|COSE Working Group||M. Jones|
|Intended status: Standards Track||April 4, 2016|
|Expires: October 6, 2016|
Using RSA Algorithms with COSE Messages
The CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) specification defines cryptographic message encodings using Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR). This specification defines algorithm encodings and representations enabling RSA algorithms to be used for COSE messages.
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 October 6, 2016.
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.
The CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) [I-D.ietf-cose-msg] specification defines cryptographic message encodings using Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC7049]. This specification defines algorithm encodings and representations enabling RSA algorithms to be used for COSE messages.
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
The RSASSA-PSS signature algorithm is defined in [RFC3447].
The RSASSA-PSS signature algorithm is parameterized with a hash function (h), a mask generation function (mgf) and a salt length (sLen). For this specification, the mask generation function is fixed to be MGF1 as defined in [RFC3447]. It has been recommended that the same hash function be used for hashing the data as well as in the mask generation function, for this specification we following this recommendation. The salt length is the same length as the hash function output.
Implementations need to check that the key type is 'RSA' when creating or verifying a signature.
The algorithms defined in this document can be found in Table 1.
|PS256||-26||SHA-256||32||RSASSA-PSS w/ SHA-256|
|PS384||-27||SHA-384||48||RSASSA-PSS w/ SHA-384|
|PS512||-28||SHA-512||64||RSASSA-PSS w/ SHA-512|
In addition to needing to worry about keys that are too small to provide the required security, there are issues with keys that are too large. Denial of service attacks have been mounted with overly large keys. This has the potential to consume resources with potentially bad keys. There are two reasonable ways to address this attack. First, a key should not be used for a cryptographic operation until it has been matched back to an authorized user. This approach means that no cryptography would be done except for authorized users. Second, applications can impose maximum as well as minimum length requirements on keys. This limits the resources consumed even if the matching is not performed until the cryptography has been done.
There is a theoretical hash substitution attack that can be mounted against RSASSA-PSS. However, the requirement that the same hash function be used consistently for all operations is an effective mitigation against it. Unlike ECDSA, hash functions are not truncated so that the full hash value is always signed. The internal padding structure of RSASSA-PSS means that one needs to have multiple collisions between the two hash functions in order to be successful in producing a forgery based on changing the hash function. This is highly unlikely.
Key Encryption mode is also called key transport mode in some standards. Key Encryption mode differs from Key Wrap mode in that it uses an asymmetric encryption algorithm rather than a symmetric encryption algorithm to protect the key. This document defines one Key Encryption mode algorithm.
When using a key encryption algorithm, the COSE_encrypt structure for the recipient is organized as follows:
RSAES-OAEP is an asymmetric key encryption algorithm. The definition of RSAEA-OAEP can be find in Section 7.1 of [RFC3447]. The algorithm is parameterized using a masking generation function (mgf), a hash function (h) and encoding parameters (P). For the algorithm identifiers defined in this section: Table 2 summarizes the rest of the values.
|RSAES-OAEP w/SHA-256||-25||SHA-256||RSAES OAEP w/ SHA-256|
|RSAES-OAEP w/SHA-512||-26||SHA-512||RSAES OAEP w/ SHA-512|
The key type MUST be 'RSA'.
A key size of 2048 bits or larger MUST be used with these algorithms. This key size corresponds roughly to the same strength as provided by a 128-bit symmetric encryption algorithm.
It is highly recommended that checks on the key length be done before starting a decryption operation. One potential denial of service operation is to provide encrypted objects using either abnormally long or oddly sized RSA modulus values. Implementations SHOULD be able to encrypt and decrypt with modulus between 2048 and 16K bits in length. Applications can impose additional restrictions on the length of the modulus.
Key types are identified by the 'kty' member of the COSE_Key object. In this document we define one value for the member.
This document defines a key structure for both the public and private halves of RSA keys. Together, an RSA public key and an RSA private key form an RSA key pair. [CREF1]JLS: Looking at the CBOR specification, the bstr that we are looking in our table below should most likely be specified as big numbers rather than as binary strings. This means that we would use the tag 6.2 instead. From my reading of the specification, there is no difference in the encoded size of the resulting output. The specification of bignum does explicitly allow for integers encoded with leading zeros.
The document also provides support for the so-called "multi-prime" RSA where the modulus may have more than two prime factors. The benefit of multi-prime RSA is lower computational cost for the decryption and signature primitives. For a discussion on how multi-prime affects the security of RSA crypto-systems, the reader is referred to [MultiPrimeRSA].
This document follows the naming convention of [RFC3447] for the naming of the fields of an RSA public or private key. The table Table 4 provides a summary of the label values and the types associated with each of those labels. The requirements for fields for RSA keys are as follows:
|d||3||-3||bstr||Private Exponent Parameter|
|p||3||-4||bstr||First Prime Factor|
|q||3||-5||bstr||Second Prime Factor|
|dP||3||-6||bstr||First Factor CRT Exponent|
|dQ||3||-7||bstr||Second Factor CRT Exponent|
|qInv||3||-8||bstr||First CRT Coefficient|
|other||3||-9||array||Other Primes Info|
|r_i||3||-10||bstr||i-th factor, Prime Factor|
|d_i||3||-11||bstr||i-th factor, Factor CRT Exponent|
|t_i||3||-12||bstr||i-th factor, Factor CRT Coefficient|
This section registers values in the IANA "COSE Algorithm Registry" registry.
The values in Table 1 are to be added to the registry.
This section registers values in the IANA "COSE Key Type Parameters" registry.
The values in Table 4 are to be added to the registry.
See the per-algorithm security considerations described in Section 2.1.1 and Section 188.8.131.52.
|[I-D.ietf-cose-msg]||Schaad, J., "CBOR Encoded Message Syntax", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-cose-msg-11, March 2016.|
|[RFC2119]||Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997.|
|[RFC3447]||Jonsson, J. and B. Kaliski, "Public-Key Cryptography Standards (PKCS) #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications Version 2.1", RFC 3447, DOI 10.17487/RFC3447, February 2003.|
|[RFC7049]||Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049, October 2013.|
|[MultiPrimeRSA]||Hinek, M. and D. Cheriton, "On the Security of Multi-prime RSA", June 2006.|
The initial version of this specification incorporates text from draft-ietf-cose-msg-05 by Jim Schaad.
[[ to be removed by the RFC Editor before publication as an RFC ]]