doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 395 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc2404.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc2404.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..836e6b1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc2404.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,395 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                          C. Madson
+Request for Comments: 2404                            Cisco Systems Inc.
+Category: Standards Track                                       R. Glenn
+                                                                    NIST
+                                                           November 1998
+
+
+               The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP and AH
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
+   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
+   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
+   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
+   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This memo describes the use of the HMAC algorithm [RFC-2104] in
+   conjunction with the SHA-1 algorithm [FIPS-180-1] as an
+   authentication mechanism within the revised IPSEC Encapsulating
+   Security Payload [ESP] and the revised IPSEC Authentication Header
+   [AH]. HMAC with SHA-1 provides data origin authentication and
+   integrity protection.
+
+   Further information on the other components necessary for ESP and AH
+   implementations is provided by [Thayer97a].
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   This memo specifies the use of SHA-1 [FIPS-180-1] combined with HMAC
+   [RFC-2104] as a keyed authentication mechanism within the context of
+   the Encapsulating Security Payload and the Authentication Header.
+   The goal of HMAC-SHA-1-96 is to ensure that the packet is authentic
+   and cannot be modified in transit.
+
+   HMAC is a secret key authentication algorithm. Data integrity and
+   data origin authentication as provided by HMAC are dependent upon the
+   scope of the distribution of the secret key. If only the source and
+   destination know the HMAC key, this provides both data origin
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Madson & Glenn              Standards Track                     [Page 1]
+
+RFC 2404       The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP and AH  November 1998
+
+
+   authentication and data integrity for packets sent between the two
+   parties; if the HMAC is correct, this proves that it must have been
+   added by the source.
+
+   In this memo, HMAC-SHA-1-96 is used within the context of ESP and AH.
+   For further information on how the various pieces of ESP - including
+   the confidentiality mechanism -- fit together to provide security
+   services, refer to [ESP] and [Thayer97a]. For further information on
+   AH, refer to [AH] and [Thayer97a].
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119].
+
+2. Algorithm and Mode
+
+   [FIPS-180-1] describes the underlying SHA-1 algorithm, while [RFC-
+   2104] describes the HMAC algorithm. The HMAC algorithm provides a
+   framework for inserting various hashing algorithms such as SHA-1.
+
+   HMAC-SHA-1-96 operates on 64-byte blocks of data.  Padding
+   requirements are specified in [FIPS-180-1] and are part of the SHA-1
+   algorithm.  If you build SHA-1 according to [FIPS-180-1] you do not
+   need to add any additional padding as far as HMAC-SHA-1-96 is
+   concerned.  With regard to "implicit packet padding" as defined in
+   [AH] no implicit packet padding is required.
+
+   HMAC-SHA-1-96 produces a 160-bit authenticator value.  This 160-bit
+   value can be truncated as described in RFC2104.  For use with either
+   ESP or AH, a truncated value using the first 96 bits MUST be
+   supported.  Upon sending, the truncated value is stored within the
+   authenticator field.  Upon receipt, the entire 160-bit value is
+   computed and the first 96 bits are compared to the value stored in
+   the authenticator field.  No other authenticator value lengths are
+   supported by HMAC-SHA-1-96.
+
+   The length of 96 bits was selected because it is the default
+   authenticator length as specified in [AH] and meets the security
+   requirements described in [RFC-2104].
+
+2.1  Performance
+
+   [Bellare96a] states that "(HMAC) performance is essentially that of
+   the underlying hash function".  As of this writing no detailed
+   performance analysis has been done of SHA-1, HMAC or HMAC combined
+   with SHA-1.
+
+
+
+
+
+Madson & Glenn              Standards Track                     [Page 2]
+
+RFC 2404       The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP and AH  November 1998
+
+
+   [RFC-2104] outlines an implementation modification which can improve
+   per-packet performance without affecting interoperability.
+
+3. Keying Material
+
+   HMAC-SHA-1-96 is a secret key algorithm. While no fixed key length is
+   specified in [RFC-2104], for use with either ESP or AH a fixed key
+   length of 160-bits MUST be supported.  Key lengths other than 160-
+   bits MUST NOT be supported (i.e. only 160-bit keys are to be used by
+   HMAC-SHA-1-96).  A key length of 160-bits was chosen based on the
+   recommendations in [RFC-2104] (i.e. key lengths less than the
+   authenticator length decrease security strength and keys longer than
+   the authenticator length do not significantly increase security
+   strength).
+
+   [RFC-2104] discusses requirements for key material, which includes a
+   discussion on requirements for strong randomness.  A strong pseudo-
+   random function MUST be used to generate the required 160-bit key.
+
+   At the time of this writing there are no specified weak keys for use
+   with HMAC.  This does not mean to imply that weak keys do not exist.
+   If, at some point, a set of weak keys for HMAC are identified, the
+   use of these weak keys must be rejected followed by a request for
+   replacement keys or a newly negotiated Security Association.
+
+   [ARCH] describes the general mechanism for obtaining keying material
+   when multiple keys are required for a single SA (e.g. when an ESP SA
+   requires a key for confidentiality and a key for authentication).
+
+   In order to provide data origin authentication, the key distribution
+   mechanism must ensure that unique keys are allocated and that they
+   are distributed only to the parties participating in the
+   communication.
+
+   [RFC-2104] makes the following recommendation with regard to
+   rekeying.  Current attacks do not indicate a specific recommended
+   frequency for key changes as these attacks are practically
+   infeasible.  However, periodic key refreshment is a fundamental
+   security practice that helps against potential weaknesses of the
+   function and keys, reduces the information avaliable to a
+   cryptanalyst, and limits the damage of an exposed key.
+
+4.  Interaction with the ESP Cipher Mechanism
+
+   As of this writing, there are no known issues which preclude the use
+   of the HMAC-SHA-1-96 algorithm with any specific cipher algorithm.
+
+
+
+
+
+Madson & Glenn              Standards Track                     [Page 3]
+
+RFC 2404       The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP and AH  November 1998
+
+
+5.  Security Considerations
+
+   The security provided by HMAC-SHA-1-96 is based upon the strength of
+   HMAC, and to a lesser degree, the strength of SHA-1.  At the time of
+   this writing there are no practical cryptographic attacks against
+   HMAC-SHA-1-96.
+
+   [RFC-2104] states that for "minimally reasonable hash functions" the
+   "birthday attack" is impractical.  For a 64-byte block hash such as
+   HMAC-SHA-1-96, an attack involving the successful processing of 2**80
+   blocks would be infeasible unless it were discovered that the
+   underlying hash had collisions after processing 2**30 blocks.  A hash
+   with such weak collision-resistance characteristics would generally
+   be considered to be unusable.
+
+   It is also important to consider that while SHA-1 was never developed
+   to be used as a keyed hash algorithm, HMAC had that criteria from the
+   onset.
+
+   [RFC-2104] also discusses the potential additional security which is
+   provided by the truncation of the resulting hash. Specifications
+   which include HMAC are strongly encouraged to perform this hash
+   truncation.
+
+   As [RFC-2104] provides a framework for incorporating various hash
+   algorithms with HMAC, it is possible to replace SHA-1 with other
+   algorithms such as MD5. [RFC-2104] contains a detailed discussion on
+   the strengths and weaknesses of HMAC algorithms.
+
+   As is true with any cryptographic algorithm, part of its strength
+   lies in the correctness of the algorithm implementation, the security
+   of the key management mechanism and its implementation, the strength
+   of the associated secret key, and upon the correctness of the
+   implementation in all of the participating systems.  [RFC-2202]
+   contains test vectors and example code to assist in verifying the
+   correctness of HMAC-SHA-1-96 code.
+
+6.  Acknowledgments
+
+   This document is derived in part from previous works by Jim Hughes,
+   those people that worked with Jim on the combined DES/CBC+HMAC-MD5
+   ESP transforms, the ANX bakeoff participants, and the members of the
+   IPsec working group.
+
+   We would also like to thank Hugo Krawczyk for his comments and
+   recommendations regarding some of the cryptographic specific text in
+   this document.
+
+
+
+
+Madson & Glenn              Standards Track                     [Page 4]
+
+RFC 2404       The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP and AH  November 1998
+
+
+7.  References
+
+   [FIPS-180-1] NIST, FIPS PUB 180-1: Secure Hash Standard,
+                April 1995.
+                http://csrc.nist.gov/fips/fip180-1.txt (ascii)
+                http://csrc.nist.gov/fips/fip180-1.ps  (postscript)
+
+   [RFC-2104]   Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M. and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
+                Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, February
+                1997.
+
+   [Bellare96a] Bellare, M., Canetti, R., and H. Krawczyk, "Keying Hash
+                Functions for Message Authentication", Advances in
+                Cryptography, Crypto96 Proceeding, June 1996.
+
+   [ARCH]       Kent, S., and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for
+                the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.
+
+   [ESP]        Kent, S., and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Security
+                Payload", RFC 2406, November 1998.
+
+   [AH]         Kent, S., and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header",
+                RFC 2402, November 1998.
+
+   [Thayer97a]  Thayer, R., Doraswamy, N., and R. Glenn, "IP Security
+                Document Roadmap", RFC 2411, November 1998.
+
+   [RFC-2202]   Cheng, P., and R. Glenn, "Test Cases for HMAC-MD5 and
+                HMAC-SHA-1", RFC 2202, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC-2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+                Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+8.  Editors' Address
+
+   Cheryl Madson
+   Cisco Systems, Inc.
+
+   EMail: cmadson@cisco.com
+
+
+   Rob Glenn
+   NIST
+
+   EMail: rob.glenn@nist.gov
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Madson & Glenn              Standards Track                     [Page 5]
+
+RFC 2404       The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP and AH  November 1998
+
+
+ The IPsec working group can be contacted through the chairs:
+
+   Robert Moskowitz
+   ICSA
+
+   EMail: rgm@icsa.net
+
+
+   Ted T'so
+   Massachusetts Institute of Technology
+
+   EMail: tytso@mit.edu
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Madson & Glenn              Standards Track                     [Page 6]
+
+RFC 2404       The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP and AH  November 1998
+
+
+9.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
+   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Madson & Glenn              Standards Track                     [Page 7]
+