Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) P. Saint-Andre Request for Comments: 7590 &yet Updates: 6120 T. Alkemade Category: Standards Track June 2015 ISSN: 2070-1721 Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP)
AbstractThis document provides recommendations for the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). This document updates RFC 6120. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7590. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2015 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.
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Support for TLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. Compression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.3. Session Resumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.4. Authenticated Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.5. Server Name Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.6. Human Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Appendix A. Implementation Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 RFC6120] (along with its precursor, the so-called "Jabber protocol") has used Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246] (along with its precursor, Secure Sockets Layer or SSL) since 1999. Both [RFC6120] and its predecessor [RFC3920] provided recommendations regarding the use of TLS in XMPP. In order to address the evolving threat model on the Internet today, this document provides stronger recommendations. In particular, this document updates [RFC6120] by specifying that XMPP implementations and deployments MUST follow the best current practices documented in the "Recommendations for Secure Use of TLS and DTLS" [RFC7525]. This includes stronger recommendations regarding SSL/TLS protocol versions, fallback to lower versions, TLS-layer compression, TLS session resumption, cipher suites, public key lengths, forward secrecy, and other aspects of using TLS with XMPP. RFC4949]. 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 [RFC2119].
RFC7525] are included here by reference. Instead of repeating those recommendations here, this document mostly provides supplementary information regarding secure implementation and deployment of XMPP technologies. RFC6120] and its predecessor [RFC3920]. The server (i.e., the XMPP receiving entity) to which a client or peer server (i.e., the XMPP initiating entity) connects might not offer a stream feature of <starttls xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns :xmpp-tls'/>. Although in general this stream feature indicates that the server supports and offers TLS, this stream feature might be stripped out by an attacker (see Section 2.1 of [RFC7457]). Similarly, the <required/> child element of the <starttls/> stream feature is used to indicate that negotiation of TLS is mandatory; however, this could also be stripped out by an attacker. Therefore, the initiating entity MUST NOT be deterred from attempting TLS negotiation even if the receiving entity does not advertise support for TLS. Instead, the initiating entity SHOULD (based on local policy) proceed with the stream negotiation and attempt to negotiate TLS. XEP-0138]. Although this XMPP extension might have slightly stronger security properties than TLS-layer compression (since it is enabled after Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) authentication, as described in [XEP-0170]), this document neither encourages nor discourages use of XMPP-layer compression. XEP-0198]. Although that specification includes a method for resumption of XMPP streams at the application layer, also using session resumption at the TLS layer further optimizes the overall process of resuming an XMPP session (see [XEP-0198] for detailed information). Whether or not XEP-0198 is used for application-layer
session resumption, implementations MUST follow the recommendations provided in [RFC7525] regarding TLS-layer session resumption. RFC6120] and the CertID specification [RFC6125] provide recommendations and requirements for certificate validation in the context of authenticated connections. This document does not supersede those specifications (e.g., it does not modify the recommendations in [RFC6120] regarding the Subject Alternative Names or other certificate details that need to be supported for authentication of XMPP connections using PKIX certificates). Wherever possible, it is best to prefer authenticated connections (along with SASL [RFC4422]), as already stated in the core XMPP specification [RFC6120]. In particular: o Clients MUST authenticate servers. o Servers MUST authenticate clients. o Servers SHOULD authenticate other servers. This document does not mandate that servers need to authenticate peer servers, although such authentication is strongly preferred. Unfortunately, in multi-tenanted environments it can be extremely difficult to obtain and deploy PKIX certificates with the proper Subject Alternative Names (see [XMPP-DNA] and [PKIX-POSH] for details). To overcome that difficulty, the Domain Name Associations (DNAs) specification [XMPP-DNA] describes a framework for XMPP server authentication methods, which include not only PKIX but also DNS- Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) as defined in [DANE-SRV] and PKIX over Secure HTTP (POSH) as defined in [PKIX-POSH]. These methods can provide a basis for server identity verification when appropriate PKIX certificates cannot be obtained and deployed. Given the pervasiveness of eavesdropping [RFC7258], even an encrypted but unauthenticated connection might be better than an unencrypted connection in these scenarios (this is similar to the "better-than- nothing security" approach for IPsec [RFC5386]). Encrypted but unauthenticated connections include connections negotiated using anonymous Diffie-Hellman mechanisms or using self-signed certificates, among others. In particular for XMPP server-to-server interactions, it can be reasonable for XMPP server implementations to accept encrypted but unauthenticated connections when Server Dialback keys [XEP-0220] are used; such keys on their own provide only weak
identity verification (made stronger through the use of DNSSEC [RFC4033]), but this at least enables encryption of server-to-server connections. The DNA prooftypes mentioned above are intended to mitigate the residual need for encrypted but unauthenticated connections in these scenarios. RFC6066], this is not necessary since the same function is served in XMPP by the 'to' address of the initial stream header as explained in Section 4.7.2 of [RFC6120].
It is possible that XMPP servers themselves might be compromised. In that case, per-hop encryption would not protect XMPP communications, and even end-to-end encryption of (parts of) XMPP stanza payloads would leave addressing information and XMPP roster data in the clear. By the same token, it is possible that XMPP clients (or the end-user devices on which such clients are installed) could also be compromised, leaving users utterly at the mercy of an adversary. This document and related actions to strengthen the security of the XMPP network are based on the assumption that XMPP servers and clients have not been subject to widespread compromise. If this assumption is valid, then ubiquitous use of per-hop TLS channel encryption and more significant deployment of end-to-end object encryption technologies will serve to protect XMPP communications to a measurable degree, compared to the alternatives. This document covers only communication over the XMPP network and does not take into account gateways to non-XMPP networks. As an example, for security considerations related to gateways between XMPP and the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), see [RFC7247] and [RFC7572]. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2", FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949>. [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>. [RFC6120] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, DOI 10.17487/RFC6120, March 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6120>.
[RFC6125] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6125>. [RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre, "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>. [DANE-SRV] Finch, T., Miller, M., and P. Saint-Andre, "Using DNS- Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) TLSA records with SRV and MX records.", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-dane-srv-14, April 2015. [PKIX-POSH] Miller, M. and P. Saint-Andre, "PKIX over Secure HTTP (POSH)", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-xmpp-posh-04, February 2015. [RFC3920] Saint-Andre, P., Ed., "Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 3920, DOI 10.17487/RFC3920, October 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3920>. [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>. [RFC4422] Melnikov, A., Ed. and K. Zeilenga, Ed., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)", RFC 4422, DOI 10.17487/RFC4422, June 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4422>. [RFC5386] Williams, N. and M. Richardson, "Better-Than-Nothing Security: An Unauthenticated Mode of IPsec", RFC 5386, DOI 10.17487/RFC5386, November 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5386>. [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>.
[RFC7247] Saint-Andre, P., Houri, A., and J. Hildebrand, "Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Architecture, Addresses, and Error Handling", RFC 7247, DOI 10.17487/RFC7247, May 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7247>. [RFC7258] Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258, May 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258>. [RFC7457] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre, "Summarizing Known Attacks on Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram TLS (DTLS)", RFC 7457, DOI 10.17487/RFC7457, February 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7457>. [RFC7572] Saint-Andre, P., Houri, A., and J. Hildebrand, "Interworking between the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging", RFC 7572, DOI 10.17487/RFC7572, June 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7572>. [XEP-0138] Hildebrand, J. and P. Saint-Andre, "Stream Compression", XSF XEP 0138, May 2009, <http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0138.html>. [XEP-0170] Saint-Andre, P., "Recommended Order of Stream Feature Negotiation", XSF XEP 0170, January 2007, <http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0170.html>. [XEP-0198] Karneges, J., Saint-Andre, P., Hildebrand, J., Forno, F., Cridland, D., and M. Wild, "Stream Management", XSF XEP 0198, June 2011, <http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0198.html>. [XEP-0220] Miller, J., Saint-Andre, P., and P. Hancke, "Server Dialback", XSF XEP 0220, August 2014, <http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0220.html>. [XMPP-DNA] Saint-Andre, P. and M. Miller, "Domain Name Associations (DNA) in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP)", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-xmpp-dna-10, March 2015.
https://andyet.com/ Thijs Alkemade EMail: email@example.com