Network Working Group D. Eastlake 3rd Request for Comments: 4305 Motorola Laboratories Obsoletes: 2404, 2406 December 2005 Category: Standards Track Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (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 (2005).
AbstractThe IPsec series of protocols makes use of various cryptographic algorithms in order to provide security services. The Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and the Authentication Header (AH) provide two mechanisms for protecting data being sent over an IPsec Security Association (SA). To ensure interoperability between disparate implementations, it is necessary to specify a set of mandatory-to- implement algorithms to ensure that there is at least one algorithm that all implementations will have available. This document defines the current set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms for ESP and AH as well as specifying algorithms that should be implemented because they may be promoted to mandatory at some future time.
1. Introduction ....................................................2 2. Requirements Terminology ........................................3 3. Algorithm Selection .............................................3 3.1. Encapsulating Security Payload .............................3 3.1.1. ESP Encryption and Authentication Algorithms ........4 3.1.2. ESP Combined Mode Algorithms ........................4 3.2. Authentication Header ......................................5 4. Security Considerations .........................................5 5. Acknowledgement .................................................5 6. Changes from RFC 2402 and 2406 ..................................6 7. Normative References ............................................6 8. Informative References ..........................................7 IPsec, ESP, AH]. To ensure interoperability between disparate implementations, it is necessary to specify a set of mandatory-to-implement algorithms to ensure that there is at least one algorithm that all implementations will have available. This document defines the current set of mandatory-to- implement algorithms for ESP and AH as well as specifying algorithms that should be implemented because they may be promoted to mandatory at some future time. The nature of cryptography is that new algorithms surface continuously and existing algorithms are continuously attacked. An algorithm believed to be strong today may be demonstrated to be weak tomorrow. Given this, the choice of mandatory-to-implement algorithm should be conservative so as to minimize the likelihood of it being compromised quickly. Thought should also be given to performance considerations as many uses of IPsec will be in environments where performance is a concern. Finally, we need to recognize that the mandatory-to-implement algorithm(s) may need to change over time to adapt to the changing world. For this reason, the selection of mandatory-to-implement algorithms is not included the main IPsec, ESP, or AH specifications. It is instead placed in this document. As the choice of algorithm changes, only this document should need to be updated. Ideally, the mandatory-to-implement algorithm of tomorrow should already be available in most implementations of IPsec by the time it is made mandatory. To facilitate this, we will attempt to identify such algorithms (as they are known today) in this document. There is
no guarantee that the algorithms we believe today may be mandatory in the future will in fact become so. All algorithms known today are subject to cryptographic attack and may be broken in the future. RFC2119]. We define some additional terms here: SHOULD+ This term means the same as SHOULD. However, it is likely that an algorithm marked as SHOULD+ will be promoted at some future time to be a MUST. SHOULD- This term means the same as SHOULD. However, it is likely that an algorithm marked as SHOULD- will be deprecated to a MAY or worse in a future version of this document. MUST- This term means the same as MUST. However, we expect that at some point in the future this algorithm will no longer be a MUST. RFC2409, IKEv2]) or pre-establishment. Of course, additional standard and proprietary algorithms beyond those listed below can be implemented. Section 2 for definitions of the values in the "Requirement" column.
RFC2451] SHOULD+ AES-CBC with 128-bit keys [RFC3602] SHOULD AES-CTR [RFC3686] SHOULD NOT DES-CBC [RFC2405] (3) Requirement Authentication Algorithm (notes) ----------- ------------------------ MUST HMAC-SHA1-96 [RFC2404] MUST NULL (1) SHOULD+ AES-XCBC-MAC-96 [RFC3566] MAY HMAC-MD5-96 [RFC2403] (2) Notes: (1) Since ESP encryption and authentication are optional, support for the two "NULL" algorithms is required to maintain consistency with the way these services are negotiated. Note that while authentication and encryption can each be "NULL", they MUST NOT both be "NULL". (2) Weaknesses have become apparent in MD5; however, these should not affect the use of MD5 with HMAC. (3) DES, with its small key size and publicly demonstrated and open- design special-purpose cracking hardware, is of questionable security for general use. ESP], combined mode algorithms are supported that provide both confidentiality and authentication services. Support of such algorithms will require proper structuring of ESP implementations. Under many circumstances, combined mode algorithms provide significant efficiency and throughput advantages. Although there are no suggested or required combined algorithms at this time, AES-CCM [CCM], which has been adopted as the preferred mode for security in IEEE 802.11 [802.11i], is expected to be of interest in the near future.
Section 2 for definitions of the values in the "Requirement" column. As you would suspect, all of these algorithms are authentication algorithms. Requirement Algorithm (notes) ----------- --------- MUST HMAC-SHA1-96 [RFC2404] SHOULD+ AES-XCBC-MAC-96 [RFC3566] MAY HMAC-MD5-96 [RFC2403] (1) Note: (1) Weaknesses have become apparent in MD5; however, these should not affect the use of MD5 with HMAC. RFC 4307, "Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the Internet Key Exchange Version 2", by Jeffrey I. Schiller.
RFC2402] and [RFC2406] defined the IPsec Authentication Header and IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload. Each specified the implementation requirements for cryptographic algorithms for their respective protocols. They have now been replaced with [AH] and [ESP], which do not specify cryptographic algorithm implementation requirements, and this document, which specifies such requirements for both [AH] and [ESP]. The implementation requirements are compared below: Old Old New Req. RFC(s) Requirement Algorithm (notes) --- ------ ----------- --------- MUST 2406 SHOULD NOT DES-CBC [RFC2405] (1) MUST 2402 2406 MAY HMAC-MD5-96 [RFC2403] MUST 2402 2406 MUST HMAC-SHA1-96 [RFC2404] Note: (1) The IETF deprecated the use of single DES years ago and has not included it in any new standard for some time (see IESG note on the first page of [RFC2407]). But this document represents the first standards-track recognition of that deprecation by specifying that implementations SHOULD NOT provide single DES. The US Government National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has formally recognized the weakness of single DES by a notice published in the 26 July 2004 US Government Federal Register (Docket No. 040602169-4169-01) proposing to withdraw it as a US Government Standard. Triple DES remains approved by both the IETF and NIST. [AH] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, December 2005. [ESP] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC 4303, December 2005. [IPsec] Kent, S., "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2403] Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-MD5-96 within ESP and AH", RFC 2403, November 1998. [RFC2404] Madson, C. and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998. [RFC2405] Madson, C. and N. Doraswamy, "The ESP DES-CBC Cipher Algorithm With Explicit IV", RFC 2405, November 1998. [RFC3566] Frankel, S. and H. Herbert, "The AES-XCBC-MAC-96 Algorithm and Its Use With IPsec", RFC 3566, September 2003. [RFC3602] Frankel, S., Glenn, R., and S. Kelly, "The AES-CBC Cipher Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec", RFC 3602, September 2003. [RFC3686] Housley, R., "Using Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Counter Mode With IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC 3686, January 2004. [802.11i] LAN/MAN Specific Requirements Part 11: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications: Medium Access Control (MAC) Security Enhancements, IEEE Std 802.11i, June 2004. [JIS] Schiller, J., "Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 4307, December 2005. [CCM] Housley, R., "Using Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Counter Mode With IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC 3686, January 2004. [IKEv2] Kaufman, C., Ed., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol", RFC 4306, December 2005. [RFC791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981. [RFC2402] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header", RFC 2402, November 1998. [RFC2406] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998.
Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 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 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- email@example.com. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.