Using AES-CCM and AES-GCM Authenticated Encryption in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
RFC 5084
| Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (November 2007; Errata) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Russ Housley | ||
| Last updated | 2016-07-02 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 5084 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Tim Polk | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
Network Working Group R. Housley
Request for Comments: 5084 Vigil Security
Category: Standards Track November 2007
Using AES-CCM and AES-GCM Authenticated Encryption
in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
This document specifies the conventions for using the AES-CCM and the
AES-GCM authenticated encryption algorithms with the Cryptographic
Message Syntax (CMS) authenticated-enveloped-data content type.
1. Introduction
This document specifies the conventions for using Advanced Encryption
Standard-Counter with Cipher Block Chaining-Message Authentication
Code (AES-CCM) and AES-Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) authenticated
encryption algorithms as the content-authenticated-encryption
algorithm with the Cryptographic Message Syntax [CMS] authenticated-
enveloped-data content type [AuthEnv].
1.1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [STDWORDS].
1.2. ASN.1
CMS values are generated using ASN.1 [X.208-88], which uses the Basic
Encoding Rules (BER) [X.209-88] and the Distinguished Encoding Rules
(DER) [X.509-88].
1.3. AES
Dr. Joan Daemen and Dr. Vincent Rijmen, both from Belgium, developed
the Rijndael block cipher algorithm, and they submitted it for
consideration as the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES). Rijndael
Housley Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 5084 Using AES-CCM and AES-GCM in the CMS November 2007
was selected by the National Institute for Standards and Technology
(NIST), and it is specified in a U.S. Federal Information Processing
Standard (FIPS) Publication [AES]. NIST selected the Rijndael
algorithm for AES because it offers a combination of security,
performance, efficiency, ease of implementation, and flexibility.
Specifically, the algorithm performs well in both hardware and
software across a wide range of computing environments. Also, the
very low memory requirements of the algorithm make it very well
suited for restricted-space environments. The AES is widely used by
organizations, institutions, and individuals outside of the U.S.
Government.
The AES specifies three key sizes: 128, 192, and 256 bits.
1.4. AES-CCM
The Counter with CBC-MAC (CCM) mode of operation is specified in
[CCM]. CCM is a generic authenticated encryption block cipher mode.
CCM is defined for use with any 128-bit block cipher, but in this
document, CCM is used with the AES block cipher.
AES-CCM has four inputs: an AES key, a nonce, a plaintext, and
optional additional authenticated data (AAD). AES-CCM generates two
outputs: a ciphertext and a message authentication code (also called
an authentication tag).
The nonce is generated by the party performing the authenticated
encryption operation. Within the scope of any authenticated-
encryption key, the nonce value MUST be unique. That is, the set of
nonce values used with any given key MUST NOT contain any duplicate
values. Using the same nonce for two different messages encrypted
with the same key destroys the security properties.
AAD is authenticated but not encrypted. Thus, the AAD is not
included in the AES-CCM output. It can be used to authenticate
plaintext packet headers. In the CMS authenticated-enveloped-data
content type, authenticated attributes comprise the AAD.
1.5. AES-GCM
The Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) is specified in [GCM]. GCM is a
generic authenticated encryption block cipher mode. GCM is defined
for use with any 128-bit block cipher, but in this document, GCM is
used with the AES block cipher.
AES-GCM has four inputs: an AES key, an initialization vector (IV), a
plaintext content, and optional additional authenticated data (AAD).
AES-GCM generates two outputs: a ciphertext and message
Housley Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 5084 Using AES-CCM and AES-GCM in the CMS November 2007
authentication code (also called an authentication tag). To have a
common set of terms for AES-CCM and AES-GCM, the AES-GCM IV is
referred to as a nonce in the remainder of this document.
The nonce is generated by the party performing the authenticated
encryption operation. Within the scope of any authenticated-
encryption key, the nonce value MUST be unique. That is, the set of
nonce values used with any given key MUST NOT contain any duplicate
values. Using the same nonce for two different messages encrypted
with the same key destroys the security properties.
AAD is authenticated but not encrypted. Thus, the AAD is not
included in the AES-GCM output. It can be used to authenticate
plaintext packet headers. In the CMS authenticated-enveloped-data
content type, authenticated attributes comprise the AAD.
2. Automated Key Management
The reuse of an AES-CCM or AES-GCM nonce/key combination destroys the
security guarantees. As a result, it can be extremely difficult to
use AES-CCM or AES-GCM securely when using statically configured
keys. For safety's sake, implementations MUST use an automated key
management system [KEYMGMT].
The CMS authenticated-enveloped-data content type supports four
general key management techniques:
Key Transport: the content-authenticated-encryption key is
encrypted in the recipient's public key;
Key Agreement: the recipient's public key and the sender's
private key are used to generate a pairwise symmetric key, then
the content-authenticated-encryption key is encrypted in the
pairwise symmetric key;
Symmetric Key-Encryption Keys: the content-authenticated-
encryption key is encrypted in a previously distributed
symmetric key-encryption key; and
Passwords: the content-authenticated-encryption key is encrypted
in a key-encryption key that is derived from a password or
other shared secret value.
All of these key management techniques meet the automated key
management system requirement as long as a fresh content-
authenticated-encryption key is generated for the protection of each
content. Note that some of these key management techniques use one
key-encryption key to encrypt more than one content-authenticated-
Housley Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 5084 Using AES-CCM and AES-GCM in the CMS November 2007
encryption key during the system life cycle. As long as fresh
content-authenticated-encryption key is used each time, AES-CCM and
AES-GCM can be used safely with the CMS authenticated-enveloped-data
content type.
In addition to these four general key management techniques, CMS
supports other key management techniques. See Section 6.2.5 of
[CMS]. Since the properties of these key management techniques are
unknown, no statement can be made about whether these key management
techniques meet the automated key management system requirement.
Designers and implementers must perform their own analysis if one of
these other key management techniques is supported.
3. Content-Authenticated Encryption Algorithms
This section specifies the conventions employed by CMS
implementations that support content-authenticated encryption using
AES-CCM or AES-GCM.
Content-authenticated encryption algorithm identifiers are located in
the AuthEnvelopedData EncryptedContentInfo contentEncryptionAlgorithm
field.
Content-authenticated encryption algorithms are used to encipher the
content located in the AuthEnvelopedData EncryptedContentInfo
encryptedContent field and to provide the message authentication code
for the AuthEnvelopedData mac field. Note that the message
authentication code provides integrity protection for both the
AuthEnvelopedData authAttrs and the AuthEnvelopedData
EncryptedContentInfo encryptedContent.
3.1. AES-CCM
The AES-CCM authenticated encryption algorithm is described in [CCM].
A brief summary of the properties of AES-CCM is provided in Section
1.4.
Neither the plaintext content nor the optional AAD inputs need to be
padded prior to invoking AES-CCM.
Housley Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 5084 Using AES-CCM and AES-GCM in the CMS November 2007
There are three algorithm identifiers for AES-CCM, one for each AES
key size:
aes OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { joint-iso-itu-t(2) country(16) us(840)
organization(1) gov(101) csor(3) nistAlgorithm(4) 1 }
id-aes128-CCM OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { aes 7 }
id-aes192-CCM OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { aes 27 }
id-aes256-CCM OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { aes 47 }
With all three AES-CCM algorithm identifiers, the AlgorithmIdentifier
parameters field MUST be present, and the parameters field must
contain a CCMParameter:
CCMParameters ::= SEQUENCE {
aes-nonce OCTET STRING (SIZE(7..13)),
aes-ICVlen AES-CCM-ICVlen DEFAULT 12 }
AES-CCM-ICVlen ::= INTEGER (4 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 16)
The aes-nonce parameter field contains 15-L octets, where L is the
size of the length field. With the CMS, the normal situation is for
the content-authenticated-encryption key to be used for a single
content; therefore, L=8 is RECOMMENDED. See [CCM] for a discussion
of the trade-off between the maximum content size and the size of the
nonce. Within the scope of any content-authenticated-encryption key,
the nonce value MUST be unique. That is, the set of nonce values
used with any given key MUST NOT contain any duplicate values.
The aes-ICVlen parameter field tells the size of the message
authentication code. It MUST match the size in octets of the value
in the AuthEnvelopedData mac field. A length of 12 octets is
RECOMMENDED.
3.2. AES-GCM
The AES-GCM authenticated encryption algorithm is described in [GCM].
A brief summary of the properties of AES-CCM is provided in Section
1.5.
Neither the plaintext content nor the optional AAD inputs need to be
padded prior to invoking AES-GCM.
Housley Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 5084 Using AES-CCM and AES-GCM in the CMS November 2007
There are three algorithm identifiers for AES-GCM, one for each AES
key size:
aes OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { joint-iso-itu-t(2) country(16) us(840)
organization(1) gov(101) csor(3) nistAlgorithm(4) 1 }
id-aes128-GCM OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { aes 6 }
id-aes192-GCM OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { aes 26 }
id-aes256-GCM OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { aes 46 }
With all three AES-GCM algorithm identifiers, the AlgorithmIdentifier
parameters field MUST be present, and the parameters field must
contain a GCMParameter:
GCMParameters ::= SEQUENCE {
aes-nonce OCTET STRING, -- recommended size is 12 octets
aes-ICVlen AES-GCM-ICVlen DEFAULT 12 }
AES-GCM-ICVlen ::= INTEGER (12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16)
The aes-nonce is the AES-GCM initialization vector. The algorithm
specification permits the nonce to have any number of bits between 1
and 2^64. However, the use of OCTET STRING within GCMParameters
requires the nonce to be a multiple of 8 bits. Within the scope of
any content-authenticated-encryption key, the nonce value MUST be
unique, but need not have equal lengths. A nonce value of 12 octets
can be processed more efficiently, so that length is RECOMMENDED.
The aes-ICVlen parameter field tells the size of the message
authentication code. It MUST match the size in octets of the value
in the AuthEnvelopedData mac field. A length of 12 octets is
RECOMMENDED.
4. Security Considerations
AES-CCM and AES-GCM make use of the AES block cipher in counter mode
to provide encryption. When used properly, counter mode provides
strong confidentiality. Bellare, Desai, Jokipii, and Rogaway show in
[BDJR] that the privacy guarantees provided by counter mode are at
least as strong as those for Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) mode when
using the same block cipher.
Unfortunately, it is easy to misuse counter mode. If counter block
values are ever used for more than one encryption operation with the
same key, then the same key stream will be used to encrypt both
plaintexts, and the confidentiality guarantees are voided.
Housley Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 5084 Using AES-CCM and AES-GCM in the CMS November 2007
Fortunately, the CMS AuthEnvelopedData provides all the tools needed
to avoid misuse of counter mode. Automated key management is
discussed in Section 2.
There are fairly generic precomputation attacks against the use of
any block cipher in counter mode that allow a meet-in-the-middle
attack against the key [H][B][MF]. AES-CCM and AES-GCM both make use
of counter mode for encryption. These precomputation attacks require
the creation and searching of huge tables of ciphertext associated
with known plaintext and known keys. Assuming that the memory and
processor resources are available for a precomputation attack, then
the theoretical strength of any block cipher in counter mode is
limited to 2^(n/2) bits, where n is the number of bits in the key.
The use of long keys is the best countermeasure to precomputation
attacks. Use of an unpredictable nonce value in the counter block
significantly increases the size of the table that the attacker must
compute to mount a successful precomputation attack.
Implementations must randomly generate content-authenticated-
encryption keys. The use of inadequate pseudo-random number
generators (PRNGs) to generate cryptographic keys can result in
little or no security. An attacker may find it much easier to
reproduce the PRNG environment that produced the keys, and then
searching the resulting small set of possibilities, rather than brute
force searching the whole key space. The generation of quality
random numbers is difficult. RFC 4086 [RANDOM] offers important
guidance in this area.
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[AES] NIST, FIPS PUB 197, "Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)",
November 2001.
[CCM] Whiting, D., Housley, R., and N. Ferguson, "Counter with
CBC-MAC (CCM)", RFC 3610, September 2003.
[CMS] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC
3852, July 2004.
[GCM] Dworkin, M., "NIST Special Publication 800-38D:
Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of Operation:
Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) and GMAC." , U.S. National
Institute of Standards and Technology
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-38D/SP-
800-38D.pdf
Housley Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 5084 Using AES-CCM and AES-GCM in the CMS November 2007
[STDWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[X.208-88] CCITT. Recommendation X.208: Specification of Abstract
Syntax Notation One (ASN.1). 1988.
[X.209-88] CCITT. Recommendation X.209: Specification of Basic
Encoding Rules for Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1).
1988.
[X.509-88] CCITT. Recommendation X.509: The Directory-
Authentication Framework. 1988.
5.2. Informative References
[AuthEnv] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
Authenticated-Enveloped-Data Content Type", RFC 5083,
November 2007.
[B] Biham, E., "How to Forge DES-Encrypted Messages in 2^28
Steps", Technion Computer Science Department Technical
Report CS0884, 1996.
[BDJR] Bellare, M, Desai, A., Jokipii, E., and P. Rogaway, "A
Concrete Security Treatment of Symmetric Encryption:
Analysis of the DES Modes of Operation", Proceedings 38th
Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science,
1997.
[H] Hellman, M. E., "A cryptanalytic time-memory trade-off",
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, July 1980, pp.
401-406.
[KEYMGMT] Bellovin, S. and R. Housley, "Guidelines for
Cryptographic Key Management", BCP 107, RFC 4107, June
2005.
[MF] McGrew, D., and S. Fluhrer, "Attacks on Additive
Encryption of Redundant Plaintext and Implications on
Internet Security", The Proceedings of the Seventh Annual
Workshop on Selected Areas in Cryptography (SAC 2000),
Springer-Verlag, August, 2000.
[RANDOM] Eastlake, D., 3rd, Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
"Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC
4086, June 2005.
Housley Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 5084 Using AES-CCM and AES-GCM in the CMS November 2007
Appendix: ASN.1 Module
CMS-AES-CCM-and-AES-GCM
{ iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1)
pkcs-9(9) smime(16) modules(0) cms-aes-ccm-and-gcm(32) }
DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::= BEGIN
-- EXPORTS All
-- Object Identifiers
aes OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { joint-iso-itu-t(2) country(16) us(840)
organization(1) gov(101) csor(3) nistAlgorithm(4) 1 }
id-aes128-CCM OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { aes 7 }
id-aes192-CCM OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { aes 27 }
id-aes256-CCM OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { aes 47 }
id-aes128-GCM OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { aes 6 }
id-aes192-GCM OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { aes 26 }
id-aes256-GCM OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { aes 46 }
-- Parameters for AigorithmIdentifier
CCMParameters ::= SEQUENCE {
aes-nonce OCTET STRING (SIZE(7..13)),
aes-ICVlen AES-CCM-ICVlen DEFAULT 12 }
AES-CCM-ICVlen ::= INTEGER (4 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 16)
GCMParameters ::= SEQUENCE {
aes-nonce OCTET STRING, -- recommended size is 12 octets
aes-ICVlen AES-GCM-ICVlen DEFAULT 12 }
AES-GCM-ICVlen ::= INTEGER (12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16)
END
Housley Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 5084 Using AES-CCM and AES-GCM in the CMS November 2007
Author's Address
Russell Housley
Vigil Security, LLC
918 Spring Knoll Drive
Herndon, VA 20170
USA
EMail: housley@vigilsec.com
Housley Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 5084 Using AES-CCM and AES-GCM in the CMS November 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Housley Standards Track [Page 11]