COSE Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Schaad
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9053 August Cellars
Obsoletes: 8152 (if approved) 24 September 2020
Intended status: Informational
Expires: 28 March July 2021
Category: Informational
ISSN: 2070-1721
CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Initial Algorithms
draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs-12
Abstract
Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) is a data format designed
for small code size and small message size. There is a need for the
ability to have be
able to define basic security services defined for this data format.
THis This
document defines a set of algorithms that can be used with the CBOR
Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) protocol RFC XXXX.
Contributing to this document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
The source for this draft is being maintained in GitHub. Suggested
changes should be submitted as pull requests at https://github.com/
cose-wg/cose-rfc8152bis. Instructions are on that page as well.
Editorial changes can be managed in GitHub, but any substantial
issues need to be discussed on the COSE mailing list. (RFC 9052).
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft document is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
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 the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents valid
approved by the IESG are candidates for a maximum any level of Internet
Standard; see 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 28 March 2021.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9053.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 2021 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info)
(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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Changes from RFC8152 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 RFC 8152
1.3. Document Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4. CBOR Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.5. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Signature Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. ECDSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1. Security Considerations for ECDSA . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Edwards-Curve Digital Signature Algorithms (EdDSAs) . . . 8
2.2.1. Security Considerations for EdDSA . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Message Authentication Code (MAC) Algorithms . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. Hash-Based Message Authentication Codes (HMACs) . . . . . 9
3.1.1. Security Considerations for HMAC . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2. AES Message Authentication Code (AES-CBC-MAC) . . . . . . 11
3.2.1. Security Considerations AES-CBC_MAC . . . . . . . . . 12 for AES-CBC-MAC
4. Content Encryption Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. AES GCM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 AES-GCM
4.1.1. Security Considerations for AES-GCM . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2. AES CCM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 AES-CCM
4.2.1. Security Considerations for AES-CCM . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3. ChaCha20 and Poly1305 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3.1. Security Considerations for ChaCha20/Poly1305 . . . . 19
5. Key Derivation Functions (KDFs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1. HMAC-Based Extract-and-Expand Key Derivation Function
(HKDF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2. Context Information Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6. Content Key Distribution Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.1. Direct Encryption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.1.1. Direct Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.1.2. Direct Key with KDF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.2. Key Wrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.2.1. AES Key Wrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.3. Direct Key Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.3.1. Direct ECDH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.4. Key Agreement with Key Wrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.4.1. ECDH with Key Wrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7. Key Object Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7.1. Elliptic Curve Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7.1.1. Double Coordinate Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7.2. Octet Key Pair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
7.3. Symmetric Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
8. COSE Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
8.1. Assignments for Existing Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . 42
8.2. Assignments for Existing Key Types . . . . . . . . . . . 42
8.3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
9. CBOR Encoding Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
10.1. Changes to the "COSE Key Types" registry. . . . . . . . . . 45 Registry
10.2. Changes to the "COSE Algorithms" registry . . . . . . . . . 46 Registry
10.3. Changes to the "COSE Key Type Parameters" registry . . . 46 Registry
10.4. Expert Review Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
1. Introduction
There has been an increased focus on small, constrained devices that
make up the Internet of Things (IoT). One of the standards that has
come out of this process is "Concise Binary Object Representation
(CBOR)" [RFC7049]. [RFC8949]. CBOR extended the data model of JavaScript Object
Notation (JSON) [STD90] by allowing for binary data, among other
changes. CBOR is being adopted by several of the IETF working groups
dealing with the IoT world as their encoding method of encoding data
structures. CBOR was designed specifically to be both small in terms of
both messages transported and implementation size and be a schema-free schema-
free decoder. A need exists to provide message security services for
IoT, and using CBOR as the message-encoding format makes sense.
The core COSE specification consists of two documents.
[I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct] [RFC9052]
contains the serialization structures and the procedures for using
the different cryptographic algorithms. This document provides an
initial set of algorithms for use with those structures.
1.1. Requirements 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.
1.2. Changes from RFC8152 RFC 8152
* Extract Extracted the sections dealing with specific algorithms and place
them into this document. The sections dealing with structure and
general processing rules are placed in [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]. [RFC9052].
* Text Made text clarifications and changes in terminology.
1.3. Document Terminology
In this document, we use the following terminology:
Byte is a
Byte: A synonym for octet.
Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) is a (CoAP): A specialized web transfer
protocol for use in constrained systems. It is defined in
[RFC7252].
Authenticated Encryption (AE) [RFC5116] algorithms are encryption [RFC5116]: Encryption
algorithms that provide an authentication check of the contents
with the encryption service. An example of an AE algorithm used
in COSE is AES Key Wrap [RFC3394]. These algorithms are used for
key encryption algorithms, but AEAD algorithms would be preferred. Authenticated Encryption with
Associated Data (AEAD) [RFC5116] algorithms provide would be preferred.
AEAD algorithms [RFC5116]: Provide the same authentication service
of the content as AE algorithms do. They also allow for associated
data to be included
in the authentication service, but which that is not part of the encrypted
body. body to be included in the
authentication service. An example of an AEAD algorithm used in
COSE is AES-GCM [RFC5116]. These algorithms are used for content
encryption and can be used for key encryption as well.
The term 'byte string' "byte string" is used for sequences of bytes, while the term
'text string'
"text string" is used for sequences of characters.
The tables for algorithms contain the following columns:
* A name for the algorithms for use in documents for the algorithms. documents.
* The value used on the wire for the algorithm. One place this is
used is the algorithm header parameter of a message.
* A short description so that the algorithm can be easily identified
when scanning the IANA registry.
Additional columns may be present in the a table depending on the
algorithms.
1.4. CBOR Grammar
At the time that [RFC8152] was initially published, the CBOR Data
Definition Language (CDDL) [RFC8610] had not yet been published.
This document uses a variant of CDDL which that is described in
[I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]. [RFC9052].
1.5. Examples
A GitHub project has been created at [GitHub-Examples] that contains
a set of testing examples as well. Each example is found in a JSON
file that contains the inputs used to create the example, some of the
intermediate values that can be used for debugging, and the output of
the example. The results are encoded using both hexadecimal and CBOR
diagnostic notation format.
Some of the examples are designed to test the failure case; these are
clearly marked as such in the JSON file. If errors in the examples
in this document are found, the examples on GitHub will be updated,
and a note to that effect will be placed in the JSON file.
2. Signature Algorithms
Section 9.1 8.1 of [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct] [RFC9052] contains a generic description of signature
algorithms. The document defines signature algorithm identifiers for
two signature algorithms.
2.1. ECDSA
ECDSA
The Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) [DSS] defines
a signature algorithm using ECC. Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC).
Implementations SHOULD use a deterministic version of ECDSA such as
the one defined in [RFC6979]. The use of a deterministic signature
algorithm allows
for systems to avoid relying on random number generators
in order to avoid generating the same value of 'k' "k" (the per-message
random value). Biased generation of the value 'k' "k" can be attacked,
and collisions of this value leads lead to leaked keys. It additionally
allows for doing performing deterministic tests for the signature algorithm.
The use of deterministic ECDSA does not lessen the need to have good
random number generation when creating the private key.
The ECDSA signature algorithm is parameterized with a hash function
(h). In the event that the length of the hash function output is
greater than the group of the key, the leftmost bytes of the hash
output are used.
The algorithms defined in this document can be found in Table 1.
+=======+=======+=========+==================+
| Name | Value | Hash | Description |
+=======+=======+=========+==================+
| ES256 | -7 | SHA-256 | ECDSA w/ SHA-256 |
+-------+-------+---------+------------------+
| ES384 | -35 | SHA-384 | ECDSA w/ SHA-384 |
+-------+-------+---------+------------------+
| ES512 | -36 | SHA-512 | ECDSA w/ SHA-512 |
+-------+-------+---------+------------------+
Table 1: ECDSA Algorithm Values
This document defines ECDSA to work as working only with the curves P-256,
P-384, and P-521. This document requires that the curves be encoded
using the 'EC2' "EC2" (two coordinate elliptic curve) key type.
Implementations need to check that the key type and curve are correct
when creating and verifying a signature. Future documents may define
it to work with other curves and points in the future.
In order to promote interoperability, it is suggested that SHA-256 be
used only with curve P-256, SHA-384 be used only with curve P-384,
and SHA-512 be used with curve P-521. This is aligned with the
recommendation in Section 4 of [RFC5480].
The signature algorithm results in a pair of integers (R, S). These
integers will be the same length as the length of the key used for
the signature process. The signature is encoded by converting the
integers into byte strings of the same length as the key size. The
length is rounded up to the nearest byte and is left padded with zero
bits to get to the correct length. The two integers are then
concatenated together to form a byte string that is the resulting
signature.
Using the function defined in [RFC8017], the signature is:
Signature = I2OSP(R, n) | I2OSP(S, n)
where n = ceiling(key_length / 8)
When using a COSE key for this algorithm, the following checks are
made:
* The 'kty' "kty" field MUST be present, and it MUST be 'EC2'. "EC2".
* If the 'alg' "alg" field is present, it MUST match the ECDSA signature
algorithm being used.
* If the 'key_ops' "key_ops" field is present, it MUST include 'sign' "sign" when
creating an ECDSA signature.
* If the 'key_ops' "key_ops" field is present, it MUST include 'verify' "verify" when
verifying an ECDSA signature.
2.1.1. Security Considerations for ECDSA
The security strength of the signature is no greater than the minimum
of the security strength associated with the bit length of the key
and the security strength of the hash function.
Note: Use of a deterministic signature technique is a good idea even
when good random number generation exists. Doing so both reduces the
possibility of having the same value of 'k' "k" in two signature
operations and allows for reproducible signature values, which helps
testing. There have been recent attacks involving faulting the
device in order to extract the key. This can be addressed by
combining both randomness and determinism
[I-D.mattsson-cfrg-det-sigs-with-noise]. [CFRG-DET-SIGS].
There are two substitution attacks that can theoretically be mounted
against the ECDSA signature algorithm.
* Changing the curve used to validate the signature: If one changes
the curve used to validate the signature, then potentially one
could have two messages with the same signature, each computed
under a different curve. The only requirement requirements on the new curve is
are that its order be the same as the old one and that it be
acceptable to the client. An example would be to change from
using the curve secp256r1 (aka P-256) to using secp256k1. (Both
are 256-bit curves.) We currently do not have any way to deal
with this version of the attack except to restrict the overall set
of curves that can be used.
* Change Changing the hash function used to validate the signature: If one
either has two different hash functions of the same length or can
truncate a hash function, then one could potentially find
collisions between the hash functions rather than within a single
hash function (for function. For example, truncating SHA-512 to 256 bits might
collide with a SHA-256 bit hash value). value. As the hash algorithm is
part of the signature algorithm identifier, this attack is
mitigated by including a signature algorithm identifier in the
protected header
protected-header bucket.
2.2. Edwards-Curve Digital Signature Algorithms (EdDSAs)
[RFC8032] describes the elliptic curve signature scheme Edwards-curve
Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA). In that document, the signature
algorithm is instantiated using parameters for edwards25519 and
edwards448 curves. The document additionally describes two variants
of the EdDSA algorithm: Pure EdDSA, where no hash function is applied
to the content before signing, and HashEdDSA, where a hash function
is applied to the content before signing and the result of that hash
function is signed. For EdDSA, the content to be signed (either the
message or the pre-hash prehash value) is processed twice inside of the
signature algorithm. For use with COSE, only the pure EdDSA version
is used. This is because it is not expected that extremely large
contents are going to be needed and, based on the arrangement of the
message structure, the entire message is going to need to be held in
memory in order to create or verify a signature. This means that Therefore, there
does not appear to be a need to be able to do block updates of the
hash, followed by eliminating the message from memory. Applications
can provide the same features by defining the content of the message
as a hash value and transporting the COSE object (with the hash
value) and the content as separate items.
The algorithms algorithm defined in this document can be found in Table 2. A
single signature algorithm is defined, which can be used for multiple
curves.
+=======+=======+=============+
| Name | Value | Description |
+=======+=======+=============+
| EdDSA | -8 | EdDSA |
+-------+-------+-------------+
Table 2: EdDSA Algorithm Values Value
[RFC8032] describes the method of encoding the signature value.
When using a COSE key for this algorithm, the following checks are
made:
* The 'kty' "kty" field MUST be present, and it MUST be 'OKP' "OKP" (Octet Key
Pair).
* The 'crv' "crv" field MUST be present, and it MUST be a curve defined
for this signature algorithm.
* If the 'alg' "alg" field is present, it MUST match 'EdDSA'. "EdDSA".
* If the 'key_ops' "key_ops" field is present, it MUST include 'sign' "sign" when
creating an EdDSA signature.
* If the 'key_ops' "key_ops" field is present, it MUST include 'verify' "verify" when
verifying an EdDSA signature.
2.2.1. Security Considerations for EdDSA
How public
Public values are computed is not the same when looking at differently in EdDSA and Elliptic Curve
Diffie-Hellman (ECDH); for this reason, the public key should not be
used with the other algorithm.
If batch signature verification is performed, a well-seeded
cryptographic random number generator is REQUIRED (Section 8.2 of
[RFC8032]). Signing and non-batch nonbatch signature verification are
deterministic operations and do not need random numbers of any kind.
3. Message Authentication Code (MAC) Algorithms
Section 9.2 of [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct] [RFC9052] contains a generic description of MAC
algorithms. This section defines the conventions for two MAC
algorithms.
3.1. Hash-Based Message Authentication Codes (HMACs)
HMAC [RFC2104] [RFC4231] was designed to deal with length extension
attacks. The algorithm was also designed to allow for new hash
algorithms to be directly plugged in without changes to the hash
function. The HMAC design process has been shown as solid since,
while to be solid;
although the security of hash algorithms such as MD5 has decreased
over
time; time, the security of HMAC combined with MD5 has not yet been
shown to be compromised [RFC6151].
The HMAC algorithm is parameterized by an inner and outer padding, a
hash function (h), and an authentication tag value length. For this
specification, the inner and outer padding are fixed to the values
set in [RFC2104]. The length of the authentication tag corresponds
to the difficulty of producing a forgery. For use in constrained
environments, we define one HMAC algorithm that is truncated. There
are currently no known issues with truncation; however, the security
strength of the message tag is correspondingly reduced in strength.
When truncating, the leftmost tag length tag-length bits are kept and
transmitted.
The algorithms defined in this document can be found in Table 3.
+=============+=======+=========+============+======================+
| Name | Value | Hash | Tag Length | Description |
+=============+=======+=========+============+======================+
| HMAC | 4 | SHA-256 | 64 | HMAC w/ SHA-256 |
| 256/64 | | | | truncated to 64 bits |
+-------------+-------+---------+------------+----------------------+
| HMAC | 5 | SHA-256 | 256 | HMAC w/ SHA-256 |
| 256/256 | | | | |
+-------------+-------+---------+------------+----------------------+
| HMAC | 6 | SHA-384 | 384 | HMAC w/ SHA-384 |
| 384/384 | | | | |
+-------------+-------+---------+------------+----------------------+
| HMAC | 7 | SHA-512 | 512 | HMAC w/ SHA-512 |
| 512/512 | | | | |
+-------------+-------+---------+------------+----------------------+
Table 3: HMAC Algorithm Values
Some recipient algorithms transport the key, while others derive a
key from secret data. For those algorithms that transport the key
(such as AES Key Wrap), the size of the HMAC key SHOULD be the same
size as the output of the underlying hash function. For those
algorithms that derive the key (such as ECDH), the derived key MUST
be the same size as the underlying hash function.
When using a COSE key for this algorithm, the following checks are
made:
* The 'kty' "kty" field MUST be present, and it MUST be 'Symmetric'. "Symmetric".
* If the 'alg' "alg" field is present, it MUST match the HMAC algorithm
being used.
* If the 'key_ops' "key_ops" field is present, it MUST include 'MAC create' "MAC create"
when creating an HMAC authentication tag.
* If the 'key_ops' "key_ops" field is present, it MUST include 'MAC verify' "MAC verify"
when verifying an HMAC authentication tag.
Implementations creating and validating MAC values MUST validate that
the key type, key length, and algorithm are correct and appropriate
for the entities involved.
3.1.1. Security Considerations for HMAC
HMAC has proved to be resistant to attack even when used with
weakened hash algorithms. The current best known attack is to brute
force the key. This means that key size is going to be directly
related to the security of an HMAC operation.
3.2. AES Message Authentication Code (AES-CBC-MAC)
AES-CBC-MAC is defined in [MAC]. (Note that this is not the same
algorithm as AES Cipher-Based Message Authentication Code (AES-CMAC)
[RFC4493].)
AES-CBC-MAC is parameterized by the key length, the authentication
tag length, and the Initialization Vector (IV) used. For all of
these algorithms, the IV is fixed to all zeros. We provide an array
of algorithms for various key lengths and tag lengths. The algorithms
defined in this document are found in Table 4.
+=========+=======+============+============+==================+
| Name | Value | Key Length | Tag Length | Description |
+=========+=======+============+============+==================+
| AES-MAC | 14 | 128 | 64 | AES-MAC 128-bit |
| 128/64 | | | | key, 64-bit tag |
+---------+-------+------------+------------+------------------+
| AES-MAC | 15 | 256 | 64 | AES-MAC 256-bit |
| 256/64 | | | | key, 64-bit tag |
+---------+-------+------------+------------+------------------+
| AES-MAC | 25 | 128 | 128 | AES-MAC 128-bit |
| 128/128 | | | | key, 128-bit tag |
+---------+-------+------------+------------+------------------+
| AES-MAC | 26 | 256 | 128 | AES-MAC 256-bit |
| 256/128 | | | | key, 128-bit tag |
+---------+-------+------------+------------+------------------+
Table 4: AES-MAC Algorithm Values
Keys may be obtained either from either a key structure or from a recipient
structure. Implementations creating and validating MAC values MUST
validate that the key type, key length, and algorithm are correct and
appropriate for the entities involved.
When using a COSE key for this algorithm, the following checks are
made:
* The 'kty' "kty" field MUST be present, and it MUST be 'Symmetric'. "Symmetric".
* If the 'alg' "alg" field is present, it MUST match the AES-MAC algorithm
being used.
* If the 'key_ops' "key_ops" field is present, it MUST include 'MAC create' "MAC create"
when creating an AES-MAC authentication tag.
* If the 'key_ops' "key_ops" field is present, it MUST include 'MAC verify' "MAC verify"
when verifying an AES-MAC authentication tag.
3.2.1. Security Considerations AES-CBC_MAC for AES-CBC-MAC
A number of attacks exist against Cipher Block Chaining Message
Authentication Code (CBC-MAC) that need to be considered.
* A single key must only be used for messages of a fixed or known
length. If this is not the case, an attacker will be able to
generate a message with a valid tag given two message and tag
pairs. This can be addressed by using different keys for messages
of different lengths. The current structure mitigates this
problem, as a specific encoding structure that includes lengths is
built and signed. (CMAC also addresses this issue.)
* In cipher Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) mode, if the same key is used for
both encryption and authentication operations, an attacker can
produce messages with a valid authentication code.
* If the IV can be modified, then messages can be forged. This is
addressed by fixing the IV to all zeros.
4. Content Encryption Algorithms
Section 9.3 of [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct] [RFC9052] contains a generic description of Content Encryption content
encryption algorithms. This document defines the identifier and
usages for three content encryption algorithms.
4.1. AES GCM AES-GCM
The Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) mode is a generic AEAD block cipher mode
defined in [AES-GCM]. The GCM mode is combined with the AES block
encryption algorithm to define an AEAD cipher.
The GCM mode is parameterized by the size of the authentication tag and
the size of the nonce. This document fixes the size of the nonce at
96 bits. The size of the authentication tag is limited to a small
set of values. For this document document, however, the size of the
authentication tag is fixed at 128 bits.
The set of algorithms defined in this document are is in Table 5.
+=========+=======+==========================================+
+=========+=======+=====================================+
| Name | Value | Description |
+=========+=======+==========================================+
+=========+=======+=====================================+
| A128GCM | 1 | AES-GCM mode w/ 128-bit key, 128-bit tag |
+---------+-------+------------------------------------------+
+---------+-------+-------------------------------------+
| A192GCM | 2 | AES-GCM mode w/ 192-bit key, 128-bit tag |
+---------+-------+------------------------------------------+
+---------+-------+-------------------------------------+
| A256GCM | 3 | AES-GCM mode w/ 256-bit key, 128-bit tag |
+---------+-------+------------------------------------------+
+---------+-------+-------------------------------------+
Table 5: Algorithm Value Values for AES-GCM
Keys may be obtained either from either a key structure or from a recipient
structure. Implementations that are encrypting and decrypting MUST
validate that the key type, key length, and algorithm are correct and
appropriate for the entities involved.
When using a COSE key for this algorithm, the following checks are
made:
* The 'kty' "kty" field MUST be present, and it MUST be 'Symmetric'. "Symmetric".
* If the 'alg' "alg" field is present, it MUST match the AES-GCM algorithm
being used.
* If the 'key_ops' "key_ops" field is present, it MUST include 'encrypt' "encrypt" or
'wrap key'
"wrap key" when encrypting.
* If the 'key_ops' "key_ops" field is present, it MUST include 'decrypt' "decrypt" or
'unwrap key'
"unwrap key" when decrypting.
4.1.1. Security Considerations for AES-GCM
When using AES-GCM, the following restrictions MUST be enforced:
* The key and nonce pair MUST be unique for every message encrypted.
* The total number of messages encrypted for a single key MUST NOT
exceed 2^32 [SP800-38d]. [SP800-38D]. An explicit check is required only in
environments where it is expected that it might be exceeded.
* A more recent analysis in [ROBUST] indicates that the the number of
failed decryptions needs to be taken into account as part of
determining when a key roll-over rollover is to be done. Following the
recommendation of for DTLS, the number of failed message
decryptions should be limited to 2^36.
Consideration was given to supporting smaller tag values; the
constrained community would desire tag sizes in the 64-bit range.
Doing so
Such use drastically changes both the maximum messages message size (generally
not an issue) and the number of times that a key can be used. Given
that Counter with CBC-MAC (CCM) is the usual mode for constrained
environments, restricted modes are not supported.
4.2. AES CCM AES-CCM
CCM is a generic authentication encryption block cipher mode defined
in [RFC3610]. The CCM mode is combined with the AES block encryption
algorithm to define a commonly used content encryption algorithm used
in constrained devices.
The
CCM mode has two parameter choices. The first choice is M, the size
of the authentication field. The choice of the value for M involves
a trade-off between message growth (from the tag) and the probability
that an attacker can undetectably modify a message. The second
choice is L, the size of the length field. This value requires a
trade-off between the maximum message size and the size of the Nonce. nonce.
It is unfortunate that the specification for CCM specified L and M as
a count of bytes rather than a count of bits. This leads to possible
misunderstandings where AES-CCM-8 is frequently used to refer to a
version of CCM mode where the size of the authentication is 64 bits
and not 8 bits. These values have traditionally been specified as
bit counts rather than byte counts. This document will follow the
convention of using bit counts so that it is easier to compare the
different algorithms presented in this document.
We define a matrix of algorithms in this document over the values of
L and M. Constrained devices are usually operating in situations
where they use short messages and want to avoid doing recipient-
specific cryptographic operations. This favors smaller values of
both L and M. Less-constrained devices will want to be able to use
larger messages and are more willing to generate new keys for every
operation. This favors larger values of L and M.
The following values are used for L:
16 bits (2): This limits messages to 2^16 bytes (64 KiB) in length.
This is sufficiently long for messages in the constrained world.
The nonce length is 13 bytes allowing for 2^104 possible values of
the nonce without repeating.
64 bits (8): This limits messages to 2^64 bytes in length. The
nonce length is 7 bytes bytes, allowing for 2^56 possible values of the
nonce without repeating.
The following values are used for M:
64 bits (8): This produces a 64-bit authentication tag. This
implies that there is a 1 in 2^64 chance that a modified message
will authenticate.
128 bits (16): This produces a 128-bit authentication tag. This
implies that there is a 1 in 2^128 chance that a modified message
will authenticate.
+====================+=======+====+=====+========+===============+
| Name | Value | L | M | Key | Description |
| | | | | Length | |
+====================+=======+====+=====+========+===============+
| AES-CCM-16-64-128 | 10 | 16 | 64 | 128 | AES-CCM mode |
| | | | | | 128-bit key, |
| | | | | | 64-bit tag, |
| | | | | | 13-byte nonce |
+--------------------+-------+----+-----+--------+---------------+
| AES-CCM-16-64-256 | 11 | 16 | 64 | 256 | AES-CCM mode |
| | | | | | 256-bit key, |
| | | | | | 64-bit tag, |
| | | | | | 13-byte nonce |
+--------------------+-------+----+-----+--------+---------------+
| AES-CCM-64-64-128 | 12 | 64 | 64 | 128 | AES-CCM mode |
| | | | | | 128-bit key, |
| | | | | | 64-bit tag, |
| | | | | | 7-byte nonce |
+--------------------+-------+----+-----+--------+---------------+
| AES-CCM-64-64-256 | 13 | 64 | 64 | 256 | AES-CCM mode |
| | | | | | 256-bit key, |
| | | | | | 64-bit tag, |
| | | | | | 7-byte nonce |
+--------------------+-------+----+-----+--------+---------------+
| AES-CCM-16-128-128 | 30 | 16 | 128 | 128 | AES-CCM mode |
| | | | | | 128-bit key, |
| | | | | | 128-bit tag, |
| | | | | | 13-byte nonce |
+--------------------+-------+----+-----+--------+---------------+
| AES-CCM-16-128-256 | 31 | 16 | 128 | 256 | AES-CCM mode |
| | | | | | 256-bit key, |
| | | | | | 128-bit tag, |
| | | | | | 13-byte nonce |
+--------------------+-------+----+-----+--------+---------------+
| AES-CCM-64-128-128 | 32 | 64 | 128 | 128 | AES-CCM mode |
| | | | | | 128-bit key, |
| | | | | | 128-bit tag, |
| | | | | | 7-byte nonce |
+--------------------+-------+----+-----+--------+---------------+
| AES-CCM-64-128-256 | 33 | 64 | 128 | 256 | AES-CCM mode |
| | | | | | 256-bit key, |
| | | | | | 128-bit tag, |
| | | | | | 7-byte nonce |
+--------------------+-------+----+-----+--------+---------------+
Table 6: Algorithm Values for AES-CCM
Keys may be obtained either from either a key structure or from a recipient
structure. Implementations that are encrypting and decrypting MUST
validate that the key type, key length, and algorithm are correct and
appropriate for the entities involved.
When using a COSE key for this algorithm, the following checks are
made:
* The 'kty' "kty" field MUST be present, and it MUST be 'Symmetric'. "Symmetric".
* If the 'alg' "alg" field is present, it MUST match the AES-CCM algorithm
being used.
* If the 'key_ops' "key_ops" field is present, it MUST include 'encrypt' "encrypt" or
'wrap key'
"wrap key" when encrypting.
* If the 'key_ops' "key_ops" field is present, it MUST include 'decrypt' "decrypt" or
'unwrap key'
"unwrap key" when decrypting.
4.2.1. Security Considerations for AES-CCM
When using AES-CCM, the following restrictions MUST be enforced:
* The key and nonce pair MUST be unique for every message encrypted.
Note that the value of L influences the number of unique nonces.
* The total number of times the AES block cipher is used MUST NOT
exceed 2^61 operations. This limitation is the sum of times the
block cipher is used in computing the MAC value and in performing
stream encryption operations. An explicit check is required only
in environments where it is expected that it this number might be
exceeded.
* [I-D.ietf-quic-tls] [RFC9001] contains an analysis on the use of AES-CCM in that
environment. Based on that reommendation, recommendation, one should restrict
the number of messages encrypted to 2^23. If one is using the
64-bit tag, then the limits are signficantly significantly smaller if one wants
to keep the same integrity limits. A protocol recommending this
needs to analysis analyze what level of integrity is acceptable for the
smaller tag size. It may be that that, to keep the desired integrity integrity,
one needs to re-key rekey as often as every 2^7 messages.
* In addition to the number of messages successfully decrypted, the
number of failed decryptions needs to be kept as well. If the
number of failed decryptions exceeds 2^23 2^23, then a rekeying
operation should occur.
[RFC3610] additionally calls out one other consideration of note. It
is possible to do a pre-computation precomputation attack against the algorithm in
cases where portions of the plaintext are highly predictable. This
reduces the security of the key size by half. Ways to deal with this
attack include adding a random portion to the nonce value and/or
increasing the key size used. Using a portion of the nonce for a
random value will decrease the number of messages that a single key
can be used for. Increasing the key size may require more resources
in the constrained device. See Sections 5 and 10 of [RFC3610] for
more information.
4.3. ChaCha20 and Poly1305
ChaCha20 and Poly1305 combined together is an AEAD mode that is
defined in [RFC8439]. This is an algorithm defined to be a cipher
that is not AES and thus would not suffer from any future weaknesses
found in AES. These cryptographic functions are designed to be fast
in software-only implementations.
The ChaCha20/Poly1305 AEAD construction defined in [RFC8439] has no
parameterization. It takes as inputs a 256-bit key and a 96-bit
nonce, as well as the plaintext and additional data as inputs data, and produces the
ciphertext as an option. We define one algorithm identifier for this
algorithm in Table 7.
+===================+=======+==========================+
| Name | Value | Description |
+===================+=======+==========================+
| ChaCha20/Poly1305 | 24 | ChaCha20/Poly1305 w/ |
| | | 256-bit key, 128-bit tag |
+-------------------+-------+--------------------------+
Table 7: Algorithm Value for ChaCha20/Poly1305
Keys may be obtained either from either a key structure or from a recipient
structure. Implementations that are encrypting and decrypting MUST
validate that the key type, key length, and algorithm are correct and
appropriate for the entities involved.
When using a COSE key for this algorithm, the following checks are
made:
* The 'kty' "kty" field MUST be present, and it MUST be 'Symmetric'. "Symmetric".
* If the 'alg' "alg" field is present, it MUST match the ChaCha20/Poly1305
algorithm being used.
* If the 'key_ops' "key_ops" field is present, it MUST include 'encrypt' "encrypt" or
'wrap key'
"wrap key" when encrypting.
* If the 'key_ops' "key_ops" field is present, it MUST include 'decrypt' "decrypt" or
'unwrap key'
"unwrap key" when decrypting.
4.3.1. Security Considerations for ChaCha20/Poly1305
The key and nonce values MUST be a unique pair for every invocation
of the algorithm. Nonce counters are considered to be an acceptable
way of ensuring that they are unique.
A more recent analysis in [ROBUST] indicates that the the number of
failed decryptions needs to be taken into account as part of
determining when a key roll-over rollover is to be done. Following the
recommendation of for DTLS, the number of failed message decryptions
should be limited to 2^36.
[I-D.ietf-quic-tls]
[RFC9001] recommends that no more than 2^24.5 messages be encrypted
under a single key.
5. Key Derivation Functions (KDFs)
Section 9.4 of [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct] [RFC9052] contains a generic description of Key Derivation Functions. key
derivation functions. This document defines a single context
structure and a single KDF. These elements are used for all of the
recipient algorithms defined in this document that require a KDF
process. These algorithms are defined in Sections 6.1.2, 6.3.1, and
6.4.1.
5.1. HMAC-Based Extract-and-Expand Key Derivation Function (HKDF)
The HKDF key derivation algorithm is defined in [RFC5869][HKDF]. [RFC5869] and [HKDF].
The HKDF algorithm takes these inputs:
secret -- a
secret: A shared value that is secret. Secrets may be either
previously shared or derived from operations like a Diffie-Hellman
(DH) key agreement.
salt -- an
salt: An optional value that is used to change the generation
process. The salt value can be either public or private. If the
salt is public and carried in the message, then the 'salt' "salt"
algorithm header parameter defined in Table 9 is used. While
[RFC5869] suggests that the length of the salt be the same as the
length of the underlying hash value, any positive salt length will
improve the security security, as different key values will be generated.
This parameter is protected by being included in the key
computation and does not need to be separately authenticated. The
salt value does not need to be unique for every message sent.
length -- the
length: The number of bytes of output that need to be generated.
context information -- information: Information that describes the context in which
the resulting value will be used. Making this information
specific to the context in which the material is going to be used
ensures that the resulting material will always be tied to that
usage. The context structure defined in Section 5.2 is used by
the KDFs in this document.
PRF --
PRF: The underlying pseudorandom function to be used in the HKDF
algorithm. The PRF is encoded into the HKDF algorithm selection.
HKDF is defined to use HMAC as the underlying PRF. However, it is
possible to use other functions in the same construct to provide a
different KDF that is more appropriate in the constrained world.
Specifically, one can use AES-CBC-MAC as the PRF for the expand step,
but not for the extract step. When using a good random shared secret
of the correct length, the extract step can be skipped. For the AES
algorithm versions, the extract step is always skipped.
The extract step cannot be skipped if the secret is not uniformly
random,
random -- for example, if it is the result of an ECDH key agreement
step. This implies that the AES HKDF version cannot be used with
ECDH. If the extract step is skipped, the 'salt' "salt" value is not used
as part of the HKDF functionality.
The algorithms defined in this document are found in Table 8.
+==============+===================+========================+
| Name | PRF | Description |
+==============+===================+========================+
| HKDF SHA-256 | HMAC with SHA-256 | HKDF using HMAC |
| | | SHA-256 as the PRF |
+--------------+-------------------+------------------------+
| HKDF SHA-512 | HMAC with SHA-512 | HKDF using HMAC |
| | | SHA-512 as the PRF |
+--------------+-------------------+------------------------+
| HKDF AES- | AES-CBC-MAC-128 | HKDF using AES-MAC as |
| MAC-128 | | the PRF w/ 128-bit key |
+--------------+-------------------+------------------------+
| HKDF AES- | AES-CBC-MAC-256 | HKDF using AES-MAC as |
| MAC-256 | | the PRF w/ 256-bit key |
+--------------+-------------------+------------------------+
Table 8: HKDF Algorithms
+======+=======+======+============================+=============+
| Name | Label | Type | Algorithm | Description |
+======+=======+======+============================+=============+
| salt | -20 | bstr | direct+HKDF-SHA-256, | Random salt |
| | | | direct+HKDF-SHA-512, | |
| | | | direct+HKDF-AES-128, | |
| | | | direct+HKDF-AES-256, ECDH- | |
| | | | ES+HKDF-256, ECDH-ES+HKDF- | |
| | | | 512, ECDH-SS+HKDF-256, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+HKDF-512, ECDH- | |
| | | | ES+A128KW, ECDH-ES+A192KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+A256KW, ECDH- | |
| | | | SS+A128KW, ECDH-SS+A192KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A256KW | |
+------+-------+------+----------------------------+-------------+
Table 9: HKDF Algorithm Parameters Parameter
5.2. Context Information Structure
The context information structure is used to ensure that the derived
keying material is "bound" to the context of the transaction. The
context information structure used here is based on that defined in
[SP800-56A]. By using CBOR for the encoding of the context
information structure, we automatically get the same type and length
separation of fields that is obtained by the use of ASN.1. This
means that there is no need to encode the lengths for the base
elements, as it is done by the encoding used in JOSE JSON Object Signing
and Encryption (JOSE) (Section 4.6.2 of [RFC7518]).
The context information structure refers to PartyU and PartyV as the
two parties that are doing the key derivation. Unless the
application protocol defines differently, we assign PartyU to the
entity that is creating the message and PartyV to the entity that is
receiving the message. By doing defining this association, different keys
will be derived for each direction direction, as the context information is
different in each direction.
The context structure is built from information that is known to both
entities. This information can be obtained from a variety of
sources:
* Fields can be defined by the application. This is commonly used
to assign fixed names to parties, but it can be used for other
items such as nonces.
* Fields can be defined by usage of the output. Examples of this
are the algorithm and key size that are being generated.
* Fields can be defined by parameters from the message. We define a
set of header parameters in Table 10 that can be used to carry the
values associated with the context structure. Examples of this
are identities and nonce values. These header parameters are
designed to be placed in the unprotected bucket of the recipient
structure; they do not need to be in the protected bucket bucket, since
they already are already included in the cryptographic computation by
virtue of being included in the context structure.
+==========+=======+======+===========================+=============+
| Name | Label | Type | Algorithm | Description |
+==========+=======+======+===========================+=============+
| PartyU | -21 | bstr | direct+HKDF-SHA-256, | Party U |
| identity | | | direct+HKDF-SHA-512, | identity |
| | | | direct+HKDF-AES-128, | information |
| | | | direct+HKDF-AES-256, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+HKDF-256, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+HKDF-512, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+HKDF-256, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+HKDF-512, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+A128KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+A192KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+A256KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A128KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A192KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A256KW | |
+----------+-------+------+---------------------------+-------------+
| PartyU | -22 | bstr | direct+HKDF-SHA-256, | Party U |
| nonce | | / | direct+HKDF-SHA-512, | provided |
| | | int | direct+HKDF-AES-128, | nonce |
| | | | direct+HKDF-AES-256, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+HKDF-256, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+HKDF-512, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+HKDF-256, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+HKDF-512, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+A128KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+A192KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+A256KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A128KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A192KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A256KW | |
+----------+-------+------+---------------------------+-------------+
| PartyU | -23 | bstr | direct+HKDF-SHA-256, | Party U |
| other | | | direct+HKDF-SHA-512, | other |
| | | | direct+HKDF-AES-128, | provided |
| | | | direct+HKDF-AES-256, | information |
| | | | ECDH-ES+HKDF-256, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+HKDF-512, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+HKDF-256, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+HKDF-512, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+A128KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+A192KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+A256KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A128KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A192KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A256KW | |
+----------+-------+------+---------------------------+-------------+
| PartyV | -24 | bstr | direct+HKDF-SHA-256, | Party V |
| identity | | | direct+HKDF-SHA-512, | identity |
| | | | direct+HKDF-AES-128, | information |
| | | | direct+HKDF-AES-256, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+HKDF-256, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+HKDF-512, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+HKDF-256, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+HKDF-512, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+A128KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+A192KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+A256KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A128KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A192KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A256KW | |
+----------+-------+------+---------------------------+-------------+
| PartyV | -25 | bstr | direct+HKDF-SHA-256, | Party V |
| nonce | | / | direct+HKDF-SHA-512, | provided |
| | | int | direct+HKDF-AES-128, | nonce |
| | | | direct+HKDF-AES-256, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+HKDF-256, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+HKDF-512, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+HKDF-256, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+HKDF-512, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+A128KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+A192KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+A256KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A128KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A192KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A256KW | |
+----------+-------+------+---------------------------+-------------+
| PartyV | -26 | bstr | direct+HKDF-SHA-256, | Party V |
| other | | | direct+HKDF-SHA-512, | other |
| | | | direct+HKDF-AES-128, | provided |
| | | | direct+HKDF-AES-256, | information |
| | | | ECDH-ES+HKDF-256, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+HKDF-512, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+HKDF-256, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+HKDF-512, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+A128KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+A192KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-ES+A256KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A128KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A192KW, | |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A256KW | |
+----------+-------+------+---------------------------+-------------+
Table 10: Context Algorithm Parameters
We define a CBOR object to hold the context information. This object
is referred to as COSE_KDF_Context. The object is based on a CBOR
array type. The fields in the array are:
AlgorithmID: This field indicates the algorithm for which the key
material will be used. This normally is either a key wrap
algorithm identifier or a content encryption algorithm identifier.
The values are from the "COSE Algorithms" registry. This field is
required to be present. The field exists in the context
information so that a different key is generated for each
algorithm even of if all of the other context information is the
same. In practice, this means if algorithm A is broken and thus
finding the key is relatively easy, the key derived for algorithm
B will not be the same as the key derived for algorithm A.
PartyUInfo: This field holds information about party U. PartyU. The
PartyUInfo is encoded as a CBOR array. The elements of PartyUInfo
are encoded in the order presented below. The elements of the
PartyUInfo array are:
identity: This contains the identity information for party U. PartyU. The
identities can be assigned in one of two manners. First, a
protocol can assign identities based on roles. For example,
the roles of "client" and "server" may be assigned to different
entities in the protocol. Each entity would then use the
correct label for the data they send it sends or receive. receives. The second
way for a protocol to assign identities is to use a name based
on a naming system (i.e., DNS, DNS or X.509 names).
We define an algorithm parameter 'PartyU identity' parameter, "PartyU identity", that can
be used to carry identity information in the message. However,
identity information is often known as to be part of the protocol
and can thus be inferred rather than made explicit. If
identity information is carried in the message, applications
SHOULD have a way of validating the supplied identity
information. The identity information does not need to be
specified and is set to nil in that case.
nonce: This contains a nonce value. The nonce can either be either
implicit from the protocol or be carried as a value in the
unprotected header bucket.
We define an algorithm parameter 'PartyU nonce' parameter, "PartyU nonce", that can be
used to carry this value in the message; however, the nonce
value could be determined by the application and the value
determined from elsewhere.
This option does not need to be specified and specified; if not needed, it is
set to nil in
that case. nil.
other: This contains other information that is defined by the
protocol. This option does not need to be specified and specified; if not
needed, it is set to nil in that case. nil.
PartyVInfo: This field holds information about party V. The content
of the structure is the same as for the PartyUInfo but for party
V.
SuppPubInfo: This field contains public information that is mutually
known to both parties.
keyDataLength: This is set to the number of bits of the desired
output value. This practice means if algorithm A can use two
different key lengths, the key derived for the longer key size
will not contain the key for the shorter key size as a prefix.
protected: This field contains the protected parameter field. If
there are no elements in the protected "protected" field, then use a zero-
length
zero-length bstr.
other: This field is for free form free-form data defined by the
application. An example is that For example, an application could define two
different byte strings to be placed here to generate different
keys for a data stream versus a control stream. This field is
optional and will only be present if the application defines a
structure for this information. Applications that define this
SHOULD use CBOR to encode the data so that types and lengths
are correctly included.
SuppPrivInfo: This field contains private information that is
mutually known private information. An example of this
information would be a preexisting pre-existing shared secret. (This could,
for example, be used in combination with an ECDH key agreement to
provide a secondary proof of identity.) The field is optional and
will only be present if the application defines a structure for
this information. Applications that define this SHOULD use CBOR
to encode the data so that types and lengths are correctly
included.
The following CDDL fragment corresponds to the text above.
PartyInfo = (
identity : bstr / nil,
nonce : bstr / int / nil,
other : bstr / nil
)
COSE_KDF_Context = [
AlgorithmID : int / tstr,
PartyUInfo : [ PartyInfo ],
PartyVInfo : [ PartyInfo ],
SuppPubInfo : [
keyDataLength : uint,
protected : empty_or_serialized_map,
? other : bstr
],
? SuppPrivInfo : bstr
]
6. Content Key Distribution Methods
Section 9.5 8.5 of [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct] [RFC9052] contains a generic description of content
key distribution methods. This document defines the identifiers and
usage for a number of content key distribution methods.
6.1. Direct Encryption
Direct
A direct encryption algorithm is defined in Section 9.5.1 8.5.1 of
[I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct].
[RFC9052]. Information about how to fill in the COSE_Recipient
structure are is detailed there.
6.1.1. Direct Key
This recipient algorithm is the simplest; the identified key is
directly used as the key for the next layer down in the message.
There are no algorithm parameters defined for this algorithm. The
algorithm identifier value is assigned in Table 11.
When this algorithm is used, the protected "protected" field MUST be have zero
length. The key type MUST be 'Symmetric'.
+========+=======+===================+ "Symmetric".
+========+=======+============================================+
| Name | Value | Description |
+========+=======+===================+
+========+=======+============================================+
| direct | -6 | Direct use of CEK |
+--------+-------+-------------------+ content encryption key (CEK) |
+--------+-------+--------------------------------------------+
Table 11: Direct Key
6.1.1.1. Security Considerations for Direct Key
This recipient algorithm has several potential problems that need to
be considered:
* These keys need to have some method to be of being regularly updated
over time. All of the content encryption algorithms specified in
this document have limits on how many times a key can be used
without significant loss of security.
* These keys need to be dedicated to a single algorithm. There have
been a number of attacks developed over time when a single key is
used for multiple different algorithms. One example of this is
the use of a single key for both the CBC encryption mode and the
CBC-MAC authentication mode.
* Breaking one message means all messages are broken. If an
adversary succeeds in determining the key for a single message,
then the key for all messages is also determined.
6.1.2. Direct Key with KDF
These recipient algorithms take a common shared secret between the
two parties and applies the apply HKDF function (Section 5.1), using the context structure
defined in Section 5.2 to transform the shared secret into the CEK.
The 'protected' "protected" field can be of non-zero nonzero length. Either the 'salt' "salt"
parameter of HKDF or the 'PartyU nonce' "PartyU nonce" parameter of the context
structure MUST be present. The salt/nonce "salt"/"nonce" parameter can be
generated either randomly or deterministically. The requirement is
that it be a unique value for the shared secret in question.
If the salt/nonce value is generated randomly, then it is suggested
that the length of the random value be the same length as the output
of the hash function underlying HKDF. While there is no way to
guarantee that it will be unique, there is a high probability that it
will be unique. If the salt/nonce value is generated
deterministically, it can be guaranteed to be unique, and thus there
is no length requirement.
A new IV must be used for each message if the same key is used. The
IV can be modified in a predictable manner, a random manner, or an
unpredictable manner (i.e., encrypting a counter).
The IV used for a key can also be generated from using the same HKDF
functionality as used to generate the key is generated. key. If HKDF is used for
generating the IV, the algorithm identifier is set to "IV-
GENERATION".
The set of algorithms defined in this document can be found in
Table 12.
+=====================+=======+==============+=====================+
| Name | Value | KDF | Description |
+=====================+=======+==============+=====================+
| direct+HKDF-SHA-256 | -10 | HKDF SHA-256 | Shared secret w/ |
| | | | HKDF and SHA-256 |
+---------------------+-------+--------------+---------------------+
| direct+HKDF-SHA-512 | -11 | HKDF SHA-512 | Shared secret w/ |
| | | | HKDF and SHA-512 |
+---------------------+-------+--------------+---------------------+
| direct+HKDF-AES-128 | -12 | HKDF AES- | Shared secret w/ |
| | | MAC-128 | AES-MAC 128-bit key |
+---------------------+-------+--------------+---------------------+
| direct+HKDF-AES-256 | -13 | HKDF AES- | Shared secret w/ |
| | | MAC-256 | AES-MAC 256-bit key |
+---------------------+-------+--------------+---------------------+
Table 12: Direct Key with KDF
When using a COSE key for this algorithm, the following checks are
made:
* The 'kty' "kty" field MUST be present, and it MUST be 'Symmetric'. "Symmetric".
* If the 'alg' "alg" field is present, it MUST match the algorithm being
used.
* If the 'key_ops' "key_ops" field is present, it MUST include 'deriveKey' "deriveKey" or
'deriveBits'.
"deriveBits".
6.1.2.1. Security Considerations for Direct Key with KDF
The shared secret needs to have some method to be of being regularly
updated over time. The shared secret forms the basis of trust.
Although not used directly, it should still be subject to scheduled
rotation.
While these
These methods do not provide for perfect forward secrecy, as the same
shared secret is used for all of the keys generated, generated; however, if the
key for any single message is discovered, only the message (or or series
of messages) messages using that derived key are compromised. A new key
derivation step will generate a new key that requires the same amount
of work to get the key.
6.2. Key Wrap
Key wrap is defined in Section 9.5.1 8.5.2 of
[I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]. [RFC9052]. Information about
how to fill in the COSE_Recipient structure is detailed there.
6.2.1. AES Key Wrap
The AES Key Wrap algorithm is defined in [RFC3394]. This algorithm
uses an AES key to wrap a value that is a multiple of 64 bits. As
such, it can be used to wrap a key for any of the content encryption
algorithms defined in this document. The algorithm requires a single
fixed parameter, the initial value. This is fixed to the value
specified in Section 2.2.3.1 of [RFC3394]. There are no public key
parameters that vary on a per-invocation basis. The protected header
bucket MUST be empty.
Keys may be obtained either from either a key structure or from a recipient
structure. Implementations that are encrypting and decrypting MUST
validate that the key type, key length, and algorithm are correct and
appropriate for the entities involved.
When using a COSE key for this algorithm, the following checks are
made:
* The 'kty' "kty" field MUST be present, and it MUST be 'Symmetric'. "Symmetric".
* If the 'alg' "alg" field is present, it MUST match the AES Key Wrap
algorithm being used.
* If the 'key_ops' "key_ops" field is present, it MUST include 'encrypt' "encrypt" or
'wrap key'
"wrap key" when encrypting.
* If the 'key_ops' "key_ops" field is present, it MUST include 'decrypt' "decrypt" or
'unwrap key'
"unwrap key" when decrypting.
+========+=======+==========+=============================+
| Name | Value | Key Size | Description |
+========+=======+==========+=============================+
| A128KW | -3 | 128 | AES Key Wrap w/ 128-bit key |
+--------+-------+----------+-----------------------------+
| A192KW | -4 | 192 | AES Key Wrap w/ 192-bit key |
+--------+-------+----------+-----------------------------+
| A256KW | -5 | 256 | AES Key Wrap w/ 256-bit key |
+--------+-------+----------+-----------------------------+
Table 13: AES Key Wrap Algorithm Values
6.2.1.1. Security Considerations for AES-KW AES Key Wrap
The shared secret needs to have some method to be of being regularly
updated over time. The shared secret is the basis of trust.
6.3. Direct Key Agreement
Key Transport transport is defined in Section 9.5.4 8.5.3 of
[I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]. [RFC9052]. Information
about how to fill in the COSE_Recipient structure is detailed there.
6.3.1. Direct ECDH
The mathematics for ECDH can be found in [RFC6090]. In this
document, the algorithm is extended to be used with the two curves
defined in [RFC7748].
ECDH is parameterized by the following:
*
Curve Type/Curve: The curve selected controls not only the size of
the shared secret, but the mathematics for computing the shared
secret. The curve selected also controls how a point in the curve
is represented and what happens for the identity points on the
curve. In this specification, we allow for a number of different
curves to be used. A set of curves are is defined in Table 18.
The math used to obtain the computed secret is based on the curve
selected and not on the ECDH algorithm. For this reason, a new
algorithm does not need to be defined for each of the curves.
*
Computed Secret to Shared Secret: Once the computed secret is known,
the resulting value needs to be converted to a byte string to run
the KDF. The x-coordinate is used for all of the curves defined
in this document. For curves X25519 and X448, the resulting value
is used directly directly, as it is a byte string of a known length. For
the P-256, P-384, and P-521 curves, the x-coordinate is run
through the I2OSP Integer-to-Octet-String primitive (I2OSP) function
defined in [RFC8017], using the same computation for n as is
defined in Section 2.1.
*
Ephemeral-Static or Static-Static: The key agreement process may be
done using either a static or an ephemeral key for the sender's
side. When using ephemeral keys, the sender MUST generate a new
ephemeral key for every key agreement operation. The ephemeral
key is placed in the 'ephemeral key' "ephemeral key" parameter and MUST be present
for all algorithm identifiers that use ephemeral keys. When using
static keys, the sender MUST either generate a new random value or
create a unique value. For the KDFs used, this means that either
the
'salt' "salt" parameter for HKDF (Table 9) or the 'PartyU nonce' "PartyU nonce"
parameter for the context structure (Table 10) MUST be present
(both can be present if desired). The value in the parameter MUST
be unique for the pair of keys being used. It is acceptable to
use a global counter that is incremented for every static-static
operation and use the resulting value. Care must be taken that
the counter is saved to permanent storage in a way to avoid that avoids
reuse of that counter value. When using static keys, the static
key should be identified to the recipient. The static key can be
identified either by providing either the key ('static key') ("static key") or by
providing a key
identifier for the static key ('static ("static key id'). id"). Both of these
header parameters are defined in Table 15.
*
Key Derivation Algorithm: The result of an ECDH key agreement
process does not provide a uniformly random secret. As such, it
needs to be run through a KDF in order to produce a usable key.
Processing the secret through a KDF also allows for the
introduction of context material: how the key is going to be used
and one-time material for static-static key agreement. All of the
algorithms defined in this document use one of the HKDF algorithms
defined in Section 5.1 with the context structure defined in
Section 5.2.
*
Key Wrap Algorithm: No key wrap algorithm is used. This is
represented in Table 14 as 'none'. "none". The key size for the context
structure is the content layer encryption algorithm size.
COSE does not have an Ephemeral-Ephemeral version defined. The
reason for this is that COSE is not an online protocol by itself and
thus does not have a method to establish of establishing ephemeral secrets on both
sides. The expectation is that a protocol would establish the
secrets for both sides, and then they would be used as static-static
for the purposes of COSE, or that the protocol would generate a
shared secret and a direct encryption would be used.
The set of direct ECDH algorithms defined in this document are is found
in Table 14.
+===========+=======+=========+============+======+=================+
| Name
+==========+=======+=========+==================+=====+=============+
|Name | Value | KDF | Ephemeral- | Key | Description |
| Ephemeral-Static |Key |Description |
| | Static | Wrap | |Wrap |
+===========+=======+=========+============+======+=================+ | ECDH-ES
+==========+=======+=========+==================+=====+=============+
|ECDH-ES + | -25 | HKDF - -- | yes | none | ECDH |none |ECDH ES w/ HKDF |
| +
|HKDF-256 | | SHA-256 | | |HKDF -- | - generate key
| | HKDF-256 | | | |generate key |
| directly |
+-----------+-------+---------+------------+------+-----------------+ | ECDH-ES | | |directly |
+----------+-------+---------+------------------+-----+-------------+
|ECDH-ES + | -26 | HKDF - -- | yes | none | ECDH |none |ECDH ES w/ HKDF | | +
|HKDF-512 | | SHA-512 | | |HKDF -- |
| - generate key | | HKDF-512 | | |generate key |
| | directly |
+-----------+-------+---------+------------+------+-----------------+ | ECDH-SS | |directly |
+----------+-------+---------+------------------+-----+-------------+
|ECDH-SS + | -27 | HKDF - -- | no | none | ECDH |none |ECDH SS w/ HKDF | | +
|HKDF-256 | | SHA-256 | | |HKDF -- |
| - generate key | | HKDF-256 | | |generate key |
| | | | directly |
+-----------+-------+---------+------------+------+-----------------+ |directly | ECDH-SS
+----------+-------+---------+------------------+-----+-------------+
|ECDH-SS + | -28 | HKDF - -- | no | none | ECDH |none |ECDH SS w/ HKDF | | +
|HKDF-512 | | SHA-512 | | |HKDF -- |
| - generate key | | HKDF-512 | | |generate key |
| | directly |
+-----------+-------+---------+------------+------+-----------------+ | | |directly |
+----------+-------+---------+------------------+-----+-------------+
Table 14: ECDH Algorithm Values
+===========+=======+==========+===================+=============+
| Name | Label | Type | Algorithm | Description |
+===========+=======+==========+===================+=============+
| ephemeral | -1 | COSE_Key | ECDH-ES+HKDF-256, | Ephemeral |
| key | | | ECDH-ES+HKDF-512, | public key |
| | | | ECDH-ES+A128KW, | for the |
| | | | ECDH-ES+A192KW, | sender |
| | | | ECDH-ES+A256KW | |
+-----------+-------+----------+-------------------+-------------+
| static | -2 | COSE_Key | ECDH-SS+HKDF-256, | Static |
| key | | | ECDH-SS+HKDF-512, | public key |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A128KW, | for the |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A192KW, | sender |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A256KW | |
+-----------+-------+----------+-------------------+-------------+
| static | -3 | bstr | ECDH-SS+HKDF-256, | Static |
| key id | | | ECDH-SS+HKDF-512, | public key |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A128KW, | identifier |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A192KW, | for the |
| | | | ECDH-SS+A256KW | sender |
+-----------+-------+----------+-------------------+-------------+
Table 15: ECDH Algorithm Parameters
This document defines these algorithms to be used with the curves
P-256, P-384, P-521, X25519, and X448. Implementations MUST verify
that the key type and curve are correct. Different curves are
restricted to different key types. Implementations MUST verify that
the curve and algorithm are appropriate for the entities involved.
When using a COSE key for this algorithm, the following checks are
made:
* The 'kty' "kty" field MUST be present, and it MUST be 'EC2' "EC2" or 'OKP'. "OKP".
* If the 'alg' "alg" field is present, it MUST match the key agreement
algorithm being used.
* If the 'key_ops' "key_ops" field is present, it MUST include 'derive key' "derive key" or
'derive bits'
"derive bits" for the private key.
* If the 'key_ops' "key_ops" field is present, it MUST be empty for the public
key.
6.3.1.1. Security Considerations for ECDH
There is a method of checking that points provided from external
entities are valid. For the 'EC2' "EC2" key format, this can be done by
checking that the x and y values form a point on the curve. For the
'OKP'
"OKP" format, there is no simple way to do perform point validation.
Consideration was given to requiring that the public keys of both
entities be provided as part of the key derivation process (as
recommended in Section 6.4 of [RFC7748]). This was not done as done, because
COSE is used in a store and forward store-and-forward format rather than in online key
exchange. In order for this to be a problem, either the receiver
public key has to be chosen maliciously or the sender has to be
malicious. In either case, all security evaporates anyway.
A proof of possession of the private key associated with the public
key is recommended when a key is moved from untrusted to trusted
(either by the end user or by the entity that is responsible for
making trust statements on keys).
6.4. Key Agreement with Key Wrap
Key Agreement with Key Wrap is defined in Section 9.5.5 8.5.5 of
[I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]. [RFC9052].
Information about how to fill in the COSE_Recipient structure are is
detailed there.
6.4.1. ECDH with Key Wrap
These algorithms are defined in Table 16.
ECDH with Key Agreement is parameterized by the same header
parameters as for ECDH; see Section 6.3.1, with the following
modifications:
*
Key Wrap Algorithm: Any of the key wrap algorithms defined in
Section 6.2 are supported. The size of the key used for the key
wrap algorithm is fed into the KDF. The set of identifiers are is
found in Table 16.
+=========+=======+=========+============+========+================+
| Name | Value |
+=========+=====+=========+==================+========+=============+
|Name |Value| KDF | Ephemeral- | Key | Ephemeral-Static |Key Wrap| Description |
| | | | Static | Wrap | |
+=========+=======+=========+============+========+================+
| ECDH-ES | -29
+=========+=====+=========+==================+========+=============+
|ECDH-ES +|-29 | HKDF - -- | yes | A128KW |A128KW | ECDH ES w/ |
| +
|A128KW | | SHA-256 | | | Concat KDF and |
| A128KW | | | | | and AES Key Wrap |
| | | | | | Wrap w/ 128-bit key |
+---------+-------+---------+------------+--------+----------------+
| ECDH-ES | -30 | | | | 128-bit key |
+---------+-----+---------+------------------+--------+-------------+
|ECDH-ES +|-30 | HKDF - -- | yes | A192KW |A192KW | ECDH ES w/ |
| +
|A192KW | | SHA-256 | | | Concat KDF and |
| A192KW | | | | | and AES Key Wrap |
| | | | | | Wrap w/ 192-bit key |
+---------+-------+---------+------------+--------+----------------+
| ECDH-ES | -31 | | | | 192-bit key |
+---------+-----+---------+------------------+--------+-------------+
|ECDH-ES +|-31 | HKDF - -- | yes | A256KW |A256KW | ECDH ES w/ |
| +
|A256KW | | SHA-256 | | | Concat KDF and |
| A256KW | | | | | and AES Key Wrap |
| | | | | | Wrap w/ 256-bit key |
+---------+-------+---------+------------+--------+----------------+
| ECDH-SS | -32 | | | | 256-bit key |
+---------+-----+---------+------------------+--------+-------------+
|ECDH-SS +|-32 | HKDF - -- | no | A128KW |A128KW | ECDH SS w/ |
| +
|A128KW | | SHA-256 | | | Concat KDF and |
| A128KW | | | | | and AES Key Wrap |
| | | | | | Wrap w/ 128-bit key |
+---------+-------+---------+------------+--------+----------------+
| ECDH-SS | -33 | | | | 128-bit key |
+---------+-----+---------+------------------+--------+-------------+
|ECDH-SS +|-33 | HKDF - -- | no | A192KW |A192KW | ECDH SS w/ |
| +
|A192KW | | SHA-256 | | | Concat KDF and |
| A192KW | | | | | and AES Key Wrap |
| | | | | | Wrap w/ 192-bit key |
+---------+-------+---------+------------+--------+----------------+
| ECDH-SS | -34 | | | | 192-bit key |
+---------+-----+---------+------------------+--------+-------------+
|ECDH-SS +|-34 | HKDF - -- | no | A256KW |A256KW | ECDH SS w/ |
| +
|A256KW | | SHA-256 | | | Concat KDF and |
| A256KW | | | | | and AES Key Wrap |
| | | | | | Wrap w/ |
| | | | | | 256-bit key |
+---------+-------+---------+------------+--------+----------------+
+---------+-----+---------+------------------+--------+-------------+
Table 16: ECDH Algorithm Values with Key Wrap
When using a COSE key for this algorithm, the following checks are
made:
* The 'kty' "kty" field MUST be present, and it MUST be 'EC2' "EC2" or 'OKP'. "OKP".
* If the 'alg' "alg" field is present, it MUST match the key agreement
algorithm being used.
* If the 'key_ops' "key_ops" field is present, it MUST include 'derive key' "derive key" or
'derive bits'
"derive bits" for the private key.
* If the 'key_ops' "key_ops" field is present, it MUST be empty for the public
key.
7. Key Object Parameters
The COSE_Key object defines a way to hold a single key object. It is
still required that the members of individual key types be defined.
This section of the document is where we define an initial set of
members for specific key types.
For each of the key types, we define both public and private members.
The public members are what is transmitted to others for their usage.
Private members allow for the archival of keys by individuals. individuals to archive keys. However, there
are some circumstances in which private keys may be distributed to
entities in a protocol. Examples include: entities that have poor
random number generation, centralized key creation for
multi-cast type multicast-type
operations, and protocols in which a shared secret is used as a
bearer token for authorization purposes.
Key types are identified by the 'kty' "kty" member of the COSE_Key object.
In this document, we define four values for the member:
+===========+=======+==========================+
| Name | Value | Description |
+===========+=======+==========================+
| OKP | 1 | Octet Key Pair |
+-----------+-------+--------------------------+
| EC2 | 2 | Elliptic Curve Keys w/ |
| | | x- and y-coordinate pair |
+-----------+-------+--------------------------+
| Symmetric | 4 | Symmetric Keys |
+-----------+-------+--------------------------+
| Reserved | 0 | This value is reserved |
+-----------+-------+--------------------------+
Table 17: Key Type Values
7.1. Elliptic Curve Keys
Two different key structures are defined for elliptic curve keys.
One version uses both an x-coordinate and a y-coordinate, potentially
with point compression ('EC2'). ("EC2"). This is the traditional EC elliptic
curve (EC) point representation that is used in [RFC5480]. The other
version uses only the x-coordinate x-coordinate, as the y-coordinate is either to
be recomputed or not needed for the key agreement operation ('OKP'). ("OKP").
Applications MUST check that the curve and the key type are
consistent and reject a key if they are not.
+=========+=======+==========+====================================+
+=========+=======+==========+=====================================+
| Name | Value | Key Type | Description |
+=========+=======+==========+====================================+
+=========+=======+==========+=====================================+
| P-256 | 1 | EC2 | NIST P-256 P-256, also known as secp256r1 |
+---------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
+---------+-------+----------+-------------------------------------+
| P-384 | 2 | EC2 | NIST P-384 P-384, also known as secp384r1 |
+---------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
+---------+-------+----------+-------------------------------------+
| P-521 | 3 | EC2 | NIST P-521 P-521, also known as secp521r1 |
+---------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
+---------+-------+----------+-------------------------------------+
| X25519 | 4 | OKP | X25519 for use w/ ECDH only |
+---------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
+---------+-------+----------+-------------------------------------+
| X448 | 5 | OKP | X448 for use w/ ECDH only |
+---------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
+---------+-------+----------+-------------------------------------+
| Ed25519 | 6 | OKP | Ed25519 for use w/ EdDSA only |
+---------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
+---------+-------+----------+-------------------------------------+
| Ed448 | 7 | OKP | Ed448 for use w/ EdDSA only |
+---------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
+---------+-------+----------+-------------------------------------+
Table 18: Elliptic Curves
7.1.1. Double Coordinate Curves
The traditional way of sending ECs has been to send either both the
x-coordinate and y-coordinate or the x-coordinate and a sign bit for
the y-coordinate. The latter encoding has not been recommended in by
the IETF due to potential IPR issues. However, for operations in
constrained environments, the ability to shrink a message by not
sending the y-coordinate is potentially useful.
For EC keys with both coordinates, the 'kty' "kty" member is set to 2
(EC2). The key parameters defined in this section are summarized in
Table 19. The members that are defined for this key type are:
crv: This contains an identifier of the curve to be used with the
key. The curves defined in this document for this key type can
be found in Table 18. Other curves may be registered in the
future, and private curves can be used as well.
x: This contains the x-coordinate for the EC point. The integer is
converted to a byte string as defined in [SEC1]. Leading zero Leading-zero
octets MUST be preserved.
y: This contains either the sign bit or the value of the
y-coordinate for the EC point. When encoding the value y, the
integer is converted to an a byte string (as defined in [SEC1]) and
encoded as a CBOR bstr. Leading zero Leading-zero octets MUST be preserved. The compressed
Compressed point encoding is also supported. Compute the sign
bit as laid out in the Elliptic-Curve-Point-to-
Octet-String Elliptic-Curve-Point-to-Octet-String
Conversion function of [SEC1]. If the sign bit is zero, then
encode y as a CBOR false value; otherwise, encode y as a CBOR
true value. The encoding of the infinity point is not
supported.
d: This contains the private key.
For public keys, it is REQUIRED that 'crv', 'x', "crv", "x", and 'y' "y" be present
in the structure. For private keys, it is REQUIRED that 'crv' "crv" and
'd'
"d" be present in the structure. For private keys, it is RECOMMENDED
that 'x' "x" and 'y' "y" also be present, but they can be recomputed from the
required elements elements, and omitting them saves on space.
+======+======+=======+========+=================================+
| Key | Name | Label | CBOR | Description |
| Type | | | Type | |
+======+======+=======+========+=================================+
| 2 | crv | -1 | int / | EC identifier - -- Taken from the |
| | | | tstr | "COSE Elliptic Curves" registry |
+------+------+-------+--------+---------------------------------+
| 2 | x | -2 | bstr | x-coordinate |
+------+------+-------+--------+---------------------------------+
| 2 | y | -3 | bstr / | y-coordinate |
| | | | bool | |
+------+------+-------+--------+---------------------------------+
| 2 | d | -4 | bstr | Private key |
+------+------+-------+--------+---------------------------------+
Table 19: EC Key Parameters
7.2. Octet Key Pair
A new key type is defined for Octet Key Pairs (OKP). (OKPs). Do not assume
that keys using this type are elliptic curves. This key type could
be used for other curve types (for example, mathematics based on
hyper-elliptic surfaces).
The key parameters defined in this section are summarized in
Table 20. The members that are defined for this key type are:
crv: This contains an identifier of the curve to be used with the
key. The curves defined in this document for this key type can
be found in Table 18. Other curves may be registered in the
future
future, and private curves can be used as well.
x: This contains the public key. The byte string contains the
public key as defined by the algorithm. (For X25519, internally
it is a little-endian integer.)
d: This contains the private key.
For public keys, it is REQUIRED that 'crv' "crv" and 'x' "x" be present in the
structure. For private keys, it is REQUIRED that 'crv' "crv" and 'd' "d" be
present in the structure. For private keys, it is RECOMMENDED that
'x'
"x" also be present, but it can be recomputed from the required
elements
elements, and omitting it saves on space.
+======+==========+=======+=======+=================================+
| Name | Key | Label | Type | Description |
| | Type | | | |
+======+==========+=======+=======+=================================+
| crv | 1 | -1 | int / | EC identifier - -- Taken from the |
| | | | tstr | "COSE Elliptic Curves" registry |
+------+----------+-------+-------+---------------------------------+
| x | 1 | -2 | bstr | Public Key |
+------+----------+-------+-------+---------------------------------+
| d | 1 | -4 | bstr | Private key |
+------+----------+-------+-------+---------------------------------+
Table 20: Octet Key Pair Parameters
7.3. Symmetric Keys
Occasionally
Occasionally, it is required that a symmetric key be transported
between entities. This key structure allows for that to happen.
For symmetric keys, the 'kty' "kty" member is set to 4 ('Symmetric'). ("Symmetric"). The
member that is defined for this key type is:
k: This contains the value of the key.
This key structure does not have a form that contains only public
members. As it is expected that this key structure is going to be
transmitted, care must be taken that it is never transmitted
accidentally or insecurely. For symmetric keys, it is REQUIRED that
'k'
"k" be present in the structure.
+======+==========+=======+======+=============+
| Name | Key Type | Label | Type | Description |
+======+==========+=======+======+=============+
| k | 4 | -1 | bstr | Key Value |
+------+----------+-------+------+-------------+
Table 21: Symmetric Key Parameters Parameter
8. COSE Capabilities
There are some
Some situations that have been identified where identification of
capabilities of an algorithm or a key type need needs to be specified.
One example of this is in
[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm] [OSCORE-GROUPCOMM], where the capabilities
of the counter signature algorithm are mixed into the traffic key derivation
process. process of
traffic-key derivation. This has a counterpart in the S/MIME specifications
specifications, where SMIMECapabilities is defined in Section 2.5a.2 2.5.2
of [RFC8551]. This document defines the same concept for COSE.
The algorithm identifier is not included in the capabilities data data, as
it should be encoded elsewhere in the message. The key type
identifier is included in the capabilities data data, as it is not
expected to be encoded elsewhere.
Two different types of capabilities are defined: capabilities for
algorithms and capabilities for key type. Once defined by
registration with IANA, the list of capabilities for an algorithm or
key type is immutable. If it is later found that a new capability is
needed for a key type or an algorithm, it will require that a new code
point be assigned to deal with that. As a general rule, the
capabilities are going to map to algorithm-specific header parameters
or key parameters, but they do not need to do so. An example of this
is the HSS-LMS key capabilities defined below below, where the hash
algorithm used is included.
The capability structure is an array of values, values; the values included
in the structure are dependent on a specific algorithm or key type.
For algorithm capabilities, the first element should always be a key
type value if applicable, but the items that are specific to a key
(for example example, a curve) should not be included in the algorithm
capabilities. This means that if one wishes to enumerate all of the
capabilities for a device which that implements ECDH, it requires that all
of the combinations of algorithms and key pairs to be specified. The
last example of Section 8.3 provides a case where this is done by
allowing for a cross product to be specified between an array of
algorithm capabilities and key type capabilities (see ECDH-ES+A25KW the ECDH-
ES+A25KW element). For a key, the first element should be the key
type value. While this means that the key type value will be
duplicated if both an algorithm and key capability are used, the key
type is needed in order to understand the rest of the values.
8.1. Assignments for Existing Algorithms
For the current set of algorithms in the registry, those in this
document as well as those in [RFC8230] and [I-D.ietf-cose-hash-sig], [RFC8778], the
capabilities list is an array with one element, the key type (from
the "COSE Key Types" Registry). registry). It is expected that future
registered algorithms could have zero, one, or multiple elements.
8.2. Assignments for Existing Key Types
There are a number of pre-existing key types, types; the following deals
with creating the capability definition for those structures:
* OKP, EC2: The list of capabilities is:
- The key type value. (1 for OKP or 2 for EC2.)
- One curve for that key type from the "COSE Elliptic Curve" Curves"
registry.
* RSA: The list of capabilities is:
- The key type value (3).
* Symmetric: The list of capabilities is:
- The key type value (4).
* HSS-LMS: The list of capabilities is:
- The key type value (5), (5).
- Algorithm identifier for the underlying hash function from the
"COSE Algorithms" registry.
8.3. Examples
Capabilities can be use used in a key derivation process to make sure
that both sides are using the same parameters. This is the approach
that is being used by the group communication KDF in
[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm].
[OSCORE-GROUPCOMM]. The three examples below show different ways
that one might include things:
* Just Only an algorithm capability: This is useful if the protocol wants
to require a specific algorithm algorithm, such as ECDSA, but it is agnostic
about which curve is being used. This does require requires that the algorithm
identifier be specified in the protocol. See the first example.
* Just Only a key type capability: This is useful if the protccol protocol wants
to require a specific a specific key type and curve, such as P-256, but will
accept any algorithm using that curve (e.g. (e.g., both ECDSA and ECDH).
See the second example.
* Both an algorithm and a key type capability: capabilities: This is used if the
protocol needs to nail down all of the options surrounding an
algorithm E.g. -- e.g., EdDSA with the curve X25519. As with the first
example, the algorithm identifier needs to be specified in the
protocol. See the third example example, which just concatenates the two
capabilities together.
Algorithm ECDSA
0x8102 / [2 \ EC2 \ ] /
Key type EC2 with P-256 curve:
0x820201 / [2 \ EC2 \, 1 \ P-256 \] /
ECDH-ES + A256KW with an X25519 curve:
0x8101820104 / [1 \ OKP \],[1 \ OKP \, 4 \ X25519 \] /
The capabilities can also be used by and an entity to advertise what it
is capabable capable of doing. The decoded example below is one of many
encoding
encodings that could be used for that purpose. Each array element
includes three fields: the algorithm identifier, one or more
algorithm capabilities, and one or more key type capabilities.
[
[-8 / EdDSA /,
[1 / OKP key type /],
[
[1 / OKP /, 6 / Ed25519 / ],
[1 /OKP/, 7 /Ed448 /]
]
],
[-7 / ECDSA with SHA-256/,
[2 /EC2 key type/],
[
[2 /EC2/, 1 /P-256/],
[2 /EC2/, 3 /P-521/]
]
],
[ -31 / ECDH-ES+A256KW/,
[
[ 2 /EC2/],
[1 /OKP/ ]
],
[
[2 /EC2/, 1 /P-256/],
[1 /OKP/, 4 / X25519/ ]
]
],
[ 1 / A128GCM /,
[ 4 / Symmetric / ],
[ 4 / Symmetric /]
]
]
Examining the above:
* The first element indicates that the entity supports EdDSA with
curves Ed25519 and Ed448.
* The second element indicates that the entity supports ECDSA with
curves P-256 and P-521.
* The third element indicates that the entity support supports ephemeral-
static ECDH using AES256 key wrap. The entity can support the
P-256 curve with an EC2 key type and the X25519 curve with an OKP
key type.
* The last element indicates that the entity supports AES-GCM of 128
bits for content encryption.
The entity does not advertise that it supports any MAC algorithms.
9. CBOR Encoding Restrictions
This document limits the restrictions it imposes on how the CBOR
Encoder
encoder needs to work. It has been narrowed down to the following
restrictions:
* The restriction applies to the encoding of the COSE_KDF_Context.
* Encoding MUST be done using definite lengths lengths, and the length of
the MUST be the minimum possible length. This means that the
integer 1 is encoded as "0x01" and not "0x1801".
* Applications MUST NOT generate messages with the same label used
twice as a key in a single map. Applications MUST NOT parse and
process messages with the same label used twice as a key in a
single map. Applications can enforce the parse and process parse-and-process
requirement by using parsers that will either fail the parse step
or by
using parsers that will pass all keys to the application, and the application can
perform the check for duplicate keys.
10. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to updte ll has updated all COSE registeries registries except for "COSE Header Parmeters"
Parameters" and "COSE Key Common Parameters" from [RFC8152] to
[[This document]]. point to this
document instead of [RFC8152].
10.1. Changes to the "COSE Key Types" registry. Registry
IANA is requested to create has added a new column in the "COSE Key Types" registry. The
new column is to be labeled "Capabilities". The new
column is to be "Capabilities" and has been populated according
to the entries in Table 22.
+=======+===========+==========================+
| Value | Name | Capabilities |
+=======+===========+==========================+
| 1 | OKP | [kty(1), crv] |
+-------+-----------+--------------------------+
| 2 | EC2 | [kty(2), crv] |
+-------+-----------+--------------------------+
| 3 | RSA | [kty(3)] |
+-------+-----------+--------------------------+
| 4 | Symmetric | [kty(4)] |
+-------+-----------+--------------------------+
| 5 | HSS-LMS | [kty(5), hash algorithm] |
+-------+-----------+--------------------------+
Table 22: Key Type Capabilities
10.2. Changes to the "COSE Algorithms" registry Registry
IANA is requested to create has added a new column in the "COSE Algorithms" registry. The
new column is to be labeled "Capabilities". The new
column is "Capabilities" and has been populated with
"[kty]" for all current, non-provisional, nonprovisional registrations. It is
expected that the documents which that define those algorithms will be
expanded to include this registration. If this is not done done, then the Designated Expert
designated expert should be consulted before final registration for
this document is done.
IANA is requested to update has updated the reference Reference column in the "COSE Algorithms"
registry to include [[This Document]] this document as a reference for all rows where
it is was not already present.
IANA is requested to add has added a new row to the "COSE Algorithms" registry.
+==========+===============+=============+============+=============+
|Name
+============+===============+=============+==========+=============+
| Name | Value |Description | Reference |Reference | Recommended |
+==========+===============+=============+============+=============+
|IV
+============+===============+=============+==========+=============+
| IV | IV-GENERATION |For doing IV | [[THIS |RFC 9053 | No |
|Generation|
| Generation | |generation | DOCUMENT]] | |
| | |for symmetric| | |
| | |algorithms. | | |
+----------+---------------+-------------+------------+-------------+
+------------+---------------+-------------+----------+-------------+
Table 23
The capabilities Capabilities column for this registration is to be empty.
10.3. Changes to the "COSE Key Type Parameters" registry Registry
IANA is requested to modify the description to "Public Key" for the
line with "Key Type" of 2 and the "Name" of "x". See Table 20 20, which
has been modified with this change.
10.4. Expert Review Instructions
All of the IANA registries established by [RFC8152] are, at least in
part, defined as expert review. Expert Review. This section gives some general
guidelines for what the experts should be looking for, but they are
being designated as experts for a reason, so they should be given
substantial latitude.
Expert reviewers should take into consideration the following points:
* Point squatting should be discouraged. Reviewers are encouraged
to get sufficient information for registration requests to ensure
that the usage is not going to duplicate one that is already
registered, and that the point is likely to be used in
deployments. The zones tagged as private use are intended for
testing purposes and closed environments; code points in other
ranges should not be assigned for testing.
* Specifications are required for the standards track Standards Track range of point
assignment.
assignments. Specifications should exist for specification
required Specification
Required ranges, but early assignment before a specification is
available is considered to be permissible. Specifications are
needed for the first-come, first-serve range if they the points are
expected to be used outside of closed environments in an
interoperable way. When specifications are not provided, the
description provided needs to have sufficient information to
identify what the point is being used for.
* Experts should take into account the expected usage of fields when
approving point assignment. The fact that there is a range for
standards track
Standards Track documents does not mean that a standards track Standards Track
document cannot have points assigned outside of that range. The
length of the encoded value should be weighed against how many
code points of that length are left, the size of device it will be
used on, and the number of code points left that encode to that
size.
* When algorithms are registered, vanity registrations should be
discouraged. One way to do this is to require registrations to
provide additional documentation on security analysis of the
algorithm. Another thing that should be considered is requesting
an opinion on the algorithm from the Crypto Forum Research Group
(CFRG). Algorithms that do not meet the security requirements of
the community and the messages message structures should not be registered.
11. Security Considerations
There are a number of security considerations that need to be taken
into account by implementers of this specification. The security
considerations that are specific to an individual algorithm are
placed next to the description of the algorithm. While some
considerations have been highlighted here, additional considerations
may be found in the documents listed in the references.
Implementations need to protect the private key material for any
individuals. There are some Some cases in this document that need to be highlighted on with
regard to this issue.
* Using Use of the same key for two different algorithms can leak
information about the key. It is therefore recommended that keys
be restricted to a single algorithm.
* Use of 'direct' "direct" as a recipient algorithm combined with a second
recipient algorithm exposes the direct key to the second
recipient.
* Several of the algorithms in this document have limits on the
number of times that a key can be used without leaking information
about the key.
The use of ECDH and direct plus KDF (with no key wrap) will not
directly lead to the private key being leaked; the one way one-way function
of the KDF will prevent that. There is, however, a different issue
that needs to be addressed. Having two recipients requires that the
CEK be shared between two recipients. The second recipient therefore
has a CEK that was derived from material that can be used for the
weak proof of origin. The second recipient could create a message
using the same CEK and send it to the first recipient; the first
recipient would, for either static-static ECDH or direct plus KDF,
make an assumption that the CEK could be used for proof of origin
even though it is from the wrong entity. If the key wrap step is
added, then no proof of origin is implied and this is not an issue.
Although it has been mentioned before, the use of a single key for
multiple algorithms has been demonstrated in some cases to leak
information about a key, provide providing the opportunity for attackers to
forge integrity tags, tags or gain information about encrypted content.
Binding a key to a single algorithm prevents these problems. Key
creators and key consumers are strongly encouraged to not only to create
new keys for each different algorithm, but to include that selection of
algorithm in any distribution of key material and strictly enforce
the matching of algorithms in the key structure to algorithms in the
message structure. In addition to checking that algorithms are
correct, the key form needs to be checked as well. Do not use an
'EC2'
"EC2" key where an 'OKP' "OKP" key is expected.
Before using a key for transmission, or before acting on information
received, a trust decision on a key needs to be made. Is the data or
action something that the entity associated with the key has a right
to see or a right to request? A number of factors are associated
with this trust decision. Some of the ones that are highlighted here are:
* What are the permissions associated with the key owner?
* Is the cryptographic algorithm acceptable in the current context?
* Have the restrictions associated with the key, such as algorithm
or freshness, been checked checked, and are they correct?
* Is the request something that is reasonable, given the current
state of the application?
* Have any security considerations that are part of the message been
enforced (as specified by the application or 'crit' "crit" parameter)?
There are a large number of algorithms presented in this document
that use nonce values. For all of the nonces defined in this
document, there is some type of restriction on the nonce being a
unique value either for either a key or for some other conditions. In all of
these cases, there is no known requirement on the nonce being both
unique and unpredictable; under these circumstances, it's reasonable
to use a counter for creation of the nonce. In cases where one wants
the pattern of the nonce to be unpredictable as well as unique, one
can use a key created for that purpose and encrypt the counter to
produce the nonce value.
One area that has been getting exposure is traffic analysis of
encrypted messages based on the length of the message. This
specification does not provide for a uniform method of providing padding
as part of the message structure. An observer can distinguish
between two different messages (for example, 'YES' "YES" and
'NO') "NO") based on
the length for all of the content encryption algorithms that are
defined in this document. This means that it is up to the
applications to document how content padding is to be done done, in order
to prevent or discourage such analysis. (For example, the text
strings could be defined as 'YES' "YES" and 'NO '.) "NO".)
The analsys analysis done in [I-D.ietf-quic-tls] [RFC9001] is based on the number of
records/packets records/
packets that are sent. This should map well to the number of
messages sent when use COSE using COSE, so that analysis should hold here as
well. It needs to be noted that the limits are based on the number
of messages, but QUIC and DTLS are always pair-wise based endpoints,
[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm] pairwise-based endpoints
[OSCORE-GROUPCOMM] and use COSE in a group communication. Under
these circumstances circumstances, it may be that no one single entity will see all
of the messages that are encrypted an encrypted, and therefore no single entity
can trigger the rekey operation.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]
Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing
[AES-GCM] Dworkin, M., "Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of
Operation: Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) and Encryption (COSE):
Structures GMAC", NIST
Special Publication 800-38D, DOI 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-38D,
November 2007, <https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/
nistpubs/800-38D/SP-800-38D.pdf>.
[DSS] National Institute of Standards and Process", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct-13, 4 September 2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-
struct-13>. Technology, "Digital
Signature Standard (DSS)", FIPS PUB 186-4,
DOI 10.6028/NIST.FIPS.186-4, July 2013,
<https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/FIPS/
NIST.FIPS.186-4.pdf>.
[MAC] Menezes, A., van Oorschot, P., and S. Vanstone, "Handbook
of Applied Cryptography", CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1996,
<https://cacr.uwaterloo.ca/hac/>.
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104>.
[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>.
[RFC3394] Schaad, J. and R. Housley, "Advanced Encryption Standard
(AES) Key Wrap Algorithm", RFC 3394, DOI 10.17487/RFC3394,
September 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3394>.
[RFC3610] Whiting, D., Housley, R., and N. Ferguson, "Counter with
CBC-MAC (CCM)", RFC 3610, DOI 10.17487/RFC3610, September
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3610>.
[RFC5869] Krawczyk, H. and P. Eronen, "HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand
Key Derivation Function (HKDF)", RFC 5869,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5869, May 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5869>.
[RFC6090] McGrew, D., Igoe, K., and M. Salter, "Fundamental Elliptic
Curve Cryptography Algorithms", RFC 6090,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6090, February 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6090>.
[RFC6979] Pornin, T., "Deterministic Usage of the Digital Signature
Algorithm (DSA) and Elliptic Curve Digital Signature
Algorithm (ECDSA)", RFC 6979, DOI 10.17487/RFC6979, August
2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6979>.
[RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.
[RFC8439] Nir, Y. and A. Langley, "ChaCha20 and Poly1305 for IETF
Protocols", RFC 8439, DOI 10.17487/RFC8439, June 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8439>.
[RFC7748] Langley, A., Hamburg, M., and S. Turner, "Elliptic Curves
for Security", RFC 7748, DOI 10.17487/RFC7748, January
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7748>.
[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>.
[RFC8032] Josefsson, S. and I. Liusvaara, "Edwards-Curve Digital
Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)", RFC 8032,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8032, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8032>.
[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>.
[AES-GCM] National Institute of Standards
[RFC8439] Nir, Y. and Technology,
"Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of Operation:
Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) A. Langley, "ChaCha20 and GMAC", Poly1305 for IETF
Protocols", RFC 8439, DOI 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-38D, NIST Special
Publication 800-38D, November 2007,
<https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-38D/SP-
800-38D.pdf>.
[DSS] National Institute of Standards 10.17487/RFC8439, June 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8439>.
[RFC8949] Bormann, C. and Technology, "Digital
Signature Standard (DSS)", P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
DOI 10.6028/NIST.FIPS.186-4,
FIPS PUB 186-4, July 2013,
<http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/FIPS/
NIST.FIPS.186-4.pdf>.
[MAC] Menees, A., van Oorschot, P., 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.
[RFC9052] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and S. Vanstone, "Handbook
of Applied Cryptography", 1996. Encryption (COSE):
Structures and Process", STD 96, RFC 9052,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9052, July 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9052>.
[SEC1] Certicom Research, "SEC 1: Elliptic Curve Cryptography",
Standards for Efficient Cryptography, May 2009, <http://www.secg.org/sec1-v2.pdf>.
[RFC8032] Josefsson, S. and I. Liusvaara, "Edwards-Curve Digital
Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)", RFC 8032,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8032, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8032>.
[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>.
<https://www.secg.org/sec1-v2.pdf>.
12.2. Informative References
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B.,
[CFRG-DET-SIGS]
Mattsson, J. P., Thormarker, E., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section S. Ruohomaa,
"Deterministic ECDSA and EdDSA Signatures with Additional
Randomness", Work in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
mattsson-cfrg-det-sigs-with-noise-02, 11 March 2020,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mattsson-
cfrg-det-sigs-with-noise-02>.
[GitHub-Examples]
"GitHub Examples of COSE", commit 3221310, 3 June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8610] Birkholz, 2020,
<https://github.com/cose-wg/Examples>.
[HKDF] Krawczyk, H., Vigano, C., "Cryptographic Extraction and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Key
Derivation: The HKDF Scheme", 2010,
<https://eprint.iacr.org/2010/264.pdf>.
[OSCORE-GROUPCOMM]
Tiloca, M., Selander, G., Palombini, F., Mattsson, J. P.,
and
JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>. J. Park, "Group OSCORE - Secure Group Communication
for CoAP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
core-oscore-groupcomm-11, 22 February 2021,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-
oscore-groupcomm-11>.
[RFC4231] Nystrom, M., "Identifiers and Test Vectors for HMAC-SHA-
224, HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-384, and HMAC-SHA-512",
RFC 4231, DOI 10.17487/RFC4231, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4231>.
[RFC4493] Song, JH., Poovendran, R., Lee, J., and T. Iwata, "The
AES-CMAC Algorithm", RFC 4493, DOI 10.17487/RFC4493, June
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4493>.
[RFC5116] McGrew, D., "An Interface and Algorithms for Authenticated
Encryption", RFC 5116, DOI 10.17487/RFC5116, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5116>.
[RFC5480] Turner, S., Brown, D., Yiu, K., Housley, R., and T. Polk,
"Elliptic Curve Cryptography Subject Public Key
Information", RFC 5480, DOI 10.17487/RFC5480, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5480>.
[RFC6151] Turner, S. and L. Chen, "Updated Security Considerations
for the MD5 Message-Digest and the HMAC-MD5 Algorithms",
RFC 6151, DOI 10.17487/RFC6151, March 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6151>.
[STD90] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, December 2017.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std90>
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
[RFC7518] Jones, M., "JSON Web Algorithms (JWA)", RFC 7518,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7518, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7518>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8152] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",
RFC 8152, DOI 10.17487/RFC8152, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8152>.
[RFC8230] Jones, M., "Using RSA Algorithms with CBOR Object Signing
and Encryption (COSE) Messages", RFC 8230,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8230, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8230>.
[RFC8551] Schaad, J., Ramsdell, B., and S. Turner, "Secure/
Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 4.0
Message Specification", RFC 8551, DOI 10.17487/RFC8551,
April 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8551>.
[RFC8230] Jones, M., "Using RSA Algorithms with CBOR
[RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
Express Concise Binary Object Signing Representation (CBOR) and Encryption (COSE) Messages",
JSON Data Structures", RFC 8230, 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8230, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8230>.
[I-D.ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm]
Tiloca, M., Selander, G., Palombini, F., and J. Park,
"Group OSCORE - Secure Group Communication for CoAP", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-oscore-
groupcomm-09, 23 10.17487/RFC8610,
June 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/
draft-ietf-core-oscore-groupcomm-09>.
[I-D.ietf-cose-hash-sig] 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.
[RFC8778] Housley, R., "Use of the HSS/LMS Hash-based Hash-Based Signature
Algorithm with CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",
Work
RFC 8778, DOI 10.17487/RFC8778, April 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8778>.
[RFC9001] Thomson, M., Ed. and S. Turner, Ed., "Using TLS to Secure
QUIC", RFC 9001, DOI 10.17487/RFC9001, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9001>.
[ROBUST] Fischlin, M., Günther, F., and C. Janson, "Robust
Channels: Handling Unreliable Networks in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-cose-hash-
sig-09, 11 December 2019,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cose-hash-sig-09>.
[SP800-38d] the Record
Layers of QUIC and DTLS", February 2020,
<https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/718.pdf>.
[SP800-38D]
Dworkin, M., "Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of
Operation: Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) and GMAC", NIST
Special Publication 800-38D , 800-38D, November 2007,
<https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/
nistspecialpublication800-38d.pdf>.
[SP800-56A]
Barker, E., Chen, L., Roginsky, A., and M. Smid,
"Recommendation for Pair-Wise Key Establishment Schemes
Using Discrete Logarithm Cryptography",
DOI 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-56Ar2, NIST Special
Publication 800-56A, Revision 2,
DOI 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-56Ar2, May 2013,
<http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/
<https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/
NIST.SP.800-56Ar2.pdf>.
[GitHub-Examples]
"GitHub Examples of COSE",
<https://github.com/cose-wg/Examples>.
[I-D.mattsson-cfrg-det-sigs-with-noise]
Mattsson, J., Thormarker, E., and S. Ruohomaa,
"Deterministic ECDSA and EdDSA Signatures with Additional
Randomness", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
mattsson-cfrg-det-sigs-with-noise-02, 11 March 2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mattsson-cfrg-det-sigs-
with-noise-02>.
[HKDF] Krawczyk, H., "Cryptographic Extraction and Key
Derivation: The HKDF Scheme", 2010,
<https://eprint.iacr.org/2010/264.pdf>.
[ROBUST] Fischlin, M., Günther, F., and C. Janson, "Robust
Channels: Handling Unreliable Networks in the Record
Layers of QUIC and DTLS", February 2020,
<https://www.felixguenther.info/docs/
QUIP2020_RobustChannels.pdf>.
[I-D.ietf-quic-tls]
Thomson, M. and S. Turner, "Using TLS to Secure QUIC",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-quic-tls-30,
9 September 2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-tls-30>.
[STD90] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std90>.
Acknowledgments
This document is a product of the COSE working group Working Group of the IETF.
The following individuals are to blame for getting me started on this
project in the first place: Richard Barnes, Matt Miller, and Martin
Thomson.
The initial draft version of the specification was based to some
degree on the outputs of the JOSE and S/MIME working groups. Working Groups.
The following individuals provided input into the final form of the
document: Carsten Bormann, John Bradley, Brain Brian Campbell, Michael
B. Jones, Ilari Liusvaara, Francesca Palombini, Ludwig Seitz, and
Göran
Göran Selander.
Author's Address
Jim Schaad
August Cellars
Email: ietf@augustcellars.com