Token Binding Working Group N. Harper
Internet-Draft Google Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track October 03, 2016
Expires: April 6, 2017
Token Binding for 0-RTT TLS 1.3 Connections
draft-nharper-0-rtt-token-binding-01
Abstract
This document describes how Token Binding can be used in the 0-RTT
data of a TLS 1.3 connection. This involves defining a 0-RTT
exporter for TLS 1.3, updating how Token Binding negotiation works,
and adding a mechanism for indicating whether a server prevents
replay. A TokenBindingMessage sent in 0-RTT data has different
security properties than one sent after the TLS handshake has
finished, which this document also describes.
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 April 6, 2017.
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
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
Harper Expires April 6, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft 0-RTT Token Binding October 2016
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Proposed Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. 0-RTT Exporter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. TokenBinding Signature Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Negotiating Token Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.1. Negotiation TLS Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.2. Replay Protection Indication Extension . . . . . . . 5
3. Implementation Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Alternatives Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Use Both 0-RTT and 1-RTT Exporters on Same Connection . . 6
4.2. Don't Remember Key Parameter From Previous Connection . . 7
4.3. Token Binding and 0-RTT Data Are Mutually Exclusive . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Exporter Replayability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Replay Mitigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2.1. Server Mitigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2.2. Client Mitigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.3. Early Data Ticket Age Window . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.4. Lack of Freshness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
Token Binding ([I-D.ietf-tokbind-protocol]) cryptographically binds
security tokens (e.g. HTTP cookies, OAuth tokens) to the TLS layer
on which they are presented. It does so by signing an [RFC5705]
exporter value from the TLS connection. TLS 1.3 introduces a new
mode that allows a client to send application data on its first
flight. If this 0-RTT data contains a security token, the client
would want to prove possession of its private key. However, the TLS
exporter cannot be run until the handshake has finished. This
document describes changes to Token Binding to allow for a client to
send a proof of possession in its 0-RTT application data, albeit with
weaker security properties.
Harper Expires April 6, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft 0-RTT Token Binding October 2016
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Proposed Design
A TokenBinding struct as defined in [I-D.ietf-tokbind-protocol]
contains a signature of the EKM value from the TLS layer. When a
client is building 0-RTT data to send on a TLS 1.3 connection, there
is no EKM value available. This design changes the definition of the
TokenBinding.signature field to use a different exporter for 0-RTT
data, as well as defines that exporter. Since no negotiation for the
connection can happen before the client sends this
TokenBindingMessage in 0-RTT data, this document also describes how a
client decides what TokenBindingMessage to send in 0-RTT data and how
a server should interpret that message.
If a client does not send any 0-RTT data, or if the server rejects
the client's 0-RTT data, then the client MUST use the existing 1-RTT
exporter, as defined in [I-D.ietf-tokbind-protocol].
2.1. 0-RTT Exporter
In the key schedule for TLS 1.3, step is added between Early Secret
and HKDF-Extract(ECDHE, Early Secret) to derive a value
early_exporter_secret. With this modification, the key schedule
(from [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13] section 7.1) looks like the following:
Harper Expires April 6, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft 0-RTT Token Binding October 2016
0
|
v
PSK -> HKDF-Extract
|
v
Early Secret
|
+---------> Derive-Secret(., "early traffic secret",
| ClientHello)
| = early_traffic_secret
|
+---------> Derive-Secret(., "early exporter secret",
| ClientHello)
| = early_exporter_secret
v
(EC)DHE -> HKDF-Extract
|
...
This definition does not affect the value of anything else derived in
this key schedule.
The 0-RTT exporter is defined similarly to exporter in section 7.3.3,
and has the same interface as the [RFC5705] exporter. It is defined
as:
HKDF-Expand-Label(early_exporter_secret,
label, context_value, key_length)
Where HKDF-Expand-Label is the same function defined in
[I-D.ietf-tls-tls13].
2.2. TokenBinding Signature Definition
In [I-D.ietf-tokbind-protocol], the signature field of the
TokenBinding struct is defined to be the signature of a
concatentation that includes the EKM value. This document changes
that EKM value to be one of two possible values.
The first exporter value is the output of the 0-RTT exporter defined
above, which can be used in any TokenBindingMessage. The second is
the exporter defined in section 7.3.3 of [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13], which
can only be used once the handshake is complete. In both cases, the
exporter is called with the following input values:
Harper Expires April 6, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft 0-RTT Token Binding October 2016
o Label: The ASCII string "EXPORTER-Token-Binding" with no
terminating NUL.
o Context value: NULL (no application context supplied).
o Length: 32 bytes.
These are the same values as defined in section 3 of
[I-D.ietf-tokbind-protocol].
The rules for a client choosing which exporter to use are as follows.
A client which is not sending any 0-RTT data on a connection MUST use
the exporter defined in [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13] for all
TokenBindingMessages on that connection so that it is compatible with
[I-D.ietf-tokbind-protocol]. A client that sends a
TokenBindingMessage in 0-RTT data must use the 0-RTT exporter defined
in this document since the one in [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13] cannot be used
at that time. A client that sends 0-RTT data which is not rejected
by the server MUST use the 0-RTT exporter for the rest of the
connection. If the server rejects the client's 0-RTT data, then the
client MUST use the exporter defined in [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13] for the
remainder of the connection, as if no 0-RTT data had ever been sent.
2.3. Negotiating Token Binding
2.3.1. Negotiation TLS Extension
The behavior of the Token Binding negotiation TLS extension does not
change for a 0-RTT connection: the client and server should process
this extension the same way regardless of whether the client also
sent the EarlyDataIndication extension.
For the sake of choosing a key parameter to use in 0-RTT data, the
client MUST use the same key parameter that was used on the
connection during which the ticket (now being used for resumption)
was established. The server MUST NOT accept early data if the
negotiated Token Binding key parameter does not match the parameter
from the initial connection. This is the same behavior as ALPN and
SNI extensions.
2.3.2. Replay Protection Indication Extension
The signed exporter value used in a 0-RTT connection is not specific
to the connection, so an attacker may be able to replay the signature
without having possession of the private key. To combat this attack,
a server may implement some sort of replay prevention, and indicate
this to the client. A new TLS extension
"token_binding_replay_indication" is defined for the client to query
Harper Expires April 6, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft 0-RTT Token Binding October 2016
and server to indicate whether it has implemented a mechanism to
prevent replay.
enum {
token_binding_replay_indication(TBD), (65535)
} ExtensionType;
When sent, this extension always has zero length. If a client wishes
to know whether its peer is preventing replay of TokenBinding structs
across multiple connections, the client can include this extension in
its ClientHello. Upon receiving this extension, the server must echo
it back if it is using such a mechanism (like those described in
Section 6.2.1) to prevent replay.
This extension is sent by the client every time it sends a
"token_binding" [I-D.ietf-tokbind-negotiation] extension.
3. Implementation Challenges
The client has to be able to modify the message it sends in 0-RTT
data if the 0-RTT data gets rejected and needs to be retransmitted in
1-RTT data. Even if the Token Binding integration with 0-RTT were
modified so that Token Binding never caused a 0-RTT reject that
required rewriting a request, the client still has to handle the
server rejecting the 0-RTT data for other reasons.
HTTP2 allows for requests to different domains to share the same TLS
connection if the SAN of the cert covers those domains. If
one.example.com supports 0-RTT and Token Binding, but two.example.com
only supports Token Binding as defined in
[I-D.ietf-tokbind-protocol], those servers cannot share a cert and
use HTTP2.
4. Alternatives Considered
4.1. Use Both 0-RTT and 1-RTT Exporters on Same Connection
The client could be required to use the 0-RTT EKM when the
TokenBindingMessage is sent in 0-RTT data, and the 1-RTT EKM when it
is sent in 1-RTT data. This creates synchronization issues on both
the client and server to know when the application layer switched
from writing in early data to writing after the handshake finished
(and this switch could be in the middle of an HTTP request).
This constraint could be relaxed slightly. A ratcheting mechanism
could be used where the client uses the 0-RTT EKM while it thinks
that it's writing early data (even if it isn't writing early data),
and once it knows the handshake is finished, it uses the 1-RTT EKM.
Harper Expires April 6, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft 0-RTT Token Binding October 2016
Once the server sees a TokenBindingMessage using the 1-RTT EKM, the
server would no longer accept the 0-RTT EKM. In practice, this is
difficult to implement because multiple HTTP/2 streams can be
multiplexed on the same connection, requiring the ratchet to be
synchronized across the streams.
Relaxing this further where the server will always accept either the
0-RTT or 1-RTT EKM (but the client keeps the behavior as above) is
another possibility. This is more complicated than always using the
0-RTT exporter, and provides no additional security benefits (since
the server would have to accept a client only using the 0-RTT
exporter).
4.2. Don't Remember Key Parameter From Previous Connection
The proposed design uses the same Token Binding key parameter from
the previous connection, and the TLS extension must negotiate the
same key parameter as the previous connection. This mirrors how ALPN
is negotiated in TLS 1.3. Instead of remembering this parameter, the
client could put the in first entry of their key parameters list the
key type being used in 0-RTT, and allow the client and server to
potentially negotiate a new type to use once the handshake is
complete. This alternate gains a slight amount of key type agility
in exchange for implementation difficulty. Other variations of this
are also possible, for example requiring the server to reject early
data if it doesn't choose the first parameter, or requiring the
client to send only one key parameter.
4.3. Token Binding and 0-RTT Data Are Mutually Exclusive
If a TokenBindingMessage is never allowed in 0-RTT data, then no
changes are needed to the exporter or negotiation. A server that
wishes to support Token Binding must not create any NewSessionTicket
messages with the allow_early_data flag set. A client must not send
the token binding negotiation extension and the EarlyDataIndication
extension in the same ClientHello.
5. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new TLS extension
"token_binding_replay_indication", which needs to be added to the
IANA "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions" registry.
6. Security Considerations
Token Binding messages that use the 0-RTT exporter have weaker
security properties than with the [RFC5705] exporter. If either
party of a connection using Token Binding does not wish to use 0-RTT
Harper Expires April 6, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft 0-RTT Token Binding October 2016
token bindings, they can do so: a client can choose to never send
0-RTT data on a connection where it uses token binding, and a server
can choose to reject any 0-RTT data sent on a connection that
negotiated token binding.
0-RTT data in TLS 1.3 has weaker security properties than other kinds
of TLS data. Specifically, TLS 1.3 does not guarantee non-
replayability of data between connections. Token Binding has similar
replayability issues when in 0-RTT data, but preventing replay of
Token Binding and preventing replay of 0-RTT data are two separate
problems. Token Binding is not designed to prevent replay of 0-RTT
data, although solutions for preventing the replay of Token Binding
might also be applicable to 0-RTT data.
6.1. Exporter Replayability
The exporter specified in [I-D.ietf-tokbind-protocol] is chosen so
that a client and server have the same exporter value only if they
are on the same TLS connection. This prevents an attacker who can
read the plaintext of a TokenBindingMessage sent on that connection
from replaying that message on another connection (without also
having the token binding private key). The 0-RTT exporter only
covers the ClientHello and the PSK of the connection, so it does not
provide this guarantee.
An attacker with possession of the PSK secret and a transcript of the
ClientHello and early data sent by a client under that PSK can
extract the TokenBindingMessage, create a new connection to the
server (using the same ClientHello and PSK), and send different
application data with the same TokenBindingMessage. Note that the
ClientHello contains public values for the (EC)DHE key agreement that
is used as part of deriving the traffic keys for the TLS connection,
so if the attacker does not also have the corresponding private
values, they will not be able to read the server's response or send a
valid Finished message in the handshake for this TLS connection.
Nevertheless, by that point the server has already processed the
attacker's message with the replayed TokenBindingMessage.
This sort of replayability of a TokenBindingMessage is different than
the replayability caveat of 0-RTT application data in TLS 1.3. A
network observer can replay 0-RTT data from TLS 1.3 without knowing
any secrets of the client or server, but the application data that is
replayed is untouched. This replay is done by a more powerful
attacker who is able to view the plaintext and then spoof a
connection with the same parameters so that the replayed
TokenBindingMessage still validates when sent with different
application data.
Harper Expires April 6, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft 0-RTT Token Binding October 2016
6.2. Replay Mitigations
This section presents multiple ways that a client or server can
prevent the replay of a TokenBinding while still using Token Binding
with 0-RTT data.
If a client or server implements a measure that prevents all replays,
then its peer does not also need to implement such a mitigation. A
client that is concerned about replay SHOULD implement replay a
mitigation instead of relying on a signal from the server through the
replay indication extension.
6.2.1. Server Mitigations
If a server uses a session cache instead of stateless tickets, it can
enforce that a PSK generated for resumption can only be used once.
If an attacker tries to replay 0-RTT data (with a
TokenBindingMessage), the server will reject it because the PSK was
already used.
Preventing all replay of 0-RTT data is not necessary to prevent
replay of a TokenBinding. A server could implement a mechanism to
prevent a particular TokenBinding from being presented on more than
one connection. In cases where a server's TLS termination and
application layer processing happen in different locations, this
option might be easier to implement, especially when not all requests
have bound tokens. This processing can also take advantage of the
structure of the bound token, e.g. a token that identifies which user
is making a request could shard its store of which TokenBindings have
been seen based on the user ID.
A server can prevent some, but not all, 0-RTT data replay with a
tight time window for the ticket age that it will accept. See
Section 6.3 for more details.
6.2.2. Client Mitigations
A client cannot prevent a sufficiently motivated attacker from
replaying a TokenBinding, but it can make it so difficult to replay
the TokenBinding that it is easier for the attacker to steal the
Token Binding key directly. If the client secures the resumption
secret with the same level of protection as the Token Binding key,
then the client has made it not worth the effort of the attacker to
attempt to replay a TokenBinding. Ideally the resumption secret (and
Token Binding key) are protected strongly andvirtually non-
exportable.
Harper Expires April 6, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft 0-RTT Token Binding October 2016
6.3. Early Data Ticket Age Window
When an attacker with control of the PSK secret replays a
TokenBindingMessage, it has to use the same ClientHello that the
client used. The ClientHello includes an "obfuscated_ticket_age" in
its EarlyDataIndication extension, which the server can use to narrow
the window in which that ClientHello will be accepted. Even if a PSK
is valid for a week, the server will only accept that particular
ClientHello for a smaller time window based on the ticket age. A
server should make their acceptance window for this value as small as
practical to limit an attacker's ability to replay a ClientHello and
send new application data with the stolen TokenBindingMessage.
6.4. Lack of Freshness
The 0-RTT exporter value does not contain anything that the client
cannot precompute before connecting to the server. Therefore, an
attacker could have a client generate but not send a series of
messages to take particular actions, and then selectively send one of
those messages at a later date. If this attack includes deleting the
resumption secret from the client, then these latent attacker-held
messages will be the only ones to use that resumption secret and
replay protections do not prevent this attack.
7. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank David Benjamin, Steven Valdez, Bill
Cox, and Andrei Popov for their feedback and suggestions.
8. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-tls-tls13]
Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", draft-ietf-tls-tls13-16 (work in progress),
September 2016.
[I-D.ietf-tokbind-negotiation]
Popov, A., Nystrom, M., Balfanz, D., and A. Langley,
"Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extension for Token
Binding Protocol Negotiation", draft-ietf-tokbind-
negotiation-05 (work in progress), September 2016.
[I-D.ietf-tokbind-protocol]
Popov, A., Nystrom, M., Balfanz, D., Langley, A., and J.
Hodges, "The Token Binding Protocol Version 1.0", draft-
ietf-tokbind-protocol-10 (work in progress), September
2016.
Harper Expires April 6, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft 0-RTT Token Binding October 2016
[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>.
[RFC5705] Rescorla, E., "Keying Material Exporters for Transport
Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 5705, DOI 10.17487/RFC5705,
March 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5705>.
Author's Address
Nick Harper
Google Inc.
Email: nharper@google.com
Harper Expires April 6, 2017 [Page 11]