TLS S. Santesson Internet-Draft 3xA Security AB Intended status: Standards Track H. Tschofenig Expires: November 12, 2016 ARM Ltd. May 11, 2016 Transport Layer Security (TLS) Cached Information Extension draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-23.txt Abstract Transport Layer Security (TLS) handshakes often include fairly static information, such as the server certificate and a list of trusted certification authorities (CAs). This information can be of considerable size, particularly if the server certificate is bundled with a complete certificate chain (i.e., the certificates of intermediate CAs up to the root CA). This document defines an extension that allows a TLS client to inform a server of cached information, allowing the server to omit already available information. 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 http://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 November 12, 2016. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of Santesson & Tschofenig Expires November 12, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft TLS Cached Information Extension May 2016 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Cached Information Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Exchange Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Server Certificate Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. CertificateRequest Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Fingerprint Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.1. New Entry to the TLS ExtensionType Registry . . . . . . . 10 8.2. New Registry for CachedInformationType . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Appendix A. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1. Introduction Reducing the amount of information exchanged during a Transport Layer Security handshake to a minimum helps to improve performance in environments where devices are connected to a network with a low bandwidth, and lossy radio technology. With Internet of Things such environments exist, for example, when devices use IEEE 802.15.4 or Bluetooth Smart. For more information about the challenges with smart object deployments please see [RFC6574]. This specification defines a TLS extension that allows a client and a server to exclude transmission information cached in an earlier TLS handshake. A typical example exchange may therefore look as follows. First, the client and the server executes the full TLS handshake. The client then caches the certificate provided by the server. When the TLS client connects to the TLS server some time in the future, without using session resumption, it then attaches the cached_info extension defined in this document to the client hello message to indicate that Santesson & Tschofenig Expires November 12, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft TLS Cached Information Extension May 2016 it had cached the certificate, and it provides the fingerprint of it. If the server's certificate has not changed then the TLS server does not need to send its certificate and the corresponding certificate chain again. In case information has changed, which can be seen from the fingerprint provided by the client, the certificate payload is transmitted to the client to allow the client to update the cache. 2. Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. This document refers to the TLS protocol but the description is equally applicable to DTLS as well. 3. Cached Information Extension This document defines a new extension type (cached_info(TBD)), which is used in client hello and server hello messages. The extension type is specified as follows. enum { cached_info(TBD), (65535) } ExtensionType; The extension_data field of this extension, when included in the client hello, MUST contain the CachedInformation structure. The client MAY send multiple CachedObjects of the same CachedInformationType. This may, for example, be the case when the client has cached multiple certificates from a server. Santesson & Tschofenig Expires November 12, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft TLS Cached Information Extension May 2016 enum { cert(1), cert_req(2) (255) } CachedInformationType; struct { select (type) { case client: CachedInformationType type; opaque hash_value<1..255>; case server: CachedInformationType type; } body; } CachedObject; struct { CachedObject cached_info<1..2^16-1>; } CachedInformation; This document defines the following two types: 'cert' Type for not sending the complete Server Certificate Message: With the type field set to 'cert', the client MUST include the fingerprint of the Certificate message in the hash_value field. For this type the fingerprint MUST be calculated using the procedure described in Section 5 with the Certificate message as input data. 'cert_req' Type for not sending the complete CertificateRequest Message: With the type set to 'cert_req', the client MUST include the fingerprint of the CertificateRequest message in the hash_value field. For this type the fingerprint MUST be calculated using the procedure described in Section 5 with the CertificateRequest message as input data. New cached info types can be added following the policy described in the IANA considerations section, see Section 8. New message digest algorithms for use with these types can also be added by registering a new type that makes use of the updated message digest algorithm. For practical reasons we recommend to re-use hash algorithms already available with TLS ciphersuites to avoid additional code and to keep the collision probably low new hash algorithms MUST NOT have a collision resistance worse than SHA-256. Santesson & Tschofenig Expires November 12, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft TLS Cached Information Extension May 2016 4. Exchange Specification Clients supporting this extension MAY include the "cached_info" extension in the (extended) client hello. If the client includes the extension then it MUST contain one or more CachedObject attributes. A server supporting this extension MAY include the "cached_info" extension in the (extended) server hello. By returning the "cached_info" extension the server indicates that it supports the cached info types. For each indicated cached info type the server MUST alter the transmission of respective payloads, according to the rules outlined with each type. If the server includes the extension it MUST only include CachedObjects of a type also supported by the client (as expressed in the client hello). For example, if a client indicates support for 'cert' and 'cert_req' then the server cannot respond with a "cached_info" attribute containing support for ('foo- bar'). Since the client includes a fingerprint of information it cached (for each indicated type) the server is able to determine whether cached information is stale. If the server supports this specification and notices a mismatch between the data cached by the client and its own information then the server MUST include the information in full and MUST NOT list the respective type in the "cached_info" extension. Note: If a server is part of a hosting environment then the client may have cached multiple data items for a single server. To allow the client to select the appropriate information from the cache it is RECOMMENDED that the client utilizes the Server Name Indication extension [RFC6066]. Following a successful exchange of the "cached_info" extension in the client and server hello, the server alters sending the corresponding handshake message. How information is altered from the handshake messages is defined in Section 4.1, and in Section 4.2 for the types defined in this specification. Appendix A shows an example hash calculation and Section 6 shows an example protocol exchange. 4.1. Server Certificate Message When a ClientHello message contains the "cached_info" extension with a type set to 'cert' then the server MAY send the Certificate message shown in Figure 1 under the following conditions: o The server software implements the "cached_info" extension defined in this specification. Santesson & Tschofenig Expires November 12, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft TLS Cached Information Extension May 2016 o The 'cert' cached info extension is enabled (for example, a policy allows the use of this extension). o The server compared the value in the hash_value field of the client-provided "cached_info" extension with the fingerprint of the Certificate message it normally sends to clients. This check ensures that the information cached by the client is current. The procedure for calculating the fingerprint is described in Section 5. The original Certificate handshake message syntax is defined in [RFC5246] and has been extended with [RFC7250]. RFC 7250 allows the certificate payload to contain only the SubjectPublicKeyInfo instead of the full information typically found in a certificate. Hence, when this specification is used in combination with [RFC7250] and the negotiated certificate type is a raw public key then the TLS server omits sending a Certificate payload that contains an ASN.1 Certificate structure with the included SubjectPublicKeyInfo rather than the full certificate chain. As such, this extension is compatible with the raw public key extension defined in RFC 7250. Note: We assume that the server implementation is able to select the appropriate certificate or SubjectPublicKeyInfo from the received hash value. If the SNI extension is used by the client then the server has additional information to guide the selection of the appropriate cached info. When the cached info specification is used then a modified version of the Certificate message is exchanged. The modified structure is shown in Figure 1. struct { opaque hash_value<1..255>; } Certificate; Figure 1: Cached Info Certificate Message. 4.2. CertificateRequest Message When a fingerprint for an object of type 'cert_req' is provided in the client hello, the server MAY send the CertificateRequest message shown in Figure 2 message under the following conditions: o The server software implements the "cached_info" extension defined in this specification. o The 'cert_req' cached info extension is enabled (for example, a policy allows the use of this extension). Santesson & Tschofenig Expires November 12, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft TLS Cached Information Extension May 2016 o The server compared the value in the hash_value field of the client-provided "cached_info" extension with the fingerprint of the CertificateRequest message it normally sends to clients. This check ensures that the information cached by the client is current. The procedure for calculating the fingerprint is described in Section 5. o The server wants to request a certificate from the client. The original CertificateRequest handshake message syntax is defined in [RFC5246]. The modified structure of the CertificateRequest message is shown in Figure 2. struct { opaque hash_value<1..255>; } CertificateRequest; Figure 2: Cached Info CertificateRequest Message. The CertificateRequest payload is the input parameter to the fingerprint calculation described in Section 5. 5. Fingerprint Calculation The fingerprint for the two cached info objects defined in this document MUST be computed as follows: 1. Compute the SHA-256 [RFC6234] hash of the input data. The input data depends on the cached info type. This document defines two cached info types, described in Section 4.1 and in Section 4.2. Note that the computed hash only covers the input data structure (and not any type and length information of the record layer). Appendix A shows an example. 2. Use the output of the SHA-256 hash. The purpose of the fingerprint provided by the client is to help the server select the correct information. For example, in case of the certificate message the fingerprint identifies the server certificate (and the corresponding private key) for use for with the rest of the handshake. Servers may have more than one certificate and therefore a hash needs to be long enough to keep the probably of hash collisions low. On the other hand, the cached info design aims to reduce the amount of data being exchanged. The security of the handshake depends on the private key and not on the size of the fingerprint. Hence, the fingerprint is a way to prevent the server from accidentally selecting the wrong information. If an attacker Santesson & Tschofenig Expires November 12, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft TLS Cached Information Extension May 2016 injects an incorrect fingerprint then two outcomes are possible: (1) The fingerprint does not relate to any cached state and the server has to fall back to a full exchange. (2) If the attacker manages to inject a fingerprint that refers to data the client has not cached then the exchange will fail later when the client continues with the handshake and aims to verify the digital signature. The signature verification will fail since the public key cached by the client will not correspond to the private key that was used by server to sign the message. 6. Example In the regular, full TLS handshake exchange, shown in Figure 3, the TLS server provides its certificate in the Certificate payload to the client, see step (1). This allows the client to store the certificate for future use. After some time the TLS client again interacts with the same TLS server and makes use of the TLS cached info extension, as shown in Figure 4. The TLS client indicates support for this specification via the "cached_info" extension, see step (2), and indicates that it has stored the certificate from the earlier exchange (by indicating the 'cert' type). With step (3) the TLS server acknowledges the supports of the 'cert' type and by including the value in the server hello informs the client that the content of the certificate payload contains the fingerprint of the certificate instead of the RFC 5246-defined payload of the certificate message in step (4). ClientHello -> <- ServerHello Certificate* // (1) ServerKeyExchange* CertificateRequest* ServerHelloDone Certificate* ClientKeyExchange CertificateVerify* [ChangeCipherSpec] Finished -> <- [ChangeCipherSpec] Finished Application Data <-------> Application Data Figure 3: Example Message Exchange: Initial (full) Exchange. Santesson & Tschofenig Expires November 12, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft TLS Cached Information Extension May 2016 ClientHello cached_info=(cert) -> // (2) <- ServerHello cached_info=(cert) (3) Certificate (4) ServerKeyExchange* ServerHelloDone ClientKeyExchange CertificateVerify* [ChangeCipherSpec] Finished -> <- [ChangeCipherSpec] Finished Application Data <-------> Application Data Figure 4: Example Message Exchange: TLS Cached Extension Usage. 7. Security Considerations This specification defines a mechanism to reference stored state using a fingerprint. Sending a fingerprint of cached information in an unencrypted handshake, as the client and server hello is, may allow an attacker or observer to correlate independent TLS exchanges. While some information elements used in this specification, such as server certificates, are public objects and usually do not contain sensitive information, other not yet defined types may. Those who implement and deploy this specification should therefore make an informed decision whether the cached information is inline with their security and privacy goals. In case of concerns, it is advised to avoid sending the fingerprint of the data objects in clear. The use of the cached info extension allows the server to send significantly smaller TLS messages. Consequently, these omitted parts of the messages are not included in the transcript of the handshake in the TLS Finish message. However, since the client and the server communicate the hash values of the cached data in the initial handshake messages the fingerprints are included in the TLS Finish message. Clients MUST ensure that they only cache information from legitimate sources. For example, when the client populates the cache from a TLS exchange then it must only cache information after the successful completion of a TLS exchange to ensure that an attacker does not inject incorrect information into the cache. Failure to do so allows for man-in-the-middle attacks. Santesson & Tschofenig Expires November 12, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft TLS Cached Information Extension May 2016 Security considerations for the fingerprint calculation are discussed in Section 5. 8. IANA Considerations 8.1. New Entry to the TLS ExtensionType Registry IANA is requested to add an entry to the existing TLS ExtensionType registry, defined in [RFC5246], for cached_info(TBD) defined in this document. 8.2. New Registry for CachedInformationType IANA is requested to establish a registry for TLS CachedInformationType values. The first entries in the registry are o cert(1) o cert_req(2) The policy for adding new values to this registry, following the terminology defined in [RFC5226], is as follows: o 0-63 (decimal): Standards Action o 64-223 (decimal): Specification Required o 224-255 (decimal): reserved for Private Use 9. Acknowledgments We would like to thank the following persons for your detailed document reviews: o Paul Wouters and Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos (December 2011) o Rob Stradling (February 2012) o Ondrej Mikle (March 2012) o Ilari Liusvaara, Adam Langley, and Eric Rescorla (July 2014) o Sean Turner (August 2014) o Martin Thomson (August 2015) o Jouni Korhonen (November 2015) Santesson & Tschofenig Expires November 12, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft TLS Cached Information Extension May 2016 o Matt Miller (December 2015) We would also to thank Martin Thomson, Karthikeyan Bhargavan, Sankalp Bagaria and Eric Rescorla for their feedback regarding the fingerprint calculation. Finally, we would like to thank the TLS working group chairs, Sean Turner and Joe Salowey, as well as the responsible security area director, Stephen Farrell, for their support and their reviews. 10. References 10.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, DOI 10.17487/ RFC5246, August 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>. [RFC6066] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions: Extension Definitions", RFC 6066, DOI 10.17487/RFC6066, January 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6066>. [RFC6234] Eastlake 3rd, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms (SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234, DOI 10.17487/RFC6234, May 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6234>. 10.2. Informative References [ASN.1-Dump] Gutmann, P., "ASN.1 Object Dump Program", February 2013, <http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/>. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>. [RFC6574] Tschofenig, H. and J. Arkko, "Report from the Smart Object Workshop", RFC 6574, DOI 10.17487/RFC6574, April 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6574>. Santesson & Tschofenig Expires November 12, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft TLS Cached Information Extension May 2016 [RFC7250] Wouters, P., Ed., Tschofenig, H., Ed., Gilmore, J., Weiler, S., and T. Kivinen, "Using Raw Public Keys in Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", RFC 7250, DOI 10.17487/RFC7250, June 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7250>. Appendix A. Example Consider a certificate containing an NIST P256 elliptic curve public key displayed using Peter Gutmann's ASN.1 decoder [ASN.1-Dump] in Figure 5. 0 556: SEQUENCE { 4 434: SEQUENCE { 8 3: [0] { 10 1: INTEGER 2 : } 13 1: INTEGER 13 16 10: SEQUENCE { 18 8: OBJECT IDENTIFIER ecdsaWithSHA256 (1 2 840 10045 4 3 2) : } 28 62: SEQUENCE { 30 11: SET { 32 9: SEQUENCE { 34 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER countryName (2 5 4 6) 39 2: PrintableString 'NL' : } : } 43 17: SET { 45 15: SEQUENCE { 47 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER organizationName (2 5 4 10) 52 8: PrintableString 'PolarSSL' : } : } 62 28: SET { 64 26: SEQUENCE { 66 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER commonName (2 5 4 3) 71 19: PrintableString 'Polarssl Test EC CA' : } : } : } 92 30: SEQUENCE { 94 13: UTCTime 24/09/2013 15:52:04 GMT 109 13: UTCTime 22/09/2023 15:52:04 GMT : } 124 65: SEQUENCE { 126 11: SET { Santesson & Tschofenig Expires November 12, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft TLS Cached Information Extension May 2016 128 9: SEQUENCE { 130 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER countryName (2 5 4 6) 135 2: PrintableString 'NL' : } : } 139 17: SET { 141 15: SEQUENCE { 143 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER organizationName (2 5 4 10) 148 8: PrintableString 'PolarSSL' : } : } 158 31: SET { 160 29: SEQUENCE { 162 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER commonName (2 5 4 3) 167 22: PrintableString 'PolarSSL Test Client 2' : } : } : } 191 89: SEQUENCE { 193 19: SEQUENCE { 195 7: OBJECT IDENTIFIER ecPublicKey (1 2 840 10045 2 1) 204 8: OBJECT IDENTIFIER prime256v1 (1 2 840 10045 3 1 7) : } 214 66: BIT STRING : 04 57 E5 AE B1 73 DF D3 AC BB 93 B8 81 FF 12 AE : EE E6 53 AC CE 55 53 F6 34 0E CC 2E E3 63 25 0B : DF 98 E2 F3 5C 60 36 96 C0 D5 18 14 70 E5 7F 9F : D5 4B 45 18 E5 B0 6C D5 5C F8 96 8F 87 70 A3 E4 : C7 : } 282 157: [3] { 285 154: SEQUENCE { 288 9: SEQUENCE { 290 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER basicConstraints (2 5 29 19) 295 2: OCTET STRING, encapsulates { 297 0: SEQUENCE {} : } : } 299 29: SEQUENCE { 301 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER subjectKeyIdentifier (2 5 29 14) 306 22: OCTET STRING, encapsulates { 308 20: OCTET STRING : 7A 00 5F 86 64 FC E0 5D E5 11 10 3B B2 E6 3B C4 : 26 3F CF E2 : } : } 330 110: SEQUENCE { 332 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER authorityKeyIdentifier (2 5 29 35) Santesson & Tschofenig Expires November 12, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft TLS Cached Information Extension May 2016 337 103: OCTET STRING, encapsulates { 339 101: SEQUENCE { 341 20: [0] : 9D 6D 20 24 49 01 3F 2B CB 78 B5 19 BC 7E 24 : C9 DB FB 36 7C 363 66: [1] { 365 64: [4] { 367 62: SEQUENCE { 369 11: SET { 371 9: SEQUENCE { 373 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER countryName (2 5 4 6) 378 2: PrintableString 'NL' : } : } 382 17: SET { 384 15: SEQUENCE { 386 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER organizationName : (2 5 4 10) 391 8: PrintableString 'PolarSSL' : } : } 401 28: SET { 403 26: SEQUENCE { 405 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER commonName (2 5 4 3) 410 19: PrintableString 'Polarssl Test EC CA' : } : } : } : } : } 431 9: [2] 00 C1 43 E2 7E 62 43 CC E8 : } : } : } : } : } : } 442 10: SEQUENCE { 444 8: OBJECT IDENTIFIER ecdsaWithSHA256 (1 2 840 10045 4 3 2) : } 454 104: BIT STRING, encapsulates { 457 101: SEQUENCE { 459 48: INTEGER : 4A 65 0D 7B 20 83 A2 99 B9 A8 0F FC 8D EE 8F 3D : BB 70 4C 96 03 AC 8E 78 70 DD F2 0E A0 B2 16 CB : 65 8E 1A C9 3F 2C 61 7E F8 3C EF AD 1C EE 36 20 509 49: INTEGER : 00 9D F2 27 A6 D5 74 B8 24 AE E1 6A 3F 31 A1 CA Santesson & Tschofenig Expires November 12, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft TLS Cached Information Extension May 2016 : 54 2F 08 D0 8D EE 4F 0C 61 DF 77 78 7D B4 FD FC : 42 49 EE E5 B2 6A C2 CD 26 77 62 8E 28 7C 9E 57 : 45 : } : } : } Figure 5: ASN.1-based Certificate: Example. To include the certificate shown in Figure 5 in a TLS/DTLS Certificate message it is prepended with a message header. This Certificate message header in our example is 0b 00 02 36 00 02 33 00 02 00 02 30, which indicates: Message Type: 0b -- 1 byte type field indicating a Certificate message Length: 00 02 36 -- 3 byte length field indicating a 566 bytes payload Certificates Length: 00 02 33 -- 3 byte length field indicating 563 bytes for the entire certificates_list structure, which may contain multiple certificates. In our example only one certificate is included. Certificate Length: 00 02 30 -- 3 byte length field indicating 560 bytes of the actual certificate following immediately afterwards. In our example, this is the certificate content with 30 82 02 .... 9E 57 45 shown in Figure 6. The hex encoding of the ASN.1 encoded certificate payload shown in Figure 5 leads to the following encoding. Santesson & Tschofenig Expires November 12, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft TLS Cached Information Extension May 2016 30 82 02 2C 30 82 01 B2 A0 03 02 01 02 02 01 0D 30 0A 06 08 2A 86 48 CE 3D 04 03 02 30 3E 31 0B 30 09 06 03 55 04 06 13 02 4E 4C 31 11 30 0F 06 03 55 04 0A 13 08 50 6F 6C 61 72 53 53 4C 31 1C 30 1A 06 03 55 04 03 13 13 50 6F 6C 61 72 73 73 6C 20 54 65 73 74 20 45 43 20 43 41 30 1E 17 0D 31 33 30 39 32 34 31 35 35 32 30 34 5A 17 0D 32 33 30 39 32 32 31 35 35 32 30 34 5A 30 41 31 0B 30 09 06 03 55 04 06 13 02 4E 4C 31 11 30 0F 06 03 55 04 0A 13 08 50 6F 6C 61 72 53 53 4C 31 1F 30 1D 06 03 55 04 03 13 16 50 6F 6C 61 72 53 53 4C 20 54 65 73 74 20 43 6C 69 65 6E 74 20 32 30 59 30 13 06 07 2A 86 48 CE 3D 02 01 06 08 2A 86 48 CE 3D 03 01 07 03 42 00 04 57 E5 AE B1 73 DF D3 AC BB 93 B8 81 FF 12 AE EE E6 53 AC CE 55 53 F6 34 0E CC 2E E3 63 25 0B DF 98 E2 F3 5C 60 36 96 C0 D5 18 14 70 E5 7F 9F D5 4B 45 18 E5 B0 6C D5 5C F8 96 8F 87 70 A3 E4 C7 A3 81 9D 30 81 9A 30 09 06 03 55 1D 13 04 02 30 00 30 1D 06 03 55 1D 0E 04 16 04 14 7A 00 5F 86 64 FC E0 5D E5 11 10 3B B2 E6 3B C4 26 3F CF E2 30 6E 06 03 55 1D 23 04 67 30 65 80 14 9D 6D 20 24 49 01 3F 2B CB 78 B5 19 BC 7E 24 C9 DB FB 36 7C A1 42 A4 40 30 3E 31 0B 30 09 06 03 55 04 06 13 02 4E 4C 31 11 30 0F 06 03 55 04 0A 13 08 50 6F 6C 61 72 53 53 4C 31 1C 30 1A 06 03 55 04 03 13 13 50 6F 6C 61 72 73 73 6C 20 54 65 73 74 20 45 43 20 43 41 82 09 00 C1 43 E2 7E 62 43 CC E8 30 0A 06 08 2A 86 48 CE 3D 04 03 02 03 68 00 30 65 02 30 4A 65 0D 7B 20 83 A2 99 B9 A8 0F FC 8D EE 8F 3D BB 70 4C 96 03 AC 8E 78 70 DD F2 0E A0 B2 16 CB 65 8E 1A C9 3F 2C 61 7E F8 3C EF AD 1C EE 36 20 02 31 00 9D F2 27 A6 D5 74 B8 24 AE E1 6A 3F 31 A1 CA 54 2F 08 D0 8D EE 4F 0C 61 DF 77 78 7D B4 FD FC 42 49 EE E5 B2 6A C2 CD 26 77 62 8E 28 7C 9E 57 45 Figure 6: Hex Encoding of the Example Certificate. Applying the SHA-256 hash function to the Certificate message, which is starts with 0b 00 02 and ends with 9E 57 45, produces 0x086eefb4859adfe977defac494fff6b73033b4ce1f86b8f2a9fc0c6bf98605af. Authors' Addresses Santesson & Tschofenig Expires November 12, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft TLS Cached Information Extension May 2016 Stefan Santesson 3xA Security AB Scheelev. 17 Lund 223 70 Sweden Email: sts@aaa-sec.com Hannes Tschofenig ARM Ltd. Hall in Tirol 6060 Austria Email: Hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net URI: http://www.tschofenig.priv.at Santesson & Tschofenig Expires November 12, 2016 [Page 17]