unsignedAttrs:
<EMPTY>
Figure 6: Signed Message without Imbedded Certificate
A.3. Signed and Encrypted Message
The following sections show details for the message signed by Bob and
encrypted to Alice, as used in the examples in Section 10.3 and
Section 10.4.
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
A.3.1. Signed Message Prior to Encryption
CMS_ContentInfo:
contentType: pkcs7-signedData (1.2.840.113549.1.7.2)
d.signedData:
version: 1
digestAlgorithms:
algorithm: sha256 (2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.1)
parameter: <ABSENT>
encapContentInfo:
eContentType: pkcs7-data (1.2.840.113549.1.7.1)
eContent:
0000 - 43 6f 6e 74 65 6e 74 2d-54 79 70 65 3a 20 74 Content-Type: t
000f - 65 78 74 2f 70 6c 61 69-6e 0d 0a 0d 0a 57 61 ext/plain....Wa
001e - 74 73 6f 6e 2c 20 63 6f-6d 65 20 68 65 72 65 tson, come here
002d - 20 2d 20 49 20 77 61 6e-74 20 74 6f 20 73 65 - I want to se
003c - 65 20 79 6f 75 2e 0d 0a- e you...
certificates:
d.certificate:
cert_info:
version: 2
serialNumber: 11914627415941064473
signature:
algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256 (1.2.840.10045.4.3.2)
parameter: <ABSENT>
issuer: O=example.org, CN=Bob
validity:
notBefore: Dec 20 23:07:49 2017 GMT
notAfter: Dec 20 23:07:49 2018 GMT
subject: O=example.org, CN=Bob
key:
algor:
algorithm: id-ecPublicKey (1.2.840.10045.2.1)
parameter: OBJECT:prime256v1 (1.2.840.10045.3.1.7)
public_key: (0 unused bits)
0000 - 04 86 4f ff fc 53 f1 a8-76 ca 69 b1 7e 27 ..O..S..v.i.~'
000e - 48 7a 07 9c 71 52 ae 1b-13 7e 39 3b af 1a Hz..qR...~9;..
001c - ae bd 12 74 3c 7d 41 43-a2 fd 8a 37 0f 02 ...t<}AC...7..
002a - ba 9d 03 b7 30 1f 1d a6-4e 30 55 94 bb 6f ....0...N0U..o
0038 - 95 cb 71 fa 48 b6 d0 a3-83 ..q.H....
issuerUID: <ABSENT>
subjectUID: <ABSENT>
extensions:
object: X509v3 Subject Alternative Name (2.5.29.17)
critical: TRUE
value:
0000 - 30 15 86 13 73 69 70 3a-62 6f 62 40 65 0...sip:bob@e
000d - 78 61 6d 70 6c 65 2e 6f-72 67 xample.org
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
sig_alg:
algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256 (1.2.840.10045.4.3.2)
parameter: <ABSENT>
signature: (0 unused bits)
0000 - 30 45 02 21 00 b2 24 8c-92 40 28 22 38 9e c9 0E.!..$..@("8..
000f - 25 7f 64 cc fd 10 6f ba-0b 96 c1 19 07 30 34 %.d...o......04
001e - d5 1b 10 2f 73 39 6c 02-20 15 8e b1 51 f0 85 .../s9l. ...Q..
002d - b9 bd 2e 04 cf 27 8f 0d-52 2e 6b b6 fe 4f 36 .....'..R.k..O6
003c - f7 4c 77 10 b1 5a 4f 47-9d e4 0d .Lw..ZOG...
crls:
<EMPTY>
signerInfos:
version: 1
d.issuerAndSerialNumber:
issuer: O=example.org, CN=Bob
serialNumber: 11914627415941064473
digestAlgorithm:
algorithm: sha256 (2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.1)
parameter: <ABSENT>
signedAttrs:
object: contentType (1.2.840.113549.1.9.3)
value.set:
OBJECT:pkcs7-data (1.2.840.113549.1.7.1)
object: signingTime (1.2.840.113549.1.9.5)
value.set:
UTCTIME:Dec 22 23:43:18 2017 GMT
object: messageDigest (1.2.840.113549.1.9.4)
value.set:
OCTET STRING:
0000 - ef 77 8f c9 40 d5 e6 dc-25 76 f4 7a 59 .w..@...%v.zY
000d - 9b 31 26 19 5a 9f 1a 22-7a da f3 5f a2 .1&.Z.."z.._.
001a - 2c 05 0d 8d 19 5a ,....Z
object: S/MIME Capabilities (1.2.840.113549.1.9.15)
value.set:
SEQUENCE:
0:d=0 hl=2 l= 106 cons: SEQUENCE
2:d=1 hl=2 l= 11 cons: SEQUENCE
4:d=2 hl=2 l= 9 prim: OBJECT :aes-256-cbc
15:d=1 hl=2 l= 11 cons: SEQUENCE
17:d=2 hl=2 l= 9 prim: OBJECT :aes-192-cbc
28:d=1 hl=2 l= 11 cons: SEQUENCE
30:d=2 hl=2 l= 9 prim: OBJECT :aes-128-cbc
41:d=1 hl=2 l= 10 cons: SEQUENCE
43:d=2 hl=2 l= 8 prim: OBJECT :des-ede3-cbc
53:d=1 hl=2 l= 14 cons: SEQUENCE
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
55:d=2 hl=2 l= 8 prim: OBJECT :rc2-cbc
65:d=2 hl=2 l= 2 prim: INTEGER :80
69:d=1 hl=2 l= 13 cons: SEQUENCE
71:d=2 hl=2 l= 8 prim: OBJECT :rc2-cbc
81:d=2 hl=2 l= 1 prim: INTEGER :40
84:d=1 hl=2 l= 7 cons: SEQUENCE
86:d=2 hl=2 l= 5 prim: OBJECT :des-cbc
93:d=1 hl=2 l= 13 cons: SEQUENCE
95:d=2 hl=2 l= 8 prim: OBJECT :rc2-cbc
105:d=2 hl=2 l= 1 prim: INTEGER :28
signatureAlgorithm:
algorithm: ecdsa-with-SHA256 (1.2.840.10045.4.3.2)
parameter: <ABSENT>
signature:
0000 - 30 45 02 20 23 e1 e1 2f-c6 9c 7b c3 ae d0 67 0E. #../..{...g
000f - 8a ab 25 71 16 dd 9a 82-7c 36 24 a2 fa e5 fa ..%q....|6$....
001e - 98 52 01 2b 98 c1 02 21-00 9b 8d 7c ad 9a f2 .R.+...!...|...
002d - 09 e8 ac f7 00 aa a7 64-ef 32 d0 3a 47 16 42 .......d.2.:G.B
003c - 79 04 54 90 53 e8 58 aa-6c 69 37 y.T.S.X.li7
unsignedAttrs:
<EMPTY>
Figure 7: Message Signed by Bob prior to Encryption
A.3.2. Encrypted Message
CMS_ContentInfo:
contentType: pkcs7-envelopedData (1.2.840.113549.1.7.3)
d.envelopedData:
version: <ABSENT>
originatorInfo: <ABSENT>
recipientInfos:
d.ktri:
version: <ABSENT>
d.issuerAndSerialNumber:
issuer: O=example.com, CN=Alice
serialNumber: 9508519069068149774
keyEncryptionAlgorithm:
algorithm: rsaEncryption (1.2.840.113549.1.1.1)
parameter: NULL
encryptedKey:
0000 - bb ab 78 55 54 a4 8e 62-48 67 7b 5c 56 32 85 ..xUT..bHg{\V2.
000f - 28 28 2e 17 2d 36 61 1d-c2 98 6a e1 68 fc 84 ((..-6a...j.h..
001e - d4 9f 41 20 ea 2c b8 95-d5 96 7f f3 5a 22 ed ..A .,......Z".
002d - 2e 5f ee 4d 72 04 e7 0c-86 97 bf 13 8d 9f bd ._.Mr..........
003c - 84 85 c3 00 63 8f 9e f9-3e 61 46 5f 1e 14 05 ....c...>aF_...
004b - fb 5b f7 b9 5f 2f af 12-e4 41 fb 8c fc df d5 .[.._/...A.....
005a - cf 1d 88 d2 85 cf a9 fd-df 0d e3 f9 c9 5b 8c .............[.
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
0069 - d7 50 77 29 24 c7 d9 19-c8 0a a8 67 7d c2 bc .Pw)$......g}..
0078 - 63 b5 ab e2 a0 4e 76 ee-0c 2e 6c 04 1e 08 fa c....Nv...l....
0087 - 29 47 6a 4a 76 85 19 44-ed d7 fa 79 ad a8 97 )GjJv..D...y...
0096 - 09 10 7b f6 5d 56 ac 66-9b 78 1a 23 f0 fd 72 ..{.]V.f.x.#..r
00a5 - 32 de 26 bb a0 7e 1d ca-69 f5 01 18 bd 49 55 2.&..~..i....IU
00b4 - 46 3d 2c ad 40 3d c2 a6-74 92 09 df c0 2c 9e F=,.@=..t....,.
00c3 - 14 52 70 d5 13 5c e5 54-8b bf 33 47 c6 f3 56 .Rp..\.T..3G..V
00d2 - fa a0 93 fe ef db ba 5d-09 4f 4a 0e 23 a9 46 .......].OJ.#.F
00e1 - 86 fc a7 7c fa 17 59 aa-a4 e2 77 48 22 7e 65 ...|..Y...wH"~e
00f0 - 17 06 3f bb d7 a0 13 ab-cb 08 f9 50 b2 ac 91 ..?........P...
00ff - 1b 72 b3 40 d5 7c 24 d0-8e 61 3f 4e 0a 08 78 .r.@.|$..a?N..x
010e - 21 c8 20 23 8e 42 2e 85-bf 39 02 c9 9a 96 29 !. #.B...9....)
011d - b0 86 29 45 e0 0d 1b 43-3f 6d c3 5e 8d 1c b5 ..)E...C?m.^...
012c - 09 85 97 36 36 24 45 6d-d8 67 e6 13 2d 8e e9 ...66$Em.g..-..
013b - 35 cc 3b 41 24 df 6b ab-a8 87 70 70 8a f5 7c 5.;A$.k...pp..|
014a - 9a d7 07 27 41 0d 6b f8-3e c0 e5 58 0e 26 c6 ...'A.k.>..X.&.
0159 - 7f 90 60 8d 37 57 50 ed-93 89 02 56 bf 3f 71 ..`.7WP....V.?q
0168 - 4f b6 76 ef fc f3 63 db-08 09 b0 21 e9 09 94 O.v...c....!...
0177 - a4 37 35 3e e4 14 32 c7-cf 60 e4 8c bd 45 42 .75>..2..`...EB
0186 - 0c 65 9e 75 90 6c ed e2-d4 4a 5b b6 19 01 4e .e.u.l...J[...N
0195 - 73 a0 ba 2d 54 ab 3e db-e2 3c 63 fa d8 98 41 s..-T.>..<c...A
01a4 - 1d 1a c7 90 55 2e ad c6-6a 35 8f bd 44 61 ef ....U...j5..Da.
01b3 - ec 93 5d 0b 8b bc 2e 6c-f2 3e 86 3a 1e e7 a4 ..]....l.>.:...
01c2 - e7 74 1f 07 2c 1d 46 5e-a1 e6 c3 57 7b 2e 77 .t..,.F^...W{.w
01d1 - ac d1 d1 15 2f 26 82 35-f8 5a e8 2f 50 87 1a ..../&.5.Z./P..
01e0 - cf 13 e3 8b 17 fd 69 f8-8f 97 3f 68 18 68 2c ......i...?h.h,
01ef - 40 43 b4 ec 7d b1 7b 22-e2 0e e9 be cb f2 c9 @C..}.{".......
01fe - f8 93 ..
encryptedContentInfo:
contentType: pkcs7-data (1.2.840.113549.1.7.1)
contentEncryptionAlgorithm:
algorithm: aes-128-cbc (2.16.840.1.101.3.4.1.2)
parameter: OCTET STRING:
0000 - 4d 87 57 22 2e ac 52 94-11 7f 0c 12 d6 71 a1 M.W"..R......q.
000f - 27 '
encryptedContent:
0000 - 5d 40 77 a1 54 7c 5f 46-99 f0 75 31 a5 3e b8 ]@w.T|_F..u1.>.
000f - 83 44 d1 a3 b2 29 ff 91-f3 f6 9c 0e 94 91 8c .D...).........
001e - 77 c9 f6 bd a1 94 e3 59-83 ef 9a 38 ed ca 15 w......Y...8...
002d - 67 8e 65 bd 76 ce 66 5c-a6 e9 99 b3 a8 45 e4 g.e.v.f\.....E.
003c - 26 66 aa 27 03 a5 a4 f0-d3 32 2d 6d e0 1e 64 &f.'.....2-m..d
004b - 54 5c bc cf 09 e3 c2 26-8d fd 86 c3 36 11 6b T\.....&....6.k
005a - 22 cc e8 00 98 61 92 42-fd 48 2e ce 2f cd 71 "....a.B.H../.q
0069 - a7 c1 5f f7 7b f1 33 28-7d f0 ef 7c 51 71 3b .._.{.3(}..|Qq;
0078 - dc 0f 6c da da 91 98 ea-8f d8 1a 9c 5a 50 c5 ..l.........ZP.
0087 - e9 c0 95 8b 33 47 ef c4-25 03 8f b5 b7 76 ab ....3G..%....v.
0096 - 46 98 26 22 7c 69 7a ec-c6 58 0d 0a 23 a9 9e F.&"|iz..X..#..
00a5 - 15 b8 05 ff 3b a1 55 c2-52 f5 e7 2b b9 db 13 ....;.U.R..+...
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
00b4 - 3d 04 9d 99 2c 18 f4 f4-da d6 0a 18 da e7 29 =...,.........)
00c3 - ba 7c 58 36 78 ff b8 60-4a 8f 7f e3 cc 62 d0 .|X6x..`J....b.
00d2 - 63 2c c6 6e 1c 4f 9b a1-fa 9d f5 6c 6d 9f d8 c,.n.O.....lm..
00e1 - 1f 19 c8 8b a6 e9 71 0b-b0 bb b0 c5 fc f9 d2 ......q........
00f0 - d5 ea 04 d5 29 fd a7 8d-60 dc 48 7d 86 7c 0e ....)...`.H}.|.
00ff - 39 21 74 e9 3c e2 c3 98-6c ea 7a ef 07 1e 5b 9!t.<...l.z...[
010e - 07 b6 46 c2 29 f9 06 9f-27 f3 74 94 56 da ea ..F.)...'.t.V..
011d - 0a 4e 56 bc 49 1c 9b e3-70 c5 44 39 9a 27 3d .NV.I...p.D9.'=
012c - 50 c3 5f 16 0f b3 7e 5f-73 14 c3 d3 89 a8 05 P._...~_s......
013b - c8 e4 77 6f 0a 2a 89 f5-55 c9 fe 52 08 08 90 ..wo.*..U..R...
014a - ab e2 e3 9d 2e d7 7a 2b-36 3d 1c 0f b3 75 79 ......z+6=...uy
0159 - 00 28 e9 62 40 12 30 ae-93 aa 43 20 a5 da 2a .(.b@.0...C ..*
0168 - d7 01 7c 59 95 08 f7 9c-3a 0c 35 f9 84 6e 8a ..|Y....:.5..n.
0177 - 2c 41 0a 5e 0d 77 e9 07-c0 15 1c e5 13 e2 e8 ,A.^.w.........
0186 - 99 de 92 ff 8d 17 77 96-23 8a de 93 09 d7 5c ......w.#.....\
0195 - 97 6e 97 16 ce d4 c4 5e-1a 33 92 13 d7 b0 82 .n.....^.3.....
01a4 - 45 92 39 40 76 f7 4a 70-45 4c c4 65 65 f4 a8 E.9@v.JpEL.ee..
01b3 - 36 53 16 46 42 82 7b 2e-28 81 9a c3 78 1a fb 6S.FB.{.(...x..
01c2 - 52 9b 7c 72 30 8b 96 97-85 39 d7 89 d3 d2 7c R.|r0....9....|
01d1 - b1 60 5b 1a 0c e9 66 e9-c6 cb 58 25 d2 35 e5 .`[...f...X%.5.
01e0 - 23 a6 c2 d9 48 ef 93 14-c9 02 35 9a df 03 fe #...H.....5....
01ef - 46 84 22 1f af d1 f8 33-d7 59 c6 f2 55 9b 6e F."....3.Y..U.n
01fe - 0a 88 97 d6 4e 42 b4 9e-ae 0e 39 df ac cc 94 ....NB....9....
020d - ef 3e 73 3f ca 22 12 eb-5c cb c7 c5 d7 f0 42 .>s?."..\.....B
021c - d0 2b f4 12 d1 4c 7e de-0f 66 4d 79 9e a5 56 .+...L~..fMy..V
022b - f9 76 3e 74 2c ac dd 3e-fc 88 22 bb e6 c8 1f .v>t,..>.."....
023a - ea 27 de 6b 0b 06 44 82-52 f9 ad eb 66 67 b4 .'.k..D.R...fg.
0249 - 60 56 f3 9b 42 f1 8f 4d-62 58 11 1f a2 43 b5 `V..B..MbX...C.
0258 - c3 9f df 89 61 bc 6e 59-d8 bd 65 9d 46 f9 2a ....a.nY..e.F.*
0267 - 8c ed 04 d1 a6 af 37 e5-c0 89 b5 47 a8 36 df ......7....G.6.
0276 - 69 94 37 7c f9 2e 8e 74-62 55 69 df 6a 60 65 i.7|...tbUi.j`e
0285 - f6 c9 3b ab ef 0d 07 cf-ac 7a f6 9d 8b f8 7c ..;......z....|
0294 - 96 e6 eb ad 2e bd b5 53-f7 76 e6 91 43 e7 06 .......S.v..C..
02a3 - e2 27 06 1e 5e 3d 0e 38-a8 3a b9 c2 ce 62 10 .'..^=.8.:...b.
02b2 - 2f 30 21 f7 d8 b9 e5 6a-d6 71 45 14 03 9f 48 /0!....j.qE...H
02c1 - d7 fa b8 5e fb af ee 16-e1 5d 7a fd 81 48 cc ...^.....]z..H.
02d0 - fc 9f b2 73 f8 bf d5 bd-eb d0 28 1a 50 09 5a ...s......(.P.Z
02df - a1 92 c9 e8 7a 0f 2c 44-bb 57 de 5f 86 cf bd ....z.,D.W._...
02ee - a3 33 7c d9 82 df ae 98-2a 80 87 98 78 64 6e .3|.....*...xdn
02fd - 03 61 45 15 cf 94 15 04-79 d2 0e 3c e5 21 61 .aE.....y..<.!a
030c - 7d da 22 d5 3a 58 29 26-55 64 fa 46 7e 7d b9 }.".:X)&Ud.F~}.
031b - e2 5f 3d 25 5a 4f 9f 82-fd 95 14 ca 17 7a c8 ._=%ZO.......z.
032a - 1b 88 2a cb e8 9d 1c c6-40 c7 b9 80 c5 a9 d5 ..*.....@......
0339 - f7 09 21 bb 6f bf 16 6d-38 aa 04 25 7e 08 c5 ..!.o..m8..%~..
0348 - 1b 2d f1 44 e9 33 63 e0-e4 7e 80 13 df 58 4b .-.D.3c..~...XK
0357 - 3f 31 30 b4 df 7c 9a e1-77 09 f1 bf d8 de d1 ?10..|..w......
0366 - 38 57 41 d8 05 96 b7 b8-d6 a2 f2 e5 a2 f8 50 8WA...........P
0375 - 29 ce 97 ef ed 2c 97 f9-42 f7 7b )....,..B.{
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft S/MIME for SIP Messaging June 2018
unprotectedAttrs:
<EMPTY>
Figure 8
Authors' Addresses
Ben Campbell
Standard Velocity
204 Touchdown Dr
Irving, TX 75063
US
Email: ben@nostrum.com
Russ Housley
Vigil Security
918 Spring Knoll Drive
Herndon, VA 20170
US
Email: housley@vigilsec.com
Campbell & Housley Expires December 27, 2018 [Page 36]