Network Working Group J. Salowey
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track L. Dondeti
Expires: October 24, 2008 V. Narayanan
Qualcomm, Inc
M. Nakhjiri
Motorola
April 22, 2008
Specification for the Derivation of Root Keys from an Extended Master
Session Key (EMSK)
draft-ietf-hokey-emsk-hierarchy-05.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 24, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract
The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) defined the Extended
Master Session Key (EMSK) generation, but reserved it for unspecified
future uses. This memo reserves the EMSK for the sole purpose of
Salowey, et al. Expires October 24, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EMSK Root Key Derivation April 2008
deriving root keys. Root keys are are master keys that can be used
for multiple purposes, identified by usage definitions. This
document also specifies a mechanism for avoiding conflicts between
root keys by deriving them in a manner that guarantee cryptographic
separation. Finally, this document also defines one such root key
usage: domain specific root keys are root keys made available to and
used within specific key management domains.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Applicable usages of keys derived from the EMSK . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Cryptographic Separation and Coordinated Key Derivation . . . 5
3. EMSK Key Root Derivation Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. USRK Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.1. On the KDFs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.2. Default KDF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. EMSK and USRK Name Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Domain Specific Root Key Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Applicability of Multi-Domain usages . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Requirements for Usage Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Root Key Management Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Requirements for EAP System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. Key strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.2. Cryptographic separation of keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.4. Key Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.5. Key Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.6. Entropy consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1. Key Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.2. PRF numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 19
Salowey, et al. Expires October 24, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EMSK Root Key Derivation April 2008
1. Introduction
This document deals with keys generated by authenticated key exchange
mechanisms defined within the EAP framework [RFC3748]. EAP defines
two types of keying material; a Master Session Key (MSK) and an
Extended Master Session Key (EMSK). The EAP specification implicitly
assumes that the MSK produced by EAP will be used for a single
purpose at a single device, however it does reserve the EMSK for
future use. This document defines the EMSK to be used solely for
deriving root keys using the key derivation specified. The root keys
are meant for specific purposes called usages; a special usage class
is the domain specific root keys made available to and used within
specific key management domains. This document also provides
guidelines for creating usage definitions for the various uses of EAP
key material and for the management of the root keys. In this
document, the terms application and usage (or "usage definition")
refer to a specific use case of the EAP keying material.
Different uses for keys derived from the EMSK have been proposed.
Some examples include hand off across access points in various mobile
technologies, mobile IP authentication and higher layer application
authentication. In order for a particular usage of EAP key material
to make use of this specification it must specify a so-called usage
definition. This document does not define how the derived Usage
Specific Root Keys (USRK) are used, see the following section for
discussion of applicable usages. It does define a framework for the
derivation of USRKs for different purposes such that different usages
can be developed independently from one another. The goal is to have
security properties of one usage have minimal or no effect on the
security properties of other usages.
This document does define a special class of USRK, called a Domain
Specific Root Key (DSRK) for use in deriving keys specific to a key
management domain. Each DSRK is a root key used to derive Domain
Specific Usage Specific Root Keys (DSUSRK). The DSUSRKs are USRKs
specific to a particular key management domain.
In order to keep root keys for specific purposes separate from one
another, two requirements are defined in the following sections. One
is coordinated key derivation and another is cryptographic
separation.
1.1. Applicable usages of keys derived from the EMSK
The EMSK is established as part of network access authentication and
authorization. The derived keys need to be distributed to the
involved parties along with context necessary to use them. The
security of the system relies upon trust relationships between the
Salowey, et al. Expires October 24, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EMSK Root Key Derivation April 2008
parties involved in this process. These trust relationships are the
basis for applying protection during key transport and ensuring
proper key usage. Hence, deriving USRKs or DSUSRKs for purposes
where placing trust in the entities involved in establishing network
access is inappropriate or not possible is NOT RECOMMENDED.
It is also only feasible to make use of EMSK usages when network
access occurs over an EAP-capable interface. If it is possible for
an entity to access these services though an interface that does not
involve EAP authentication and authorization with the appropriate
entities then alternate means of authentication and key establishment
for these services needs to be provided.
1.2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]
The following terms are taken from [RFC3748]: EAP Server, peer,
authenticator, Master Session Key (MSK), Extended Master Session Key
(EMSK), Cryptographic Separation.
Usage Definition
An application of cryptographic key material to provide one or
more security functions such as authentication, authorization,
encryption or integrity protection for related applications or
services. This document provides guidelines and recommendations
for what should be included in usage definitions. This document
does not place any constraints on the types of use cases or
services that create usage definitions.
Usage Specific Root Key (USRK)
Keying material derived from the EMSK for a particular usage
definition. It is used to derive child keys in a way defined by
its usage definition.
Key Management Domain
A key management domain is specified by the scope of a given root
key. The scope is the collection of systems authorized to access
key material derived from that key. Systems within a key
management domain may be authorized to (1) derive key materials,
(2) use key materials, or (3) distribute key materials to other
systems in the same domain. A derived key's scope is constrained
to a subset of the scope of the key it is derived from. In this
document the term domain refers to a key management domain unless
otherwise qualified.
Salowey, et al. Expires October 24, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EMSK Root Key Derivation April 2008
Domain Specific Root Key (DSRK)
Keying material derived from the EMSK that is restricted to use in
a specific key management domain. It is used to derive child keys
for a particular usage definition. The child keys derived from a
DSRK are referred to as domain specific usage specific root keys
(DSUSRK). DSUSRKs are similar to the USRK, except in the fact
that their scope is restricted to the same domain as the parent
DSRK from which it is derived.
2. Cryptographic Separation and Coordinated Key Derivation
The EMSK is used to derive keys for multiple use cases, and thus it
is required that the derived keys are cryptographically separate.
Cryptographic separation means that when multiple keys are derived
from an EMSK, given any derived key it is computationally infeasible
to derive any of the other derived keys. Note that deriving the EMSK
from any combinations of the derived keys must also be
computationally infeasible. In practice this means that derivation
of an EMSK from a derived key or derivation of one child key from
another must require an amount of computation equivalent to that
required to, say, reversing a cryptographic hash function.
Cryptographic separation of keys derived from the same key can be
achieved in many ways. Two obvious methods are as follows: it is
plausible to use the IKEv2 PRF [RFC4306] on the EMSK and generate a
key stream. Keys of various lengths may be provided as required from
the key stream for various uses. The other option is to derive keys
from EMSK by providing different inputs to the PRF. However, it is
desirable that derivation of one child key from the EMSK is
independent of derivation of another child key. This allows child
keys to be derived in any order, independent of other keys. Thus it
is desirable to use the second option from above. That implies the
additional input to the PRF must be different for each child key
derivation. This additional input to the PRF must be coordinated
properly to meet the requirement of cryptographic separation and to
prevent reuse of key material between usages.
If cryptographic separation is not maintained then the security of
one usage depends upon the security of all other usages that use key
derived from the EMSK. If a system does not have this property then
a usage's security depends upon all other usages deriving keys from
the same EMSK, which is undesirable. In order to prevent security
problems in one usage from interfering with another usage, the
following cryptographic separation is required:
Salowey, et al. Expires October 24, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EMSK Root Key Derivation April 2008
o It MUST be computationally infeasible to compute the EMSK from any
root key derived from it.
o Any root key MUST be cryptographically separate from any other
root key derived from the same EMSK or DSRK
o Derivation of USRKs MUST be coordinated so that two separate
cryptographic usages do not derive the same key.
o Derivation of DSRKs MUST be coordinated so that two separate key
management domains do not derive the same key.
o Derivation of DSRKs and USRKs MUST be specified such that no
domain can obtain a USRK by providing a domain name identical to a
Usage Key Label.
This document provides guidelines for a key derivation mechanism,
which can be used with existing and new EAP methods to provide
cryptographic separation between usages of EMSK. This allows for the
development of new usages without cumbersome coordination between
different usage definitions.
3. EMSK Key Root Derivation Framework
The EMSK key derivation framework provides a coordinated means for
generating multiple root keys from an EMSK. Further keys may then be
derived from the root key for various purposes, including encryption,
integrity protection, entity authentication by way of proof of
possession, and subsequent key derivation. A root key is derived
from the EMSK for specific set of uses set forth in a usage
definition described in Section 5.
The basic EMSK root key hierarchy looks as follows:
EMSK
/ \
USRK1 USRK2
This document defines how to derive usage specific root keys (USRK)
from the EMSK and also defines a specific USRK called a domain
specific root key (DSRK). DSRK are root keys restricted to use in a
particular key management domain. From the DSRK, usage specific root
keys for a particular application may be derived (DSUSRK). The
DSUSRKs are equivalent to USRKs that are restricted to use in a
particular domain. The details of lower levels of key hierarchy are
outside scope of this document. The key hierarchy looks as follows:
Salowey, et al. Expires October 24, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EMSK Root Key Derivation April 2008
EMSK
/ \
USRK DSRK
/ \
DSUSRK1 DSUSRK2
3.1. USRK Derivation
The EMSK Root Key derivation function (KDF) derives a USRK from the
EMSK, a key label, optional data, and output length. The KDF is
expected to give the same output for the same input. The basic key
derivation function is given below.
USRK = KDF(EMSK, key label | "\0" | optional data | length)
Where:
| denotes concatenation
"\0" is a NULL octet (0x00 in hex)
length is a 2 octet unsigned integer in network byte order
The key labels are printable ASCII strings unique for each usage
definition and are a maximum of 255 octets. In general they are of
the form label-string@specorg where specorg is the organization that
controls the specification of the usage definition of the Root Key.
The key label is intended to provide global uniqueness. Rules for
the allocation of these labels are given in Section 8.
The NULL octet after the key label is used to avoid collisions if one
key label is a prefix of another label (e.g. "foobar" and
"foobarExtendedV2"). This is considered a simpler solution than
requiring a key label assignment policy that prevents prefixes from
occurring.
For the optional data the KDF MUST be capable of processing at least
2048 opaque octets. The optional data must be constant during the
execution of the KDF. Usage definitions MAY use the EAP session-ID
[I-D.ietf-eap-keying] in the specification of the optional data
parameter that go into the KDF function. This provides the advantage
of providing data into the key derivation that is unique to the
session that generated the keys.
The KDF must be able to process input keys of up to 256 bytes. It
may do this by providing a mechanism for "hashing" long keys down to
a suitable size that can be consumed by the underlying derivation
algorithm.
Salowey, et al. Expires October 24, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EMSK Root Key Derivation April 2008
The length is a 2-octet unsigned integer in network byte order of the
output key length in octets. An implementation of the KDF MUST be
capable of producing at least 2048 octets of output, however it is
RECOMMENDED that Root Keys be at least 64 octets long.
A usage definition requiring derivation of a Root Key must specify
all the inputs (other than EMSK) to the key derivation function.
USRKs MUST be at least 64 octets in length.
3.1.1. On the KDFs
This specification allows for the use of different KDFs. However, in
order to have a coordinated key derivation function the same KDF
function MUST be used for all key derivations for a given EMSK. If
no KDF is specified, then the default KDF specified in Section 3.1.2
MUST be used. A system may provide the capability to negotiate
additional KDFs. KDFs are assigned numbers through IANA following
the policy set in section Section 8. The rules for negotiating a KDF
are as follows:
o If no other KDF is specified the KDF specified in this document
MUST be used. This is the "default" KDF.
o The initial authenticated key exchange MAY specify a favored KDF.
For example an EAP method may define a preferred KDF to use in its
specification. If the initial authenticated key exchange
specifies a KDF then this MUST override the default KDF.
o A system MAY specify a separate default KDF if all participants
within the system have the knowledge of which KDF to use. If
specified this MUST take precedence over key exchange defined KDF.
Note that usage definitions MUST NOT concern themselves with the
details of the KDF construction or the KDF selection, they only need
to worry about the inputs specified in Section 3.
3.1.2. Default KDF
The default KDF for deriving root keys from an EMSK is taken from the
PRF+ key expansion specified in [RFC4306] based on HMAC-SHA-256
[SHA256]. The PRF+ construction was chosen because of its simplicity
and efficiency over other mechanisms such as those used in [RFC4346].
The motivation for the design of PRF+ is described in [SIGMA]. The
definition of PRF+ from [RFC4306]is given below:
PRF+ (K,S) = T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | ...
Where:
Salowey, et al. Expires October 24, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EMSK Root Key Derivation April 2008
T1 = PRF (K, S | 0x01)
T2 = PRF (K, T1 | S | 0x02)
T3 = PRF (K, T2 | S | 0x03)
T4 = PRF (K, T3 | S | 0x04)
continuing as needed to compute the required length of key material.
The key, K, is the EMSK and S is the concatenation of key label, the
NULL octet, optional data and length defined in Section 3.1. For
this specification the PRF is taken as HMAC-SHA-256 [SHA256]. Since
PRF+ is only defined for 255 iterations it may produce up to 8160
octets of key material.
3.2. EMSK and USRK Name Derivation
The EAP keying framework [I-D.ietf-eap-keying] specifies that the
EMSK MUST be named using the EAP Session-Id and a binary or textual
indication. Following that requirement, the EMSK name SHALL be
derived as follows:
EMSKname = KDF ( EAP Session-ID, "EMSK" | "\0" | length )
Where:
| denotes concatenation
"EMSK" consists of the 4 ASCII values for the letters
"\0" = is a NULL octet (0x00 in hex)
length is the 2 octet unsigned integer 8 in network byte order
It is RECOMMENDED that all keys derived from the EMSK are referred to
by the EMSKname and the context of the descendant key usage. This is
the default behavior. Any exceptions SHALL be signaled by individual
usages.
USRKs MAY be named explicitly with a name derivation specified as
follows:
Salowey, et al. Expires October 24, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EMSK Root Key Derivation April 2008
USRKName =
KDF(EAP Session-ID, key label|"\0"|optional data|length)
Where:
key label and optional data MUST be the same as those used
in the corresponding USRK derivation
length is the 2 octet unsigned integer 8 in network byte order
USRKName derivation and usage is applicable when there is ambiguity
in the referencing the keys using the EMSKname and the associated
context of the USRK usage. The usage SHALL signal such an exception
in key naming, so both parties know the key name used.
4. Domain Specific Root Key Derivation
A specific USRK called a Domain Specific Root Key (DSRK) is derived
from the EMSK for a specific set of usages in a particular key
management domain. Usages derive specific keys for specific services
from this DSRK. The DSRK may be distributed to a key management
domain for a specific set of usages so keys can be derived within the
key management domain for those usages. DSRK based usages will
follow a key hierarchy similar to the following:
EMSK
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
DSRK1 DSRK2
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
DSUSRK11 DSUSRK12 DSUSRK21 DSUSRK22
The DSRK is a USRK with a key label of "dsrk@ietf.org" and the
optional data containing a domain label. The optional data MUST
contain an ASCII string representing the key management domain that
the root key is being derived for. The DSRK MUST be at least 64
octets long.
Domain Specific Usage Specific Root Keys (DSUSRK) are derived from
the DSRK. The KDF is expected to give the same output for the same
input. The basic key derivation function is given below.
Salowey, et al. Expires October 24, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft EMSK Root Key Derivation April 2008
DSUSRK = KDF(DSRK, key label | "\0" | optional data | length)
The key labels are printable ASCII strings unique for each usage
definition within a DSRK usage and are a maximum of 255 octets. In
general they are of the form label-string@specorg where specorg is
the organization that controls the specification of the usage
definition of the DSRK. The key label is intended to provide global
uniqueness. Rules for the allocation of these labels are given in
Section 8. For the optional data the KDF MUST be capable of
processing at least 2048 opaque octets. The optional data must be
constant during the execution of the KDF. The length is a 2-octet
unsigned integer in network byte order of the output key length in
octets. An implementation of the KDF MUST be capable of producing at
least 2048 octets of output, however it is RECOMMENDED that DSUSRKs
be at least 64 octets long.
Usages that make use of the DSRK must define how the peer learns the
domain label to use in a particular derivation. A multi-domain usage
must define how both DSRKs and specific DSUSRKs are transported to
different key management domains. Note that usages may define
alternate ways to constrain specific keys to particular key
management domains.
To facilitate the use of EMSKname to refer to keys derived from
DSRKs, EMSKname SHOULD be sent along with the DSRK. The exception is
when a DSRKname is expected to be used. The usage SHALL signal such
an exception in key naming, so both parties know the key name used.
DSUSRKs MAY be named explicitly with a name derivation specified as
follows:
DSUSRKName =
KDF(EMSKName,key label | "\0" | optional data | length)
where length is the 2 octet unsigned integer 8 in network byte order.
4.1. Applicability of Multi-Domain usages
When a DSRK is distributed to a domain the domain can generate any
DSUSRKs it wishes. This keys can be used to authorize entities in a
domain to perform specific functions. In cases where it is
appropriate for only a specific domain to be authorized to perform a
function the usage SHOULD NOT be defined as multi-domain.
In some cases only certain domains are authorized for a particular
Multi-Domain usage. In this case domains that do not have full
authorization should not receive the DSRK and should only receive
Salowey, et al. Expires October 24, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft EMSK Root Key Derivation April 2008
DSUSRKs for the usages which they are authorized. If it is possible
for a peer to know which domains are authorized for a particular
usage without relying on restricting access to the DSRK to specific
domains then this recommendation may be relaxed.
5. Requirements for Usage Definitions
In order for a usage definition to meet the guidelines for USRK usage
it must meet the following recommendations:
o The usage must define if it is a domain enabled usage.
o The usage definition MUST NOT use the EMSK in any other way except
to derive Root Keys using the key derivation specified in
Section 3 of this document. They MUST NOT use the EMSK directly.
o The usage definition SHOULD NOT require caching of the EMSK. It
is RECOMMENDED that the Root Key derived specifically for the
usage definition rather than the EMSK should be used to derive
child keys for specific cryptographic operations.
o Usage definition MUST define distinct key labels and optional data
used in the key derivation described in Section 3. Usage
definitions are encouraged to use the key name described in
Section 3.2 and include additional data in the optional data to
provide additional entropy.
o Usage definitions MUST define the length of their Root Keys. It
is RECOMMENDED that the Root Keys be at least as long as the EMSK
(at least 64 octets).
o Usage definitions MUST define how they use their Root Keys. This
includes aspects of key management covered in the next section on
Root Key Management guidelines.
o
5.1. Root Key Management Guidelines
This section makes recommendations for various aspects of key
management of the Root Key including lifetime, child key derivation,
caching and transport.
It is RECOMMENDED that the Root Key is only used for deriving child
keys. A usage definition must specify how and when the derivation of
child keys should be done. It is RECOMMENDED that usages following
similar considerations for key derivation are as outlined in this
document for the Root Key derivation with respect to cryptographic
separation and key reuse. In addition, usages should take into
consideration the number of keys that will be derived from the Root
Key and ensure that enough entropy is introduced in the derivation to
support this usage. It is desirable that the entropy is provided by
the two parties that derive the child key.
Salowey, et al. Expires October 24, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft EMSK Root Key Derivation April 2008
Root Keys' lifetimes should not be more than that of the EMSK. Thus,
when the EMSK expires, the Root Keys derived from it should be
removed from use. If a new EMSK is derived from a subsequent EAP
transaction then a usage implementation should begin to use the new
Root Keys derived from the new EMSK as soon as possible. Whether or
not child keys associated with a Root Key are replaced depends on the
requirements of the usage definition. It is conceivable that some
usage definition forces the child key to be replaced and others allow
child keys to be used based on the policy of the entities that use
the child key.
Recall that the EMSK never leaves the EAP peer and server. That also
holds true for some Root Keys; however, some Root Keys may be
provided to other entities for child key derivation and delivery.
Each usage definition specification will specify delivery caching
and/or delivery procedures. Note that the purpose of the key
derivation in Section 3 is to ensure that Root Keys are
cryptographically separate from each other and the EMSK. In other
words, given a Root Key, it is computationally infeasible to derive
the EMSK, any other Root Keys, or child keys associated with other
Root Keys. In addition to the Root Key, several other parameters may
need to be sent.
Root Key names may be derived using the EAP Session ID, and thus the
key name may need to be sent along with the key. When Root Keys are
delivered to another entity, the EMSKname and the lifetime associated
with the specific root keys MUST also be transported to that entity.
Recommendations for transporting keys are discussed in the security
considerations (Section 7.4).
Usage definition may also define how keys are bound to particular
entities. This can be done through the inclusion of usage parameters
and identities in the child key derivation. Some of this data is
described as "channel bindings" in [RFC3748].
6. Requirements for EAP System
The system that wishes to make use of EAP root keys derived from the
EMSK must take certain things into consideration. The following is a
list of these considerations:
o The EMSK MUST NOT be used for any other purpose than the key
derivation described in this document.
o The EMSK MUST be secret and not known to someone observing the
authentication mechanism protocol exchange.
Salowey, et al. Expires October 24, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft EMSK Root Key Derivation April 2008
o The EMSK MUST be maintained within a protected location inside the
entity where it is generated. Only root keys derived according to
this specification may be exported from this boundary.
o The EMSK MUST be unique for each EAP session
o The EAP method MUST provide an identifier for the EAP transaction
that generated the key
o The system MUST define which usage definitions are used and how
they are invoked.
o The system may define ways to select an alternate PRF for key
derivation as defined in Section 3.1.
The system MAY use the MSK transmitted to the NAS in any way it
chooses. This is required for backward compatibility. New usage
definitions following this specification MUST NOT use the MSK. If
more than one usage uses the MSK, then the cryptographic separation
is not achieved. Implementations MUST prevent such combinations.
7. Security Considerations
7.1. Key strength
The effective key strength of the derived keys will never be greater
than the strength of the EMSK (or a master key internal to an EAP
mechanism).
7.2. Cryptographic separation of keys
The intent of the KDF is to derive keys that are cryptographically
separate: the compromise of one of the usage specific root keys
(USRKs) should not compromise the security of other USRKs or the
EMSK. It is believed that the KDF chosen provides the desired
separation.
7.3. Implementation
An implementation of an EAP framework should keep the EMSK internally
as close to where it is derived as possible and only provide an
interface for obtaining Root Keys. It may also choose to restrict
which callers have access to which keys. A usage definition MUST NOT
assume that any entity outside the EAP server or EAP peer EAP
framework has access to the EMSK. In particular it MUST NOT assume
that a lower layer has access to the EMSK.
7.4. Key Distribution
In some cases it will be necessary or convenient to distribute USRKs
from where they are generated. Since these are secret keys they MUST
Salowey, et al. Expires October 24, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft EMSK Root Key Derivation April 2008
be transported with their integrity and confidentiality maintained.
They MUST be transmitted between authenticated and authorized
parties. It is also important that the context of the key usage be
transmitted along with the key. This includes information to
identify the key and constraints on its usage such as lifetime.
This document does not define a mechanism for key transport. It is
up to usage definitions and the systems that use them to define how
keys are distributed. Usage definition designers may enforce
constraints on key usage by various parties by deriving a key
hierarchy and by providing entities only with the keys in the
hierarchy that they need.
7.5. Key Lifetime
The key lifetime is dependent upon how the key is generated and how
the key is used. Since the Root Key is the responsibility of the
usage definition it must determine how long the key is valid for. If
key lifetime or key strength information is available from the
authenticated key exchange then this information SHOULD be used in
determining the lifetime of the key. If possible it is recommended
that key lifetimes be coordinated throughout the system. Setting a
key lifetime shorter that a system lifetime may result is keys
becoming invalid with no convenient way to refresh them. Setting a
key lifetime to longer may result in decreased security since the key
may be used beyond its recommended lifetime.
7.6. Entropy consideration
The number of root keys derived from the EMSK is expected to be low.
Note that there is no randomness required to be introduced into the
EMSK to root key derivation beyond the root key labels. Thus, if
many keys are going to be derived from an Root Key it is important
that Root Key to child key derivation introduce fresh random numbers
in deriving each key.
8. IANA Considerations
The keywords "PRIVATE USE", "SPECIFICATION REQUIRED" and "IETF
CONSENSUS" that appear in this document when used to describe
namespace allocation are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2434].
8.1. Key Labels
This specification introduces a new name space for "USRK key labels".
Key labels are of one of two formats: "label-string" or
"label-string@specorg" (without the double quotes).
Salowey, et al. Expires October 24, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft EMSK Root Key Derivation April 2008
Labels of the form "label-string" registered by the IANA MUST be
printable US-ASCII strings, and MUST NOT contain the characters at-
sign ("@"), comma (","), whitespace, control characters (ASCII codes
32 or less), or the ASCII code 127 (DEL). Labels are case-sensitive,
and MUST NOT be longer than 64 characters. Labels of this form are
assigned based on the IETF CONSENSUS policy.
Labels with the at-sign in them of the form "label-string@specorg"
where the part preceding the at-sign is the label. The format of the
part preceding the at-sign is not specified; however, these labels
MUST be printable US-ASCII strings, and MUST NOT contain the comma
character (","), whitespace, control characters (ASCII codes 32 or
less), or the ASCII code 127 (DEL). They MUST have only a single at-
sign in them. The part following the at-sign MUST be a valid, fully
qualified Internet domain name [RFC1034] controlled by the person or
organization defining the label. Labels are case-sensitive, and MUST
NOT be longer than 64 characters. It is up to each organization how
it manages its local namespace. Note that the total number of octets
in a label is limited to 255. It has been noted that these labels
resemble STD 11 [RFC0822] addresses and network access identifiers
(NAI) defined in [RFC4282]. This is purely coincidental and has
nothing to do with STD 11 [RFC0822] or [RFC4282]. An example of a
key label is "service@example.com" (without the double quotes).
Labels within the "ietf.org" organization are assigned based on the
IETF CONSENSUS policy with specification recommended. Labels from
other organizations may be registered with IANA by the person or
organization controlling the domain with an assignment policy of
SPECIFICATION REQUIRED. It is RECOMMENDED that the specification
contain the following information:
The following labels are reserved by this document: "EMSK",
"dsrk@ietf.org".
o A description of the usage
o The key label to be used
o Length of the Root Key
o If optional data is used, what it is and how it is maintained
o How child keys will be derived from the Root Key and how they will
be used
o How lifetime of the Root Key and its child keys will be managed
o Where the Root Keys or child keys will be used and how they are
communicated if necessary
8.2. PRF numbers
This specification introduces a new number space for "EMSK PRF
numbers". The numbers are int he range 0 to 255 Numbers from 0 to
Salowey, et al. Expires October 24, 2008 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft EMSK Root Key Derivation April 2008
220 are assigned through the policy IETF CONSENSUS and numbers in the
range 221 to 255 are left for PRIVATE USE. The initial registry
should contain the following values:
0 RESERVED
1 HMAC-SHA-256 PRF+ (Default)
9. Acknowledgements
This document expands upon previous collaboration with Pasi Eronen.
This document reflects conversations with Bernard Aboba, Jari Arkko,
Avi Lior, David McGrew, Henry Haverinen, Hao Zhou, Russ Housley, Glen
Zorn, Charles Clancy, Dan Harkins, Alan DeKok, Yoshi Ohba and members
of the EAP and HOKEY working groups.
Thanks to Dan Harkins for the idea of using a single root key name to
refer to all keys.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
[RFC3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H.
Levkowetz, "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)",
RFC 3748, June 2004.
[RFC4306] Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol",
RFC 4306, December 2005.
[SHA256] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Secure
Hash Standard", FIPS 180-2, August 2002.
With Change Notice 1 dated February 2004
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-eap-keying]
Aboba, B., Simon, D., and P. Eronen, "Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP) Key Management Framework",
Salowey, et al. Expires October 24, 2008 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft EMSK Root Key Derivation April 2008
draft-ietf-eap-keying-22 (work in progress),
November 2007.
[RFC0822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet
text messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982.
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
[RFC4282] Aboba, B., Beadles, M., Arkko, J., and P. Eronen, "The
Network Access Identifier", RFC 4282, December 2005.
[RFC4346] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006.
[SIGMA] Krawczyk, H., "SIGMA: the 'SIGn-and-MAc' Approach to
Authenticated Diffie-Hellman and its Use in the IKE
Protocols", LNCS 2729, Springer, 2003.
Available at http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/
conf/crypto/crypto2003.html
Authors' Addresses
Joseph Salowey
Cisco Systems
Email: jsalowey@cisco.com
Lakshminath Dondeti
Qualcomm, Inc
Email: ldondeti@qualcomm.com
Vidya Narayanan
Qualcomm, Inc
Email: vidyan@qualcomm.com
Madjid Nakhjiri
Motorola
Email: madjid.nakhjiri@motorola.com
Salowey, et al. Expires October 24, 2008 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft EMSK Root Key Derivation April 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Salowey, et al. Expires October 24, 2008 [Page 19]
