|Internet-Draft||Channel Bindings for TLS 1.3||May 2021|
|Whited||Expires 27 November 2021||[Page]|
Channel Bindings for TLS 1.3
This document defines a channel binding type, tls-exporter, that is compatible with TLS 1.3 in accordance with RFC 5056, On Channel Binding. Furthermore it updates the "default" channel binding to the new binding for versions of TLS greater than 1.2. This document updates RFC5801, RFC5802, RFC5929, and RFC8446.¶
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 27 November 2021.¶
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.¶
The "unique" channel binding types defined in [RFC5929] were found to be vulnerable to the "triple handshake vulnerability" [TRIPLE-HANDSHAKE] without the extended master secret extension defined in [RFC7627]. Because of this they were not defined for TLS 1.3 (see [RFC8446] section C.5). To facilitate channel binding with TLS 1.3, a new channel binding type is needed.¶
1.1. Conventions and Terminology
Throughout this document the acronym "EKM" is used to refer to Exported Keying Material as defined in [RFC5705].¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
2. The 'tls-exporter' Channel Binding Type
Channel binding mechanisms are not useful until TLS implementations expose the required data. To facilitate this, "tls-exporter" uses exported keying material (EKM) which is already widely exposed by TLS implementations. The EKM is obtained using the keying material exporters for TLS as defined in [RFC5705] and [RFC8446] section 7.5 by supplying the following inputs:¶
- The ASCII string "EXPORTER-Channel-Binding" with no terminating NUL.¶
- Context value:
- Empty context value.¶
- 32 bytes.¶
SCRAM [RFC5802] defines "tls-unique" as the default channel binding to use over TLS. As "tls-unique" is not defined for TLS 1.3 (and greater), this document updates [RFC5802] to use "tls-exporter" as the default channel binding to use over TLS 1.3 (and greater).¶
3. Security Considerations
Channel bindings do not leak secret information about the channel and are considered public. Implementations MUST NOT use the channel binding to protect secret information.¶
The Security Considerations sections of [RFC5056], [RFC5705], and [RFC8446] apply to this document.¶
3.1. Use with Legacy TLS
While it is possible to use this channel binding mechanism with TLS versions below 1.3, extra precaution must be taken to ensure that the chosen cipher suites always result in unique master secrets. For more information see the Security Considerations section of [RFC5705].¶
When TLS renegotiation is enabled the "tls-exporter" channel binding type is not defined and implementations MUST NOT support it.¶
In general, users wishing to take advantage of channel binding should upgrade to TLS 1.3 or later.¶
The derived data MUST NOT be used for any purpose other than channel bindings as described in [RFC5056].¶
4. IANA Considerations
4.1. Registration of Channel Binding Type
This document adds the following registration in the "Channel-Binding Types" registry:¶
- Registration of channel binding tls-exporter¶
- Channel binding unique prefix:
- Channel binding type:
- Channel type:
- TLS [RFC8446]¶
- Published specification:
- Channel binding is secret:
- The EKM value obtained from the current TLS connection.¶
- Intended usage:
- Person and email address to contact for further information:
- Sam Whited <firstname.lastname@example.org>.¶
- Owner/Change controller name and email address:
- Expert reviewer name and contact information:
- IETF KITTEN or TLS WG (email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org, failing that, email@example.com).¶
- See the published specification for advice on the applicability of this channel binding type.¶
5.1. Normative References
- Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
- Williams, N., "On the Use of Channel Bindings to Secure Channels", RFC 5056, DOI 10.17487/RFC5056, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5056>.
- Rescorla, E., "Keying Material Exporters for Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 5705, DOI 10.17487/RFC5705, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5705>.
- Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
- Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
5.2. Informative References
- Josefsson, S. and N. Williams, "Using Generic Security Service Application Program Interface (GSS-API) Mechanisms in Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL): The GS2 Mechanism Family", RFC 5801, DOI 10.17487/RFC5801, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5801>.
- Newman, C., Menon-Sen, A., Melnikov, A., and N. Williams, "Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism (SCRAM) SASL and GSS-API Mechanisms", RFC 5802, DOI 10.17487/RFC5802, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5802>.
- Altman, J., Williams, N., and L. Zhu, "Channel Bindings for TLS", RFC 5929, DOI 10.17487/RFC5929, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5929>.
- Bhargavan, K., Ed., Delignat-Lavaud, A., Pironti, A., Langley, A., and M. Ray, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session Hash and Extended Master Secret Extension", RFC 7627, DOI 10.17487/RFC7627, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7627>.
- Bhargavan, K., Delignat-Lavaud, A., Fournet, C., Pironti, A., and P. Strub, "Password Storage", , <https://www.mitls.org/pages/attacks/3SHAKE>.