[Search] [txt|html|xml|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07                                       
LAMPS Working Group                                    H. Brockhaus, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                               H. Aschauer
Updates: 4210 (if approved)                                      Siemens
Intended status: Standards Track                            M. Ounsworth
Expires: 23 February 2022                                        J. Gray
                                                                 Entrust
                                                          22 August 2021


            Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) Algorithms
                   draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms-07

Abstract

   This document describes the conventions for using concrete
   cryptographic algorithms with the Certificate Management Protocol
   (CMP).  CMP is used to enroll and further manage the lifecycle of
   X.509 certificates.

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 23 February 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.











Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


   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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Message Digest Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  SHA2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  SHAKE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Signature Algorithms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  RSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  ECDSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  EdDSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Key Management Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Key Agreement Algorithms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.1.1.  Diffie-Hellman  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.1.2.  ECDH  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  Key Transport Algorithms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.2.1.  RSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.3.  Symmetric Key-Encryption Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.3.1.  AES Key Wrap  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.4.  Key Derivation Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.4.1.  PBKDF2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.  Content Encryption Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.1.  AES-CBC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  Message Authentication Code Algorithms  . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.1.  Password-based MAC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       6.1.1.  PasswordBasedMac  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       6.1.2.  PBMAC1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     6.2.  Symmetric key-based MAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       6.2.1.  SHA2-based HMAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       6.2.2.  AES-GMAC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       6.2.3.  SHAKE-based KMAC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   7.  Algorithm Use Profiles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     7.1.  Algorithm Profile for RFC 4210 PKI Management Message
           Profiles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.2.  Algorithm Profile for Lightweight CMP Profile . . . . . .  19
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   11. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22



Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


   12. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   Appendix A.  History of changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29

1.  Introduction

1.1.  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.

2.  Message Digest Algorithms

   This section provides references to object identifiers and
   conventions to be employed by CMP implementations that support SHA2
   or SHAKE message digest algorithms.

   Digest algorithm identifiers are located in the hashAlg field of
   OOBCertHash, the owf field of Challenge, PBMParameter, CertStatus,
   and DHBMParameter, and the digestAlgorithms field of SignedData and
   the digestAlgorithm field of SignerInfo.

   Digest values are located in the hashVal field of OOBCertHash, the
   witness field of Challenge, and the certHash field of CertStatus.  In
   addition, digest values are input to signature algorithms.

   Note: Specific conventions are needed for CertStatus content in
   certConf messages when confirming certificates where the
   AlgorithmIdentifier of the certificate signature does not clearly
   imply a specific hash algorithm.  In such cases the hash algorithm to
   use to build certHash should be specified, e.g., as done in
   Section 2.1 and Section 2.2 for certificates signed using EdDSA.

2.1.  SHA2

   The SHA2 algorithm family is defined in FIPS Pub 180-4
   [NIST.FIPS.180-4].

   The message digest algorithms SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512
   are identified by the following OIDs:








Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


      id-sha224 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { joint-iso-itu-t(2) country(16)
         us(840) organization(1) gov(101) csor(3) nistalgorithm(4)
         hashalgs(2) 4 }
      id-sha256 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { joint-iso-itu-t(2) country(16)
         us(840) organization(1) gov(101) csor(3) nistalgorithm(4)
         hashalgs(2) 1 }
      id-sha384 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { joint-iso-itu-t(2) country(16)
         us(840) organization(1) gov(101) csor(3) nistalgorithm(4)
         hashalgs(2) 2 }
      id-sha512 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { joint-iso-itu-t(2) country(16)
         us(840) organization(1) gov(101) csor(3) nistalgorithm(4)
         hashalgs(2) 3 }

   Specific conventions to be considered are specified in RFC 5754
   Section 2 [RFC5754].

   The hash algorithm used to calculate the certHash in certConf
   messages MUST be SHA512 if the certificate to be confirmed has been
   signed using EdDSA with Ed25519.

2.2.  SHAKE

   The SHA-3 family of hash functions is defined in FIPS Pub 202
   [NIST.FIPS.202] and includes fixed output length variants SHA3-224,
   SHA3-256, SHA3-384, and SHA3-512, as well as extendable-output
   functions (SHAKEs) SHAKE128 and SHAKE256.  Currently SHAKE128 and
   SHAKE256 are the only members of the SHA3-family which are specified
   for use in X.509 and PKIX [RFC8692], and CMS [RFC8702].  Therefore,
   CMP specifies them as defined in RFC 8702 [RFC8702], which are
   identified by the following OIDs:

      id-shake128 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { joint-iso-itu-t(2) country(16)
         us(840) organization(1) gov(101) csor(3) nistAlgorithm(4)
         hashalgs(2) 11 }
      id-shake256 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { joint-iso-itu-t(2) country(16)
         us(840) organization(1) gov(101) csor(3) nistAlgorithm(4)
         hashalgs(2) 12 }

   Specific conventions to be considered are specified in RFC 8702
   Section 3.1 [RFC8702].

   The hash algorithm used to calculate the certHash in certConf
   messages MUST be SHAKE256 if the certificate to be confirmed has been
   signed using EdDSA with Ed448.







Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


3.  Signature Algorithms

   This section provides references to object identifiers and
   conventions to be employed by CMP implementations that support RSA,
   ECDSA, or EdDSA signature algorithms.

   The signature algorithm is referred to as MSG_SIG_ALG in
   Section 7.2,RFC 4210 Appendix D and E [RFC4210], and in the
   Lightweight CMP Profile [I-D.ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile].

   Signature algorithm identifiers are located in the protectionAlg
   field of PKIHeader, the algorithmIdentifier field of POPOSigningKey,
   signatureAlgorithm field of CertificationRequest, SignKeyPairTypes,
   and the SignerInfo signatureAlgorithm field of SignedData.

   Signature values are located in the protection field of PKIMessage,
   signature field of POPOSigningKey, signature field of
   CertificationRequest, and SignerInfo signature field of SignedData.

3.1.  RSA

   The RSA (RSASSA-PSS and PKCS#1 version 1.5) signature algorithm is
   defined in RFC 8017 [RFC8017].

   The algorithm identifiers for RSASAA-PSS signatures used with SHA2
   message digest algorithms is identified by the following OID:

      id-RSASSA-PSS OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
         us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-1(1) 10 }

   Specific conventions to be considered are specified in RFC 4056
   [RFC4056].

   The signature algorithm RSASSA-PSS used with SHAKE message digest
   algorithms are identified by the following OIDs:

      id-RSASSA-PSS-SHAKE128  OBJECT IDENTIFIER  ::=  { iso(1)
         identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5)
         mechanisms(5) pkix(7) algorithms(6) 30 }
      id-RSASSA-PSS-SHAKE256  OBJECT IDENTIFIER  ::=  { iso(1)
         identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5)
         mechanisms(5) pkix(7) algorithms(6) 31 }

   Specific conventions to be considered are specified in RFC 8702
   Section 3.2.1 [RFC8702].

   The signature algorithm PKCS#1 version 1.5 used with SHA2 message
   digest algorithms is identified by the following OIDs:



Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


      sha224WithRSAEncryption OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1)
         member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-1(1) 14 }
      sha256WithRSAEncryption  OBJECT IDENTIFIER  ::=  { iso(1)
         member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-1(1) 11 }
      sha384WithRSAEncryption  OBJECT IDENTIFIER  ::=  { iso(1)
         member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-1(1) 12 }
      sha512WithRSAEncryption  OBJECT IDENTIFIER  ::=  { iso(1)
         member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-1(1) 13 }

   Specific conventions to be considered are specified in RFC 5754
   Section 3.2 [RFC5754].

3.2.  ECDSA

   The ECDSA signature algorithm is defined in FIPS Pub 186-4
   [NIST.FIPS.186-4].

   The signature algorithm ECDSA used with SHA2 message digest
   algorithms is identified by the following OIDs:

      ecdsa-with-SHA224 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
         us(840) ansi-X9-62(10045) signatures(4) ecdsa-with-SHA2(3) 1 }
      ecdsa-with-SHA256 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
         us(840) ansi-X9-62(10045) signatures(4) ecdsa-with-SHA2(3) 2 }
      ecdsa-with-SHA384 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
         us(840) ansi-X9-62(10045) signatures(4) ecdsa-with-SHA2(3) 3 }
      ecdsa-with-SHA512 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
         us(840) ansi-X9-62(10045) signatures(4) ecdsa-with-SHA2(3) 4 }

   As specified in RFC 5480 [RFC5480] the NIST-recommended SECP curves
   are identified by the following OIDs:

      secp192r1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
          us(840) ansi-X9-62(10045) curves(3) prime(1) 1 }
      secp224r1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1)
          identified-organization(3) certicom(132) curve(0) 33 }
      secp256r1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
          us(840) ansi-X9-62(10045) curves(3) prime(1) 7 }
      secp384r1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1)
          identified-organization(3) certicom(132) curve(0) 34 }
      secp521r1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1)
          identified-organization(3) certicom(132) curve(0) 35 }

   Specific conventions to be considered are specified in RFC 5754
   Section 3.3 [RFC5754].

   The signature algorithm ECDSA used with SHAKE message digest
   algorithms are identified by the following OIDs:



Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


      id-ecdsa-with-shake128 OBJECT IDENTIFIER  ::=  { iso(1)
         identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5)
         mechanisms(5) pkix(7) algorithms(6) 32 }
      id-ecdsa-with-shake256 OBJECT IDENTIFIER  ::=  { iso(1)
         identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5)
         mechanisms(5) pkix(7) algorithms(6) 33 }

   Specific conventions to be considered are specified in RFC 8702
   Section 3.2.2 [RFC8702].

3.3.  EdDSA

   The EdDSA signature algorithm is defined in RFC 8032 Section 3.3
   [RFC8032] and FIPS Pub 186-5 (Draft) [NIST.FIPS.186-5].

   The signature algorithm Ed25519 MUST be used with SHA-512 message
   digest algorithms is identified by the following OIDs:

      id-Ed25519 OBJECT IDENTIFIER  ::=  { iso(1)
         identified-organization(3) thawte(101) 112 }

   The signature algorithm Ed448 MUST be used with SHAKE256 message
   digest algorithms is identified by the following OIDs:

      id-Ed448 OBJECT IDENTIFIER  ::=  { iso(1)
         identified-organization(3) thawte(101) 113 }

   Specific conventions to be considered are specified in RFC 8419
   [RFC8419].

   Note: The hash algorithm used to calculate the certHash in certConf
   messages MUST be SHA512 if the certificate to be confirmed has been
   signed using Ed25519, see Section 2.1, and SHAKE256 if signed using
   Ed448, see Section 2.2.

4.  Key Management Algorithms

   CMP utilizes the following general key management techniques: key
   agreement, key transport, and passwords.

   CRMF [RFC4211] and CMP Updates [I-D.ietf-lamps-cmp-updates] promotes
   the use of CMS [RFC5652] EnvelopedData by deprecating the use of
   EncryptedValue.








Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


4.1.  Key Agreement Algorithms

   The key agreement algorithm is referred to as PROT_ENC_ALG in
   RFC 4210 Appendix D and E [RFC4210] and as KM_KA_ALG in the
   Lightweight CMP Profile [I-D.ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile], as
   well as in Section 7.

   Key agreement algorithms are only used in CMP when using CMS
   [RFC5652] EnvelopedData together with the key agreement key
   management technique.  When a key agreement algorithm is used, a key-
   encryption algorithm (Section 4.3) is needed next to the content-
   encryption algorithm (Section 5).

   Key agreement algorithm identifiers are located in the EnvelopedData
   RecipientInfos KeyAgreeRecipientInfo keyEncryptionAlgorithm fields.

   Key encryption algorithm identifiers are located in the EnvelopedData
   RecipientInfos KeyAgreeRecipientInfo keyEncryptionAlgorithm field.

   Wrapped content-encryption keys are located in the EnvelopedData
   RecipientInfos KeyAgreeRecipientInfo RecipientEncryptedKeys
   encryptedKey field.

4.1.1.  Diffie-Hellman

   Diffie-Hellman key agreement is defined in RFC 2631 [RFC2631] and
   SHALL be used in the ephemeral-static as specified in RFC 3370
   [RFC3370].  Static-static variants SHALL NOT be used.

   The Diffie-Hellman key agreement algorithm is identified by the
   following OID:

      id-alg-ESDH OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
         us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) alg(3) 5 }

   Specific conventions to be considered are specified in RFC 3370
   Section 4.1 [RFC3370].

4.1.2.  ECDH

   Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) key agreement is defined in
   RFC 5753 [RFC5753] and SHALL be used in the ephemeral-static variant
   as specified in RFC 5753 [RFC5753] or the 1-Pass ECMQV variant as
   specified in RFC 5753 [RFC5753].  Static-static variants SHALL NOT be
   used.

   The ECDH key agreement algorithm used together with NIST-recommended
   SECP curves are identified by the following OIDs:



Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


      dhSinglePass-stdDH-sha224kdf-scheme OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1)
          identified-organization(3) certicom(132) schemes(1) 11(11) 0 }
      dhSinglePass-stdDH-sha256kdf-scheme OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1)
          identified-organization(3) certicom(132) schemes(1) 11(11) 1 }
      dhSinglePass-stdDH-sha384kdf-scheme OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1)
          identified-organization(3) certicom(132) schemes(1) 11(11) 2 }
      dhSinglePass-stdDH-sha512kdf-scheme OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1)
          identified-organization(3) certicom(132) schemes(1) 11(11) 3 }
      dhSinglePass-cofactorDH-sha224kdf-scheme OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
          iso(1) identified-organization(3) certicom(132) schemes(1)
          14(14) 0 }
      dhSinglePass-cofactorDH-sha256kdf-scheme OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
          iso(1) identified-organization(3) certicom(132) schemes(1)
          14(14) 1 }
      dhSinglePass-cofactorDH-sha384kdf-scheme OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
          iso(1) identified-organization(3) certicom(132) schemes(1)
          14(14) 2 }
      dhSinglePass-cofactorDH-sha512kdf-scheme OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
          iso(1) identified-organization(3) certicom(132) schemes(1)
          14(14) 3 }
      mqvSinglePass-sha224kdf-scheme OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1)
          identified-organization(3) certicom(132) schemes(1) 15(15) 0 }
      mqvSinglePass-sha256kdf-scheme OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1)
          identified-organization(3) certicom(132) schemes(1) 15(15) 1 }
      mqvSinglePass-sha384kdf-scheme OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1)
          identified-organization(3) certicom(132) schemes(1) 15(15) 2 }
      mqvSinglePass-sha512kdf-scheme OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1)
          identified-organization(3) certicom(132) schemes(1) 15(15) 3 }

   As specified in RFC 5480 [RFC5480] the NIST-recommended SECP curves
   are identified by the following OIDs:

      secp192r1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
          us(840) ansi-X9-62(10045) curves(3) prime(1) 1 }
      secp224r1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1)
          identified-organization(3) certicom(132) curve(0) 33 }
      secp256r1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
          us(840) ansi-X9-62(10045) curves(3) prime(1) 7 }
      secp384r1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1)
          identified-organization(3) certicom(132) curve(0) 34 }
      secp521r1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1)
          identified-organization(3) certicom(132) curve(0) 35 }

   Specific conventions to be considered are specified in RFC 5753
   [RFC5753].

   The ECDH key agreement algorithm used together with curve25519 or
   curve448 are identified by the following OIDs:



Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


      id-X25519 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1)
         identified-organization(3) thawte(101) 110 }
      id-X448 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1)
         identified-organization(3) thawte(101) 111 }

   Specific conventions to be considered are specified in RFC 8418
   [RFC8418].

4.2.  Key Transport Algorithms

   The key transport algorithm is also referred to as PROT_ENC_ALG in
   RFC 4210 Appendix D and E [RFC4210] and as KM_KL_ALG in the
   Lightweight CMP Profile [I-D.ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile], as
   well as in Section 7.

   Key transport algorithms are only used in CMP when using CMS
   [RFC5652] EnvelopedData together with the key transport key
   management technique.

   Key transport algorithm identifiers are located in the EnvelopedData
   RecipientInfos KeyTransRecipientInfo keyEncryptionAlgorithm field.

   Key transport encrypted content-encryption keys are located in the
   EnvelopedData RecipientInfos KeyTransRecipientInfo encryptedKey
   field.

4.2.1.  RSA

   The RSA key transport algorithm is the RSA encryption scheme defined
   in RFC 8017 [RFC8017].

   The algorithm identifier for RSA (PKCS #1 v1.5) is:

      rsaEncryption OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
         us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-1(1) 1 }

   The algorithm identifier for RSAES-OAEP is:

      id-RSAES-OAEP  OBJECT IDENTIFIER  ::=  { iso(1) member-body(2)
         us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-1(1) 7 }

   Further conventions to be considered for PKCS #1 v1.5 are specified
   in RFC 3370 Section 4.2.1 [RFC3370] and for RSAES-OAEP in RFC 3560
   [RFC3560].







Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


4.3.  Symmetric Key-Encryption Algorithms

   The symmetric key-encryption algorithm is also referred to as
   KM_KW_ALG in Section 7.2 and in the Lightweight CMP Profile
   [I-D.ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile].

   As symmetric key-encryption key management technique is not used by
   CMP, the symmetric key-encryption algorithm is only needed when using
   the key agreement or password-based key management technique with CMS
   [RFC5652] EnvelopedData.

   Key-encryption algorithm identifiers are located in the EnvelopedData
   RecipientInfos KeyAgreeRecipientInfo keyEncryptionAlgorithm and
   EnvelopedData RecipientInfos PasswordRecipientInfo
   keyEncryptionAlgorithm fields.

   Wrapped content-encryption keys are located in the EnvelopedData
   RecipientInfos KeyAgreeRecipientInfo RecipientEncryptedKeys
   encryptedKey and EnvelopedData RecipientInfos PasswordRecipientInfo
   encryptedKey fields.

4.3.1.  AES Key Wrap

   The AES encryption algorithm is defined in FIPS Pub 197
   [NIST.FIPS.197] and the key wrapping is defined in RFC 3394
   [RFC3394].

   AES key encryption has the algorithm identifier:

      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 }
      id-aes192-wrap OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { joint-iso-itu-t(2)
         country(16) us(840) organization(1) gov(101) csor(3)
         nistAlgorithm(4) aes(1) 25 }
      id-aes256-wrap OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { joint-iso-itu-t(2)
         country(16) us(840) organization(1) gov(101) csor(3)
         nistAlgorithm(4) aes(1) 45 }

   The underlying encryption functions for the key wrap and content-
   encryption algorithms (as specified in Section 5) and the key sizes
   for the two algorithms MUST be the same (e.g., AES-128 key wrap
   algorithm with AES-128 content-encryption algorithm), see also
   RFC 8551 [RFC8551].

   Further conventions to be considered for AES key wrap are specified
   in RFC 3394 Section 2.2 [RFC3394] and RFC 3565 Section 2.3.2
   [RFC3565].



Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


4.4.  Key Derivation Algorithms

   The key derivation algorithm is also referred to as KM_KD_ALG in
   Section 7.2 and in the Lightweight CMP Profile
   [I-D.ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile].

   Key derivation algorithms are only used in CMP when using CMS
   [RFC5652] EnvelopedData together with password-based key management
   technique.

   Key derivation algorithm identifiers are located in the EnvelopedData
   RecipientInfos PasswordRecipientInfo keyDerivationAlgorithm field.

   When using the password-based key management technique with
   EnvelopedData as specified in CMP Updates together with MAC-based
   PKIProtection, the salt for the password-based MAC and KDF must be
   chosen independently to ensure usage of independent symmetric keys.

4.4.1.  PBKDF2

   The password-based key derivation function 2 (PBKDF2) is defined in
   RFC 8018 [RFC8018].

   Password-based key derivation function 2 has the algorithm
   identifier:

      id-PBKDF2 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840)
         rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-5(5) 12 }

   Further conventions to be considered for PBKDF2 are specified in
   RFC 3370 Section 4.4.1 [RFC3370] and RFC 8018 Section 5.2 [RFC8018].

5.  Content Encryption Algorithms

   The content encryption algorithm is also referred to as PROT_SYM_ALG
   in Section 7,RFC 4210 Appendix D and E [RFC4210], and the Lightweight
   CMP Profile [I-D.ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile].

   Content encryption algorithms are only used in CMP when using CMS
   [RFC5652] EnvelopedData to transport a signed private key package in
   case of central key generation or key archiving, a certificate to
   facilitate implicit proof-of-possession, or a revocation passphrase
   in encrypted form.

   Content encryption algorithm identifiers are located in the
   EnvelopedData EncryptedContentInfo contentEncryptionAlgorithm field.





Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


   Encrypted content is located in the EnvelopedData
   EncryptedContentInfo encryptedContent field.

5.1.  AES-CBC

   The AES encryption algorithm is defined in FIPS Pub 197
   [NIST.FIPS.197].

   AES-CBC content encryption has the algorithm identifier:

      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 }
      id-aes192-CBC OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { joint-iso-itu-t(2)
         country(16) us(840) organization(1) gov(101) csor(3)
         nistAlgorithm(4) aes(1)22 }
      id-aes256-CBC OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { joint-iso-itu-t(2)
         country(16) us(840) organization(1) gov(101) csor(3)
         nistAlgorithm(4) aes(1)42 }

   Specific conventions to be considered for AES-CBC content encryption
   are specified in RFC 3565 [RFC3565].

6.  Message Authentication Code Algorithms

   The message authentication code is either used for shared secret-
   based CMP message protection or together with the password-based key
   derivation function (PBKDF2).

   The message authentication code algorithm is also referred to as
   MSG_MAC_ALG in Section 7,RFC 4210 Appendix D and E [RFC4210], and the
   Lightweight CMP Profile [I-D.ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile].

6.1.  Password-based MAC

   Password-based MAC algorithms combine the derivation of a symmetric
   key from a password or other shared secret information and a
   symmetric key-based MAC function as specified in Section 6.2 using
   this derived key.

   Message authentication code algorithm identifiers are located in the
   protectionAlg field of PKIHeader.

   Message authentication code values are located in the PKIProtection
   field.






Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


6.1.1.  PasswordBasedMac

   The PasswordBasedMac algorithm is defined in RFC 4210 Section 5.1.3.1
   [RFC4210], RFC 4211 Section 4.4 [RFC4211], andAlgorithm Requirements
   Update to the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate
   Request Message Format (CRMF) [RFC9045].

   The PasswordBasedMac algorithm is identified by the following OID:

      id-PasswordBasedMac OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
         us(840) nt(113533) nsn(7) algorithms(66) 13 }

   Further conventions to be considered for password-based MAC are
   specified in RFC 4210 Section 5.1.3.1 [RFC4210], RFC 4211 Section 4.4
   [RFC4211], and Algorithm Requirements Update to the Internet X.509
   Public Key Infrastructure Certificate Request Message Format (CRMF)
   [RFC9045].

6.1.2.  PBMAC1

   The Password-Based Message Authentication Code 1 (PBMAC1) is defined
   in RFC 8018 [RFC8018].  PBMAC1 combines a password-based key
   derivation function like PBKDF2 (Section 4.4.1) with an underlying
   symmetric key-based message authentication scheme.

   PBMAC1 has the following OID:

      id-PBMAC1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840)
         rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-5(5) 14 }

   Specific conventions to be considered for PBMAC1 are specified in
   RFC 8018 Section 7.1 and A.5 [RFC8018].

6.2.  Symmetric key-based MAC

   Symmetric key-based MAC algorithms are used for deriving the
   symmetric encryption key when using PBKDF2 as described in
   Section 4.4.1 as well as with Password-based MAC as described in
   Section 6.1.

   Message authentication code algorithm identifiers are located in the
   protectionAlg field of PKIHeader, the mac field of PBMParameter, the
   messageAuthScheme field of PBMAC1, and the prf field of
   PBKDF2-params.

   Message authentication code values are located in the PKIProtection
   field.




Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


6.2.1.  SHA2-based HMAC

   The HMAC algorithm is defined in RFC 2104 [RFC2104] and
   FIPS Pub 198-1 [NIST.FIPS.198-1].

   The HMAC algorithm used with SHA2 message digest algorithms is
   identified by the following OIDs:

      id-hmacWithSHA224 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
         us(840) rsadsi(113549) digestAlgorithm(2) 8 }
      id-hmacWithSHA256 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
         us(840) rsadsi(113549) digestAlgorithm(2) 9 }
      id-hmacWithSHA384 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
         us(840) rsadsi(113549) digestAlgorithm(2) 10 }
      id-hmacWithSHA512 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
         us(840) rsadsi(113549) digestAlgorithm(2) 11 }

   Specific conventions to be considered for SHA2-based HMAC are
   specified in RFC 4231 Section 3.1 [RFC4231].

6.2.2.  AES-GMAC

   The AES-GMAC algorithm is defined in FIPS Pub 197 [NIST.FIPS.197] and
   NIST SP 800-38d [NIST.SP.800-38d].

   NOTE: AES-GMAC MUST NOT be used twice with the same parameter set,
   especially the same nonce.  Therefore, it MUST NOT be used together
   with PBKDF2.  When using it with PBMAC1 it MUST be ensured that AES-
   GMAC is only used as message authentication scheme and not for the
   key derivation function PBKDF2.

   The AES-GMAC algorithm is identified by the following OIDs:

      id-aes128-GMAC OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { joint-iso-itu-t(2)
         country(16) us(840) organization(1) gov(101) csor(3)
         nistAlgorithm(4) aes(1) 9 }
      id-aes192-GMAC OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { joint-iso-itu-t(2)
         country(16) us(840) organization(1) gov(101) csor(3)
         nistAlgorithm(4) aes(1) 29 }
      id-aes256-GMAC OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { joint-iso-itu-t(2)
         country(16) us(840) organization(1) gov(101) csor(3)
         nistAlgorithm(4) aes(1) 49 }

   Specific conventions to be considered for AES-GMAC are specified in
   RFC 9044 [RFC9044].






Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


6.2.3.  SHAKE-based KMAC

   The KMAC algorithm is defined in RFC 8702 [RFC8702] and
   FIPS SP 800-185 [NIST.SP.800-185].

   The SHAKE-based KMAC algorithm is identified by the following OIDs:

      id-KmacWithSHAKE128 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { joint-iso-itu-t(2)
         country(16) us(840) organization(1) gov(101) csor(3)
         nistAlgorithm(4) 2 19 }
      id-KmacWithSHAKE256 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { joint-iso-itu-t(2)
         country(16) us(840) organization(1) gov(101) csor(3)
         nistAlgorithm(4) 2 20 }

   Specific conventions to be considered for KMAC with SHAKE are
   specified in RFC 8702 Section 3.4 [RFC8702].

7.  Algorithm Use Profiles

   This section provides profiles of algorithms and respective
   conventions for different application use cases.

   Recommendations like NIST SP 800-57 Recommendation for Key Management
   [NIST.SP.800-57pt1r5] and ECRYPT Algorithms, Key Size and Protocols
   Report (2018) [ECRYPT.CSA.D5.4] provide general information on
   current cryptographic algorithms.

   The following criteria will help implementers choose appropriate
   algorithms for managing certificates:

   *  The cryptographic strength of the algorithm with the lowest
      security.

      Note: To avoid consuming too much computational resources it is
      recommended to choose a set of algorithms offering roughly the
      same level of security.

   *  The entropy of the shared secret information or password when MAC-
      based message protection is used, e.g., MSG_MAC_ALG.

   Finally, the cryptographic strength of the system SHOULD be at least
   as strong as the algorithms and keys used for the certificate being
   managed.








Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


7.1.  Algorithm Profile for RFC 4210 PKI Management Message Profiles

   The following table contains definitions of algorithms used within
   PKI Management Message Profiles as defined in CMP Appendix D.2
   [RFC4210].

   The columns in the table are:

   Name: An identifier used for message profiles

   Use: Description of where and for what the algorithm is used

   Mandatory: Algorithms which MUST be supported by conforming
   implementations

   Change from 4210: Shows the changes in the Mandatory and Other
   algorithms from RFC 4210 [RFC4210].  These are included for backwards
   compatibility considerations.

































Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


   +============+===============+==================+===================+
   |Name        |Use            | Mandatory        |Change from 4210   |
   +============+===============+==================+===================+
   |MSG_SIG_ALG |protection of  | RSA              |DSA/SHA1           |
   |            |PKI messages   |                  |Others: RSA/MD5,   |
   |            |using signature|                  |ECDSA              |
   +------------+---------------+------------------+-------------------+
   |MSG_MAC_ALG |protection of  | PasswordBasedMac |PasswordBasedMac   |
   |            |PKI messages   | (RECOMMENDED:    |Others: HMAC, X9.9 |
   |            |using MACing   | PBMAC1)          |                   |
   +------------+---------------+------------------+-------------------+
   |SYM_PENC_ALG|symmetric      | AES-wrap         |3-DES(3-key-EDE),  |
   |            |encryption of  |                  |CBC Mode           |
   |            |an end entity's|                  |Others: AES, RC5,  |
   |            |private key    |                  |CAST-128           |
   |            |where symmetric|                  |                   |
   |            |key is         |                  |                   |
   |            |distributed    |                  |                   |
   |            |out-of-band    |                  |                   |
   +------------+---------------+------------------+-------------------+
   |PROT_ENC_ALG|asymmetric     | D-H              |D-H                |
   |            |algorithm used |                  |Others: RSA, ECDH  |
   |            |for encryption |                  |                   |
   |            |of (symmetric  |                  |                   |
   |            |keys for       |                  |                   |
   |            |encryption of) |                  |                   |
   |            |private keys   |                  |                   |
   |            |transported in |                  |                   |
   |            |PKIMessages    |                  |                   |
   +------------+---------------+------------------+-------------------+
   |PROT_SYM_ALG|symmetric      | AES-CBC          |3-DES(3-key-EDE),  |
   |            |encryption     |                  |CBC Mode           |
   |            |algorithm used |                  |Others: AES, RC5,  |
   |            |for encryption |                  |CAST-128           |
   |            |of private key |                  |                   |
   |            |bits (a key of |                  |                   |
   |            |this type is   |                  |                   |
   |            |encrypted using|                  |                   |
   |            |PROT_ENC_ALG)  |                  |                   |
   +------------+---------------+------------------+-------------------+

                                  Table 1

   Mandatory Algorithm Identifiers and Specifications:

   RSA: sha256WithRSAEncryption with 2048 bit, see Section 3.1





Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


   PasswordBasedMac: id-PasswordBasedMac, see Section 6.1 (with id-
   sha256 as the owf parameter, see Section 2.1 and id-hmacWithSHA256 as
   the mac parameter, see Section 6.2.1)

   PBMAC1: id-PBMAC1, see Section 6.1.2 (with id-PBKDF2 as the key
   derivation function, see Section 4.4.1 and id-hmacWithSHA256 as
   message authentication scheme, see Section 6.2.1).  It is RECOMMENDED
   to prefer the usage of PBMAC1 instead of PasswordBasedMac.

   D-H: id-alg-ESDH, see Section 4.1.1

   AES-wrap: id-aes256-wrap, see Section 4.3.1

   AES-CBC: id-aes256-CBC, see Section 5.1

7.2.  Algorithm Profile for Lightweight CMP Profile

   The following table contains definitions of algorithms which MAY be
   supported by implementations of the Lightweight CMP Profile
   [I-D.ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile].

   As the set of algorithms to be used for implementations of the
   Lightweight CMP Profile heavily depends on the PKI management
   operations implemented, the certificates used for messages
   protection, and the certificates to be managed, this document will
   not specify a specific set that is mandatory to support for
   conforming implementations.

   The columns in the table are:

   Name: An identifier used for message profiles

   Use: Description of where and for what the algorithm is used

   Examples: Lists the algorithms as described in this document.  The
   list of algorithms depends on the set of PKI management operations to
   be implemented.

   Note: It is RECOMMENDED to prefer the usage of PBMAC1 instead of
   PasswordBasedMac.











Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


   +==============+================================+==================+
   | Name         | Use                            | Examples         |
   +==============+================================+==================+
   | MSG_SIG_ALG  | protection of PKI messages     | RSA, ECDSA,      |
   |              | using signature and for        | EdDSA            |
   |              | SignedData, e.g., a private    |                  |
   |              | key transported in PKIMessages |                  |
   +--------------+--------------------------------+------------------+
   | MSG_MAC_ALG  | protection of PKI messages     | PasswordBasedMac |
   |              | using MACing                   | (see Section 9), |
   |              |                                | PBMAC1           |
   +--------------+--------------------------------+------------------+
   | KM_KA_ALG    | asymmetric key agreement       | D-H, ECDH        |
   |              | algorithm used for agreement   |                  |
   |              | of a symmetric key for use     |                  |
   |              | with KM_KW_ALG                 |                  |
   +--------------+--------------------------------+------------------+
   | KM_KT_ALG    | asymmetric key encryption      | RSA              |
   |              | algorithm used for transport   |                  |
   |              | of a symmetric key for         |                  |
   |              | PROT_SYM_ALG                   |                  |
   +--------------+--------------------------------+------------------+
   | KM_KD_ALG    | symmetric key derivation       | PBKDF2           |
   |              | algorithm used for derivation  |                  |
   |              | of a symmetric key for use     |                  |
   |              | with KM_KW_ALG                 |                  |
   +--------------+--------------------------------+------------------+
   | KM_KW_ALG    | algorithm to wrap a symmetric  | AES-wrap         |
   |              | key for PROT_SYM_ALG           |                  |
   +--------------+--------------------------------+------------------+
   | PROT_SYM_ALG | symmetric content encryption   | AES-CBC          |
   |              | algorithm used for encryption  |                  |
   |              | of EnvelopedData, e.g., a      |                  |
   |              | private key transported in     |                  |
   |              | PKIMessages                    |                  |
   +--------------+--------------------------------+------------------+

                                 Table 2

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not request changes to the IANA registry.









Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


9.  Security Considerations

   RFC 4210 Appendix D.2 [RFC4210] contains a set of algorithms,
   mandatory to be supported by conforming implementations.  Theses
   algorithms were appropriate at the time CMP was released, but as
   cryptographic algorithms weaken over time, some of them should not be
   used anymore.  In general, new attacks are emerging due to research
   cryptoanalysis or increase in computing power.  New algorithms were
   introduced that are more resistant to today's attacks.

   This document lists many cryptographic algorithms usable with CMP to
   offer implementers a more up to date choice.  Finally, the algorithms
   to be supported also heavily depend on the certificates and PKI
   management operations utilized in the target environment.  The
   algorithm with the lowest security strength and the entropy of shared
   secret information define the security of the overall solution, see
   Section 7.

   When using MAC-based message protection the use of PBMAC1 is
   preferable to that of PasswordBasedMac: first, PBMAC1 is a well-known
   scrutinized algorithm, which is not true for PasswordBasedMac and
   second, there exists a theoretical weakness in PasswordBasedMac,
   where the generated MAC key can be easily distinguished from a random
   key.

   AES-GMAC MUST NOT be used as the pseudo random function in PBKDF2;
   the use of AES-GMAC more than once with the same key and the same
   nonce will break the security.

   In Section 7 of this document there is also an update to the
   Appendix D.2 of RFC 4210 [RFC4210] and a set of algorithms that MAY
   be supported when implementing the Lightweight CMP Profile
   [I-D.ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile].

   To keep the list of algorithms to be used with CMP up to date and to
   enlist secure algorithms resisting known attack scenarios, future
   algorithms should be added and weakened algorithms should be
   deprecated.

   It is recognized that there may be older CMP implementations in use
   that conform to the algorithm use profile from Appendix D.2 of
   RFC 4210 [RFC4210].  For example, the use of AES is now mandatory for
   PROT_SYM_ALG but in RFC 4210 [RFC4210] 3-DES was mandatory.  In most
   cases the newer mandatory algorithms were listed as "other"
   algorithms in RFC 4210 [RFC4210].  Therefore, it is expected that
   many CMP systems may already support the recommended algorithms in
   this specification.  In such systems the weakened algorithms should
   be disabled from further use.  If critical systems cannot be



Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


   immediately updated to conform to the recommended algorithm use
   profile, it is recommended a plan to migrate the infrastructure to
   conforming profiles be adopted as soon as possible.

10.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Russ Housley for supporting this draft with submitting
   [RFC9044] and [RFC9045].

   May thanks also to all reviewers like Serge Mister, Mark Ferreira,
   Yuefei Lu, Tomas Gustavsson, Lijun Liao, David von Oheimb and Steffen
   Fries for their input and feedback to this document.  Apologies to
   all not mentioned reviewers and supporters.

11.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-lamps-cmp-updates]
              Brockhaus, H. and D. V. Oheimb, "Certificate Management
              Protocol (CMP) Updates", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates-12, 9 July 2021,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lamps-
              cmp-updates-12>.

   [NIST.FIPS.180-4]
              Dang, Quynh H., "Secure Hash Standard", NIST NIST FIPS
              180-4, DOI 10.6028/NIST.FIPS.180-4, July 2015,
              <https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/FIPS/
              NIST.FIPS.180-4.pdf>.

   [NIST.FIPS.186-4]
              National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
              "Digital Signature Standard (DSS)", NIST NIST FIPS 186-4,
              DOI 10.6028/NIST.FIPS.186-4, July 2013,
              <https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/FIPS/
              NIST.FIPS.186-4.pdf>.

   [NIST.FIPS.186-5]
              National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
              "FIPS Pub 186-5 (Draft): Digital Signature Standard
              (DSS)", October 2019,
              <https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/FIPS/
              NIST.FIPS.186-5-draft.pdf>.









Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


   [NIST.FIPS.197]
              National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
              "Advanced encryption standard (AES)", NIST NIST FIPS 197,
              DOI 10.6028/NIST.FIPS.197, November 2001,
              <https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/FIPS/
              NIST.FIPS.197.pdf>.

   [NIST.FIPS.198-1]
              National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
              "The Keyed-Hash Message Authentication Code (HMAC)",
              NIST NIST FIPS 198-1, DOI 10.6028/NIST.FIPS.198-1, July
              2008, <https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/FIPS/
              NIST.FIPS.198-1.pdf>.

   [NIST.FIPS.202]
              Dworkin, Morris J., "SHA-3 Standard: Permutation-Based
              Hash and Extendable-Output Functions", NIST NIST FIPS 202,
              DOI 10.6028/NIST.FIPS.202, July 2015,
              <https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/FIPS/
              NIST.FIPS.202.pdf>.

   [NIST.SP.800-185]
              Kelsey, John., Change, Shu-jen., and Ray. Perlner, "SHA-3
              derived functions: cSHAKE, KMAC, TupleHash and
              ParallelHash", NIST NIST SP 800-185,
              DOI 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-185, December 2016,
              <https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/
              NIST.SP.800-185.pdf>.

   [NIST.SP.800-38d]
              Dworkin, M J., "Recommendation for block cipher modes of
              operation :GaloisCounter Mode (GCM) and GMAC", NIST NIST
              SP 800-38d, DOI 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-38d, 2007,
              <https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/
              nistspecialpublication800-38d.pdf>.

   [RFC2104]  Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
              Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104>.

   [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>.






Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


   [RFC2631]  Rescorla, E., "Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method",
              RFC 2631, DOI 10.17487/RFC2631, June 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2631>.

   [RFC3370]  Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
              Algorithms", RFC 3370, DOI 10.17487/RFC3370, August 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3370>.

   [RFC3394]  Schaad, J. and R. Housley, "Advanced Encryption Standard
              (AES) Key Wrap Algorithm", RFC 3394, DOI 10.17487/RFC3394,
              September 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3394>.

   [RFC3560]  Housley, R., "Use of the RSAES-OAEP Key Transport
              Algorithm in Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)",
              RFC 3560, DOI 10.17487/RFC3560, July 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3560>.

   [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>.

   [RFC4056]  Schaad, J., "Use of the RSASSA-PSS Signature Algorithm in
              Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC 4056,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4056, June 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4056>.

   [RFC4210]  Adams, C., Farrell, S., Kause, T., and T. Mononen,
              "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate
              Management Protocol (CMP)", RFC 4210,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4210, September 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4210>.

   [RFC4211]  Schaad, J., "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure
              Certificate Request Message Format (CRMF)", RFC 4211,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4211, September 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4211>.

   [RFC4231]  Nystrom, M., "Identifiers and Test Vectors for HMAC-SHA-
              224, HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-384, and HMAC-SHA-512",
              RFC 4231, DOI 10.17487/RFC4231, December 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4231>.

   [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>.




Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


   [RFC5652]  Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70,
              RFC 5652, DOI 10.17487/RFC5652, September 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5652>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8017]  Moriarty, K., Ed., Kaliski, B., Jonsson, J., and A. Rusch,
              "PKCS #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications Version 2.2",
              RFC 8017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8017, November 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8017>.

   [RFC8018]  Moriarty, K., Ed., Kaliski, B., and A. Rusch, "PKCS #5:
              Password-Based Cryptography Specification Version 2.1",
              RFC 8018, DOI 10.17487/RFC8018, January 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8018>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8418]  Housley, R., "Use of the Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman Key
              Agreement Algorithm with X25519 and X448 in the
              Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC 8418,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8418, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8418>.

   [RFC8419]  Housley, R., "Use of Edwards-Curve Digital Signature
              Algorithm (EdDSA) Signatures in the Cryptographic Message
              Syntax (CMS)", RFC 8419, DOI 10.17487/RFC8419, August
              2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8419>.

   [RFC8702]  Kampanakis, P. and Q. Dang, "Use of the SHAKE One-Way Hash
              Functions in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)",
              RFC 8702, DOI 10.17487/RFC8702, January 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8702>.




Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


   [RFC9044]  Housley, R., "Using the AES-GMAC Algorithm with the
              Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC 9044,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9044, June 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9044>.

   [RFC9045]  Housley, R., "Algorithm Requirements Update to the
              Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate
              Request Message Format (CRMF)", RFC 9045,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9045, June 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9045>.

12.  Informative References

   [ECRYPT.CSA.D5.4]
              University of Bristol, "Algorithms, Key Size and Protocols
              Report (2018)", March 2015,
              <https://www.ecrypt.eu.org/csa/documents/
              D5.4-FinalAlgKeySizeProt.pdf>.

   [I-D.ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile]
              Brockhaus, H., Fries, S., and D. V. Oheimb, "Lightweight
              Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) Profile", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-
              cmp-profile-06, 9 July 2021,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lamps-
              lightweight-cmp-profile-06>.

   [NIST.SP.800-57pt1r5]
              Barker, Elaine., "Recommendation for key management:part 1
              - general", NIST NIST SP 800-57pt1r5,
              DOI 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-57pt1r5, May 2020,
              <https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/
              NIST.SP.800-57pt1r5.pdf>.

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

   [RFC8692]  Kampanakis, P. and Q. Dang, "Internet X.509 Public Key
              Infrastructure: Additional Algorithm Identifiers for
              RSASSA-PSS and ECDSA Using SHAKEs", RFC 8692,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8692, December 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8692>.







Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


Appendix A.  History of changes

   Note: This appendix will be deleted in the final version of the
   document.

   From version 06 -> 07:

   *  Fixing minor formatting nits

   From version 05 -> 06:

   *  Added text to Section 2 and Section 3.3 to clearly specify the
      hash algorithm to use for certConf messages for certificates
      signed with EdDSA (see thread "[CMP Updates] Hash algorithm to us
      for calculating certHash")
   *  Updated new RFC numbers for I-D.ietf-lamps-cms-aes-gmac-alg and I-
      D.ietf-lamps-crmf-update-algs

   From version 04 -> 05:

   *  Minor changes and corrections in wording

   From version 03 -> 04:

   *  Added John Gray to the list of authors due to his extensive
      support and valuable feedback
   *  Added some clarification of the use AES-GMAC to Section 6.2.1
   *  Extended the guidance on how to select a set of algorithms in
      Section 7 and deleted former Section 7.1
   *  Deleted the algorithms mandatory to support in Section 7.2 as
      discussed at IETF 110
   *  Extended the Security considerations in Section 9
   *  Minor changes in wording

   From version 02 -> 03:

   *  Moved former Appendix A to new Section 7 as suggested by Rich and
      Russ (see thread "I-D Action: draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms-
      02.txt")
   *  Added a column to Table 1 in Section 7.2 to reflect the changes to
      RFC 4210
   *  Updated Table 2 in Section 7.3
   *  Added a paragraph to Section 9 to discuss backward compatibility
      with RFC 4210
   *  Minor changes in wording

   From version 01 -> 02:




Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


   *  Added Hans Aschauer, Mike Ounsworth, and Serge Mister as co-author
   *  Changed to XML V3
   *  Added SHAKE digest algorithm to Section 2 as discussed at IETF 109
   *  Deleted DSA from Section 3 as discussed at IETF 109
   *  Added RSASSA-PSS with SHAKE to Section 3
   *  Added SECP curves the section on ECDSA with SHA2, ECDSA with
      SHAKE, and EdDSA to Section 3 as discussed at IETF 109
   *  Deleted static-static D-H and ECDH from Section 4.1 based on the
      discussion on the mailing list (see thread "[CMP Algorithms]
      Section 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 drop static-static (EC)DH key agreement
      algorithms for use in CMP")
   *  Added ECDH OIDs and SECP curves, as well as ECDH with curve25519
      and curve448 to Section 4.1 as discussed at IETF 109
   *  Deleted RSA-OAEP from Section 4.2 first as discussed at IETF 109,
      but re-added it after discussion on the mailing list (see thread
      "Mail regarding draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms")
   *  Added a paragraph to Section 4.3.1 to explain that the algorithms
      and key length for content encryption and key wrapping must be
      aligned as discussed on the mailing list (see thread "[CMP
      Algorithms] Use Key-Wrap with or without padding in Section 4.3
      and Section 5")
   *  Deleted AES-CCM and AES-GMC from and added AES-CBC to Section 5 as
      discussed at IETF 109
   *  Added Section 6.1.2 to offer PBMAC1 as discusses on the mailing
      list (see thread "Mail regarding draft-ietf-lamps-crmf-update-
      algs-02") and restructured text in Section 6 to be easier to
      differentiate between password- and shared-key-based MAC
   *  Deleted Diffie-Hellmann based MAC from Section 6 as is only
      relevant when using enrolling Diffie-Hellmann certificates
   *  Added AES-GMAC and SHAKE-based KMAC to Section 6 as discussed at
      IETF 109
   *  Extended Section 9 to mention Russ supporting with two additional
      I-Ds and name further supporters of the draft
   *  Added a first draft of a generic algorithm selection guideline to
      Appendix A
   *  Added a first proposal for mandatory algorithms for the
      Lightweight CMP Profile to Appendix A
   *  Minor changes in wording

   From version 00 -> 01:

   *  Changed sections Symmetric Key-Encryption Algorithms and Content
      Encryption Algorithms based on the discussion on the mailing list
      (see thread "[CMP Algorithms] Use Key-Wrap with or without padding
      in Section 4.3 and Section 5")
   *  Added Appendix A with updated algorithms profile for RDC4210
      Appendix D.2 and first proposal for the Lightweight CMP Profile
   *  Minor changes in wording



Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft               CMP Algorithms                  August 2021


Authors' Addresses

   Hendrik Brockhaus (editor)
   Siemens AG

   Email: hendrik.brockhaus@siemens.com


   Hans Aschauer
   Siemens AG

   Email: hans.aschauer@siemens.com


   Mike Ounsworth
   Entrust

   Email: mike.ounsworth@entrust.com


   John Gray
   Entrust

   Email: john.gray@entrust.com



























Brockhaus, et al.       Expires 23 February 2022               [Page 29]