wdiff rfc8933.original rfc8933.txt

Network Working Group

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Housley
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 8933 Vigil Security
Updates: 5652 (if approved) August 27, October 2020
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track
Expires: February 28, 2021
ISSN: 2070-1721

Update to the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) for Algorithm
Identifier Protection
draft-ietf-lamps-cms-update-alg-id-protect-05

Abstract

This document updates the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
specified in RFC 5652 to ensure that algorithm identifiers in signed-
data and authenticated-data content types are adequately protected.

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 an 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 list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 February 28, 2021.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8933.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Required use Use of the same hash algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Same Hash Algorithm
3.1. RFC 5652, Section 5.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. RFC 5652, Section 5.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. RFC 5652, Section 5.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4. Backward Compatibility Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.5. Timestamp Compatibility Considerations . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Recommended inclusion Inclusion of the CMSAlgorithmProtection attribute 5 Attribute
4.1. RFC 5652, Section 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1.
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2.
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Acknowledgements
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1. Introduction

This document updates the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
[RFC5652] to ensure that algorithm identifiers in signed-data and
authenticated-data content types are adequately protected.

The CMS signed-data Content Type content type [RFC5652], unlike X.509 certificates
[RFC5280], can be vulnerable to algorithm substitution attacks. In
an algorithm substitution attack, the attacker changes either the
algorithm identifier or the parameters associated with the algorithm
identifier to change the verification process used by the recipient.
The X.509 certificate structure protects the algorithm identifier and
the associated parameters by signing them.

In an algorithm substitution attack, the attacker looks for a
different algorithm that produces the same result as the algorithm
used by the originator. As an example, if the signer of a message
used SHA-256 [SHS] as the digest algorithm to hash the message
content, then the attacker looks for a weaker hash algorithm that
produces a result that is of the same length. The attacker's goal is
to find a different message that results in the same hash value,
which is called a cross-algorithm collision. Today, there are many
hash functions that produce 256-bit results. One of them may be
found to be weak in the future.

Further, when a digest algorithm produces a larger result than is
needed by a digital signature algorithm, the digest value is reduced
to the size needed by the signature algorithm. This can be done both
by truncation and modulo operations, with the simplest being
straightforward truncation. In this situation, the attacker needs to
find a collision with the reduced digest value. As an example, if
the message signer uses SHA-512 [SHS] as the digest algorithm and
ECDSA the
Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) with the P-256
curve [DSS] as the signature algorithm, then the attacker needs to
find a collision with the first half of the digest.

Similar attacks can be mounted against parameterized algorithm
identifiers. When looking at randomized hash functions, functions are employed, such as
the example in [RFC6210], the algorithm identifier parameter includes
a random value that can be manipulated by an attacker looking for
collisions. Some other algorithm identifiers include complex
parameter structures, and each value provides another opportunity for
manipulation by an attacker.

This document makes two updates to CMS to provide protection for the
algorithm identifier. First, it mandates a convention followed by
many implementations by requiring the originator to use the same hash
algorithm to compute the digest of the message content and the digest
of signed attributes. Second, it recommends that the originator
include the CMSAlgorithmProtection attribute [RFC6211].

2. Terminology

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.

3. Required use Use of the same hash algorithm Same Hash Algorithm

This section updates [RFC5652] to require the originator to use the
same hash algorithm to compute the digest of the message content and
the digest of signed attributes.

3.1. RFC 5652, Section 5.3

Change the paragraph describing the digestAlgorithm as follows:

OLD:

NEW:

| digestAlgorithm identifies the message digest algorithm, and any
| associated parameters, used by the signer. The message digest is
| computed on either the content being signed or the content
| together with the signedAttrs using the process described in
| Section 5.4. The message digest algorithm SHOULD be among those
| listed in the digestAlgorithms field of the associated SignerData.
| If the signedAttrs field is present in the SignerInfo, then the
| same digest algorithm MUST be used to compute both the digest of
| the SignedData encapContentInfo eContent, which is carried in the
| message-digest attribute, and the digest of the DER-encoded
| signedAttrs, which is passed to the signature algorithm.
| Implementations MAY fail to validate signatures that use a digest
| algorithm that is not included in the SignedData digestAlgorithms
| set.

3.2. RFC 5652, Section 5.4

Add the following paragraph as the second paragraph in Section 5.4: 5.4.

ADD:

| When the signedAttrs field is present, the same digest algorithm
| MUST be used to compute the digest of the encapContentInfo
| eContent OCTET STRING, which is carried in the message-digest
attribute,
| attribute and the digest of the collection of attributes that are
| signed.

3.3. RFC 5652, Section 5.6

Change the paragraph discussing the signed attributes as follows:

OLD:

| The recipient MUST NOT rely on any message digest values computed
| by the originator. If the SignedData signerInfo includes
| signedAttributes, then the content message digest MUST be
| calculated as described in Section 5.4. For the signature to be
| valid, the message digest value calculated by the recipient MUST
| be the same as the value of the messageDigest attribute included
| in the signedAttributes of the SignedData signerInfo.

NEW:

| The recipient MUST NOT rely on any message digest values computed
| by the originator. If the SignedData signerInfo includes the
| signedAttrs field, then the content message digest MUST be
| calculated as described in Section 5.4, 5.4 using the same digest
| algorithm to compute the digest of the encapContentInfo eContent
| OCTET STRING and the message-digest attribute. For the signature
| to be valid, the message digest value calculated by the recipient
| MUST be the same as the value of the messageDigest attribute
| included in the signedAttrs field of the SignedData signerInfo.

3.4. Backward Compatibility Considerations

The new requirement introduced above might lead to incompatibility
with an implementation that allowed different digest algorithms to be
used to compute the digest of the message content and the digest of
signed attributes. The signatures produced by such an implementation
when two different digest algorithms are used will be considered
invalid by an implementation that follows this specification.
However, most, if not all, implementations already require the
originator to use the same digest algorithm for both operations.

3.5. Timestamp Compatibility Considerations

The new requirement introduced above might lead to compatibility
issues for timestamping systems when the originator does not wish to
share the message content with the Time Stamp Stamping Authority (TSA)
[RFC3161]. In this situation, the originator sends a TimeStampReq to
the TSA that includes a MessageImprint, which consists of a digest
algorithm identifier and a digest value, then the value. The TSA then uses the
originator-provided digest in the MessageImprint.

When producing the TimeStampToken, the TSA MUST use the same digest
algorithm to compute the digest of the encapContentInfo eContent,
which is an OCTET STRING that contains the TSTInfo, and the message-
digest attribute within the SignerInfo.

To ensure that TimeStampToken values that were generated before this
update remain valid, no requirement is placed on a TSA to ensure that
the digest algorithm for the TimeStampToken matches the digest
algorithm for the MessageImprint embedded within the TSTInfo.

4. Recommended inclusion Inclusion of the CMSAlgorithmProtection attribute Attribute

This section updates [RFC5652] to recommend that the originator
include the CMSAlgorithmProtection attribute [RFC6211] whenever
signed attributes or authenticated attributes are present.

4.1. RFC 5652, Section 14

Add the following paragraph as the eighth paragraph in Section 14:

ADD:

| While there are no known algorithm substitution attacks today, the
| inclusion of the algorithm identifiers used by the originator as a
| signed attribute or an authenticated attribute makes such an
| attack significantly more difficult. Therefore, the originator of
| a signed-data content type that includes signed attributes SHOULD
| include the CMSAlgorithmProtection attribute [RFC6211] as one of
| the signed attributes. Likewise, the originator of an
| authenticated-data content type that includes authenticated
| attributes SHOULD include the CMSAlgorithmProtection attribute
| [RFC6211] as one of the authenticated attributes.

5. IANA Considerations

This document makes has no requests of the IANA. IANA actions.

6. Security Considerations

The security properties of the CMS [RFC5652] signed-data and
authenticated-data content types are updated to offer protection for
algorithm identifiers, which makes algorithm substitution attacks
significantly more difficult.

For the signed-data content type, the improvements specified in this
document force an attacker to mount a hash algorithm substitution
attack on the overall signature, not just on the message digest of
the encapContentInfo eContent.

Some digital signature algorithms have prevented hash function
substitutions by including a digest algorithm identifier as an input
to the signature algorithm. As discussed in [HASHID], such a
"firewall" may not be effective or even possible with newer signature
algorithms. For example, RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 [RFC8017] protects the
digest algorithm identifier, but RSASSA-PSS [RFC8017] does not.
Therefore, it remains important that a signer have a way to signal to
a recipient which digest algorithms are allowed to be used in
conjunction with the verification of an overall signature. This
signaling can be done as part of the specification of the signature
algorithm,
algorithm in an X.509v3 certificate extension [RFC5280], [RFC5280] or some other
means. The Digital Signature Standard (DSS) [DSS] takes the first
approach by requiring the use of an "approved" one-way hash
algorithm.

For the authenticated-data content type, the improvements specified
in this document force an attacker to mount a MAC algorithm
substitution attack, which is difficult because the attacker does not
know the authentication key.

The CMSAlgorithmProtection attribute [RFC6211] offers protection for
the algorithm identifiers used in the signed-data and authenticated-
data content types. However, no protection is provided for the
algorithm identifiers in the enveloped-data, digested-data, or
encrypted-data content types. Likewise, The the CMSAlgorithmProtection
attribute provides no protection for the algorithm identifiers used
in the authenticated-enveloped-data content type defined in
[RFC5083]. A mechanism for algorithm identifier protection for these
content types is work for the future.

7. Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Jim Schaad and Peter Gutmann; without knowing it, they
motivated me to write this document. Thanks to Roman Danyliw, Ben
Kaduk, and Peter Yee for their careful review and editorial
suggestions.

8. References

8.1.

7.1. 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC3161] Adams, C., Cain, P., Pinkas, D., and R. Zuccherato,
"Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Time-Stamp
Protocol (TSP)", RFC 3161, DOI 10.17487/RFC3161, August
2001, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3161>.

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

[RFC6211] Schaad, J., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Algorithm
Identifier Protection Attribute", RFC 6211,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6211, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6211>.

[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

8.2.

7.2. Informative References

[DSS] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
"Digital Signature Standard (DSS)", FIPS
Publication 186-4,
DOI 10.6028/NIST.FIPS.186-4, July 2013. 2013,
<https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.FIPS.186-4>.

[HASHID] Kaliski, B., "On Hash Function Firewalls in Signature
Schemes", DOI 10.1007/3-540-45760-7_1, Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, Volume 2271,
DOI 10.1007/3-540-45760-7_1, February 2002. 2002,
<https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45760-7_1>.

[RFC5083] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
Authenticated-Enveloped-Data Content Type", RFC 5083,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5083, November 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5083>.

[RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.

[RFC6210] Schaad, J., "Experiment: Hash Functions with Parameters in
the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) and S/MIME",
RFC 6210, DOI 10.17487/RFC6210, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6210>.

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

[SHS] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
"Secure Hash Standard", Standard (SHS)", FIPS Publication 180-4,
DOI 10.6028/NIST.FIPS.180-4, August
2015. 2015,
<https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.FIPS.180-4>.

Acknowledgements

Author's Address

Russ Housley
Vigil Security, LLC
516 Dranesville Road
Herndon, VA 20170
US
United States of America

Email: housley@vigilsec.com