TLSInternet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. SantessonInternet-DraftRequest for Comments: 7924 3xA Security ABIntended status:Category: Standards Track H. TschofenigExpires: November 12, 2016ISSN: 2070-1721 ARM Ltd.May 11,June 2016 Transport Layer Security (TLS) Cached Information Extensiondraft-ietf-tls-cached-info-23.txtAbstract 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,allowingthereby enabling the server to omit already available information. Status of This Memo ThisInternet-Draftissubmitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documentsan Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The listIt represents the consensus ofcurrent Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents validthe IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved fora maximumpublication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 ofsix monthsRFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may beupdated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documentsobtained atany 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.http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7924. 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 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 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.AcknowledgmentsReferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1010.9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . .11 10.1. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . 11 Appendix A. Example . . . . . . . .11 10.2. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Acknowledgments . . .11 Appendix A. Example. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1216 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 lowbandwidth,bandwidth and lossy radio technology. With the Internet ofThingsThings, such environments exist, for example, when devices use IEEE802.15.4 or802.15.4, BluetoothSmart.Low Energy, or low power wide area networks. For more information about the challenges with smart objectdeploymentsdeployments, 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 serverexecutesexecute 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 thecached_info"cached_info" extension defined in this document to theclient helloClientHello message to indicate that ithadhas cached the certificate, and it provides the fingerprint of it. If the server's certificate has notchangedchanged, 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 TLSprotocolprotocol, but the description is equally applicable toDTLSDatagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) as well. 3. Cached Information Extension This document defines a new extension type(cached_info(TBD)),(cached_info(25)), which is used inclient helloClientHello andserver helloServerHello messages. The extension type is specified as follows. enum {cached_info(TBD),cached_info(25), (65535) } ExtensionType; The extension_data field of this extension, when included in theclient hello,ClientHello, 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. 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'Typetype for not sending the completeServer Certificate Message: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 thistypetype, 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 thistypetype, 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 IANAconsiderations section, see Section 8.Considerations (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 practicalreasonsreasons, we recommendto re-usereusing hash algorithms already available with TLS ciphersuites to avoid additional code and to keep the collisionprobably lowprobability low; new hash algorithms MUST NOT have a collision resistance worse than SHA-256. 4. Exchange Specification Clients supporting this extension MAY include the "cached_info" extension in the (extended)client hello.ClientHello. If the client includes theextensionextension, 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.ServerHello. By returning the "cached_info"extensionextension, the server indicatesthat it supports thewhat cached infotypes.types it supports. For each indicated cached infotypetype, the serverMUSTMAY alter the transmission of respective payloads, according to the rules outlined with each type.IfWhether the server actually alters the transmission of the payload depends on an outcome of the comparison between the fingerprint provided by the client and the information the server would normally send. In any case, if the server includes theextension"cached_info" extension, it MUST only include CachedObjects of a type also supported by the client (as expressed in theclient hello).ClientHello). For example, if a client indicates support for 'cert' and'cert_req''cert_req', then the server cannot respond with a "cached_info" attribute containing support for('foo- bar').('foo-bar'). Since the client includes a fingerprint of information it cached (for each indicatedtype)type), the server is able to determine whether cached information is stale. If the server supportsthis specificationa specific cached info type and notices a mismatch between the data cached by the client and its own information for this cached info type, then the server MUST include the information in fulland MUST NOT list the respective type in the "cached_info" extension.of this cached info type. Note: If a server is part of a hostingenvironmentenvironment, then the client may have cached multiple data items for a single server. To allow the client to select the appropriate information from thecachecache, it is RECOMMENDED that the client utilizes the Server Name Indication (SNI) extension [RFC6066]. Following a successful exchange of the "cached_info" extension in theclientClientHello andserver hello,ServerHello, the server alters sending the corresponding handshake message. How information is altered from the handshake messagesis defined in Section 4.1,andin Section 4.2for the types defined in thisspecification.specification is defined in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, respectively. A client needs to distinguish a message that contains a fingerprint from one that contains the full, unaltered payload. This can be accomplished by utilizing the length field of the message. Shorter payloads contain hashes whereas longer payloads contain the unaltered payloads. For example, a server may send a fingerprint in a Certificate message (as explained in Section 4.1) rather than the full certificate payload. Appendix A shows an example hashcalculationcalculation, and Section 6showsillustrates an example protocol exchange. 4.1. Server Certificate Message When a ClientHello message contains the "cached_info" extension with a type set to'cert''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. o The 'cert'cached info"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 originalCertificatecertificate 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 publickeykey, then the TLS server omits sending aCertificatecertificate payload that contains an ASN.1Certificatecertificate 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 theclientclient, then the server has additional information to guide the selection of the appropriate cached info. When the cached info specification isusedused, 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 CertificateMessage.Message 4.2. CertificateRequest Message When a fingerprint for an object of type 'cert_req' is provided in theclient hello,ClientHello, the server MAY send the CertificateRequest message shown in Figure 2messageunder the following conditions: o The server software implements the "cached_info" extension defined in this specification. o The 'cert_req'cached info"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 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 CertificateRequestMessage.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 inSectionSections 4.1 and inSection4.2. 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 ofthe certificate messagea Certificate message, the fingerprint identifies the server certificate (and the corresponding private key) for useforwith the rest of the handshake. Servers may have more than onecertificatecertificate, 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 injects an incorrectfingerprintfingerprint, then two outcomes are possible: (1)Thethe fingerprint does not relate to any cached state and the server has to fall back to a fullexchange.exchange, and (2)Ifif the attacker manages to inject a fingerprint that refers to data the client has notcachedcached, 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 the 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 theCertificatecertificate payload to theclient,client; see step (1). This allows the client to store the certificate for future use. After sometimetime, the TLS client again interacts with the same TLS server and makes use of the TLScached info"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)(3), the TLS server acknowledges thesupportssupport of the 'cert' type andby includingincludes the value in theserver hello informs"cached_info" extension of theclient thatServerHello. When constructing thecontent ofCertificate message, thecertificate payload containsserver includes the fingerprint of the certificate instead of theRFC 5246-definedfull payloadofbecause it determined (in this example) that the client has the most current certificatemessagecached already. This is shown 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.(Full) Exchange 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 ExtensionUsage.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 theclientClientHello andserver hello is,ServerHello does, 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 types that are not yet definedtypesmay. Those who implement and deploy this specification should therefore make an informed decision whether the cached information isinlinein line 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 thecached info"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 handshakemessagesmessages, 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 TLSexchangeexchange, 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. Security considerations for the fingerprint calculation are discussed in Section 5. 8. IANA Considerations 8.1. New Entry to the TLS ExtensionType Registry IANAis requested to addhas added an entry to the existing TLSExtensionType"ExtensionType Values" registry, defined in [RFC5246], forcached_info(TBD)cached_info(25) defined in this document. 8.2. New Registry for CachedInformationType IANAis requested to establishhas established a registryfor TLStitled "TLS CachedInformationTypevalues.Values". Thefirstentries in the registryare o cert(1) o cert_req(2)are: Value Description ----- ----------- 0 Reserved 1 cert 2 cert_req 224-255 Reserved for Private Use 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 Requiredo 224-255 (decimal): reserved for Private Use9.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) 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.References10.1.9.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI10.17487/ RFC2119,10.17487/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, DOI10.17487/ RFC5246,10.17487/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>.10.2.9.2. Informative References [ASN.1-Dump] Gutmann, P., "ASN.1 Object Dump Program",February 2013, <http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/>.November 2010, <http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/precise/man1/ dumpasn1.1.html>. [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>. [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 containingana 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 { 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) 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 : 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-basedASN.1-Based Certificate:Example.Example To include the certificate shown in Figure 5 in a TLS/DTLS Certificatemessagemessage, 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 byte1-byte type field indicating a Certificate message Length: 00 02 36 --3 byte3-byte length field indicating a566 bytes566-byte payload Certificates Length: 00 02 33 --3 byte3-byte length field indicating 563 bytes for the entire certificates_list structure, which may contain multiple certificates. In ourexampleexample, only one certificate is included. Certificate Length: 00 02 30 --3 byte3-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 theASN.1 encodedASN.1-encoded certificate payload shown in Figure 5 leads to the following encoding. 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 ExampleCertificate.Certificate Applying the SHA-256 hash function to the Certificate message, whichisstarts with 0b 00 02 and ends with 9E 57 45, produces 0x086eefb4859adfe977defac494fff6b73033b4ce1f86b8f2a9fc0c6bf98605af. 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) o Dave Garrett (December 2015) o Matt Miller (December 2015) o Anirudh Ramachandran (March 2016) 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. Authors' Addresses Stefan Santesson 3xA Security ABScheelev. 17Forskningsbyn Ideon 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