home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Network Working Group C. Madson
- Request for Comments: 2404 Cisco Systems Inc.
- Category: Standards Track R. Glenn
- NIST
- November 1998
-
-
- The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP and AH
-
- 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.
-
- Copyright Notice
-
- Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.
-
- Abstract
-
- This memo describes the use of the HMAC algorithm [RFC-2104] in
- conjunction with the SHA-1 algorithm [FIPS-180-1] as an
- authentication mechanism within the revised IPSEC Encapsulating
- Security Payload [ESP] and the revised IPSEC Authentication Header
- [AH]. HMAC with SHA-1 provides data origin authentication and
- integrity protection.
-
- Further information on the other components necessary for ESP and AH
- implementations is provided by [Thayer97a].
-
- 1. Introduction
-
- This memo specifies the use of SHA-1 [FIPS-180-1] combined with HMAC
- [RFC-2104] as a keyed authentication mechanism within the context of
- the Encapsulating Security Payload and the Authentication Header.
- The goal of HMAC-SHA-1-96 is to ensure that the packet is authentic
- and cannot be modified in transit.
-
- HMAC is a secret key authentication algorithm. Data integrity and
- data origin authentication as provided by HMAC are dependent upon the
- scope of the distribution of the secret key. If only the source and
- destination know the HMAC key, this provides both data origin
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Madson & Glenn Standards Track [Page 1]
-
- RFC 2404 The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP and AH November 1998
-
-
- authentication and data integrity for packets sent between the two
- parties; if the HMAC is correct, this proves that it must have been
- added by the source.
-
- In this memo, HMAC-SHA-1-96 is used within the context of ESP and AH.
- For further information on how the various pieces of ESP - including
- the confidentiality mechanism -- fit together to provide security
- services, refer to [ESP] and [Thayer97a]. For further information on
- AH, refer to [AH] and [Thayer97a].
-
- 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].
-
- 2. Algorithm and Mode
-
- [FIPS-180-1] describes the underlying SHA-1 algorithm, while [RFC-
- 2104] describes the HMAC algorithm. The HMAC algorithm provides a
- framework for inserting various hashing algorithms such as SHA-1.
-
- HMAC-SHA-1-96 operates on 64-byte blocks of data. Padding
- requirements are specified in [FIPS-180-1] and are part of the SHA-1
- algorithm. If you build SHA-1 according to [FIPS-180-1] you do not
- need to add any additional padding as far as HMAC-SHA-1-96 is
- concerned. With regard to "implicit packet padding" as defined in
- [AH] no implicit packet padding is required.
-
- HMAC-SHA-1-96 produces a 160-bit authenticator value. This 160-bit
- value can be truncated as described in RFC2104. For use with either
- ESP or AH, a truncated value using the first 96 bits MUST be
- supported. Upon sending, the truncated value is stored within the
- authenticator field. Upon receipt, the entire 160-bit value is
- computed and the first 96 bits are compared to the value stored in
- the authenticator field. No other authenticator value lengths are
- supported by HMAC-SHA-1-96.
-
- The length of 96 bits was selected because it is the default
- authenticator length as specified in [AH] and meets the security
- requirements described in [RFC-2104].
-
- 2.1 Performance
-
- [Bellare96a] states that "(HMAC) performance is essentially that of
- the underlying hash function". As of this writing no detailed
- performance analysis has been done of SHA-1, HMAC or HMAC combined
- with SHA-1.
-
-
-
-
-
- Madson & Glenn Standards Track [Page 2]
-
- RFC 2404 The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP and AH November 1998
-
-
- [RFC-2104] outlines an implementation modification which can improve
- per-packet performance without affecting interoperability.
-
- 3. Keying Material
-
- HMAC-SHA-1-96 is a secret key algorithm. While no fixed key length is
- specified in [RFC-2104], for use with either ESP or AH a fixed key
- length of 160-bits MUST be supported. Key lengths other than 160-
- bits MUST NOT be supported (i.e. only 160-bit keys are to be used by
- HMAC-SHA-1-96). A key length of 160-bits was chosen based on the
- recommendations in [RFC-2104] (i.e. key lengths less than the
- authenticator length decrease security strength and keys longer than
- the authenticator length do not significantly increase security
- strength).
-
- [RFC-2104] discusses requirements for key material, which includes a
- discussion on requirements for strong randomness. A strong pseudo-
- random function MUST be used to generate the required 160-bit key.
-
- At the time of this writing there are no specified weak keys for use
- with HMAC. This does not mean to imply that weak keys do not exist.
- If, at some point, a set of weak keys for HMAC are identified, the
- use of these weak keys must be rejected followed by a request for
- replacement keys or a newly negotiated Security Association.
-
- [ARCH] describes the general mechanism for obtaining keying material
- when multiple keys are required for a single SA (e.g. when an ESP SA
- requires a key for confidentiality and a key for authentication).
-
- In order to provide data origin authentication, the key distribution
- mechanism must ensure that unique keys are allocated and that they
- are distributed only to the parties participating in the
- communication.
-
- [RFC-2104] makes the following recommendation with regard to
- rekeying. Current attacks do not indicate a specific recommended
- frequency for key changes as these attacks are practically
- infeasible. However, periodic key refreshment is a fundamental
- security practice that helps against potential weaknesses of the
- function and keys, reduces the information avaliable to a
- cryptanalyst, and limits the damage of an exposed key.
-
- 4. Interaction with the ESP Cipher Mechanism
-
- As of this writing, there are no known issues which preclude the use
- of the HMAC-SHA-1-96 algorithm with any specific cipher algorithm.
-
-
-
-
-
- Madson & Glenn Standards Track [Page 3]
-
- RFC 2404 The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP and AH November 1998
-
-
- 5. Security Considerations
-
- The security provided by HMAC-SHA-1-96 is based upon the strength of
- HMAC, and to a lesser degree, the strength of SHA-1. At the time of
- this writing there are no practical cryptographic attacks against
- HMAC-SHA-1-96.
-
- [RFC-2104] states that for "minimally reasonable hash functions" the
- "birthday attack" is impractical. For a 64-byte block hash such as
- HMAC-SHA-1-96, an attack involving the successful processing of 2**80
- blocks would be infeasible unless it were discovered that the
- underlying hash had collisions after processing 2**30 blocks. A hash
- with such weak collision-resistance characteristics would generally
- be considered to be unusable.
-
- It is also important to consider that while SHA-1 was never developed
- to be used as a keyed hash algorithm, HMAC had that criteria from the
- onset.
-
- [RFC-2104] also discusses the potential additional security which is
- provided by the truncation of the resulting hash. Specifications
- which include HMAC are strongly encouraged to perform this hash
- truncation.
-
- As [RFC-2104] provides a framework for incorporating various hash
- algorithms with HMAC, it is possible to replace SHA-1 with other
- algorithms such as MD5. [RFC-2104] contains a detailed discussion on
- the strengths and weaknesses of HMAC algorithms.
-
- As is true with any cryptographic algorithm, part of its strength
- lies in the correctness of the algorithm implementation, the security
- of the key management mechanism and its implementation, the strength
- of the associated secret key, and upon the correctness of the
- implementation in all of the participating systems. [RFC-2202]
- contains test vectors and example code to assist in verifying the
- correctness of HMAC-SHA-1-96 code.
-
- 6. Acknowledgments
-
- This document is derived in part from previous works by Jim Hughes,
- those people that worked with Jim on the combined DES/CBC+HMAC-MD5
- ESP transforms, the ANX bakeoff participants, and the members of the
- IPsec working group.
-
- We would also like to thank Hugo Krawczyk for his comments and
- recommendations regarding some of the cryptographic specific text in
- this document.
-
-
-
-
- Madson & Glenn Standards Track [Page 4]
-
- RFC 2404 The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP and AH November 1998
-
-
- 7. References
-
- [FIPS-180-1] NIST, FIPS PUB 180-1: Secure Hash Standard,
- April 1995.
- http://csrc.nist.gov/fips/fip180-1.txt (ascii)
- http://csrc.nist.gov/fips/fip180-1.ps (postscript)
-
- [RFC-2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M. and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
- Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, February
- 1997.
-
- [Bellare96a] Bellare, M., Canetti, R., and H. Krawczyk, "Keying Hash
- Functions for Message Authentication", Advances in
- Cryptography, Crypto96 Proceeding, June 1996.
-
- [ARCH] Kent, S., and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for
- the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.
-
- [ESP] Kent, S., and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Security
- Payload", RFC 2406, November 1998.
-
- [AH] Kent, S., and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header",
- RFC 2402, November 1998.
-
- [Thayer97a] Thayer, R., Doraswamy, N., and R. Glenn, "IP Security
- Document Roadmap", RFC 2411, November 1998.
-
- [RFC-2202] Cheng, P., and R. Glenn, "Test Cases for HMAC-MD5 and
- HMAC-SHA-1", RFC 2202, March 1997.
-
- [RFC-2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
- Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
-
- 8. Editors' Address
-
- Cheryl Madson
- Cisco Systems, Inc.
-
- EMail: cmadson@cisco.com
-
-
- Rob Glenn
- NIST
-
- EMail: rob.glenn@nist.gov
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Madson & Glenn Standards Track [Page 5]
-
- RFC 2404 The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP and AH November 1998
-
-
- The IPsec working group can be contacted through the chairs:
-
- Robert Moskowitz
- ICSA
-
- EMail: rgm@icsa.net
-
-
- Ted T'so
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology
-
- EMail: tytso@mit.edu
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Madson & Glenn Standards Track [Page 6]
-
- RFC 2404 The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP and AH November 1998
-
-
- 9. Full Copyright Statement
-
- Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.
-
- This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
- others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
- or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
- and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
- kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
- included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
- document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
- the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
- Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
- developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
- copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
- followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
- English.
-
- The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
- revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
-
- This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
- "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
- TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Madson & Glenn Standards Track [Page 7]
-
-