diff options
| author | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Thomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100 |
| commit | 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch) | |
| tree | e3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc9325.txt | |
| parent | ea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff) | |
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc9325.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc9325.txt | 1994 |
1 files changed, 1994 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc9325.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc9325.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d576168 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc9325.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1994 @@ + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Y. Sheffer +Request for Comments: 9325 Intuit +BCP: 195 P. Saint-Andre +Obsoletes: 7525 Independent +Updates: 5288, 6066 T. Fossati +Category: Best Current Practice ARM Limited +ISSN: 2070-1721 November 2022 + + + Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and + Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) + +Abstract + + Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security + (DTLS) are used to protect data exchanged over a wide range of + application protocols and can also form the basis for secure + transport protocols. Over the years, the industry has witnessed + several serious attacks on TLS and DTLS, including attacks on the + most commonly used cipher suites and their modes of operation. This + document provides the latest recommendations for ensuring the + security of deployed services that use TLS and DTLS. These + recommendations are applicable to the majority of use cases. + + RFC 7525, an earlier version of the TLS recommendations, was + published when the industry was transitioning to TLS 1.2. Years + later, this transition is largely complete, and TLS 1.3 is widely + available. This document updates the guidance given the new + environment and obsoletes RFC 7525. In addition, this document + updates RFCs 5288 and 6066 in view of recent attacks. + +Status of This Memo + + This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice. + + This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force + (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has + received public review and has been approved for publication by the + Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on + BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841. + + Information about the current status of this document, any errata, + and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at + https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9325. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2022 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) 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the + Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described + in the Revised BSD License. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction + 2. Terminology + 3. General Recommendations + 3.1. Protocol Versions + 3.1.1. SSL/TLS Protocol Versions + 3.1.2. DTLS Protocol Versions + 3.1.3. Fallback to Lower Versions + 3.2. Strict TLS + 3.3. Compression + 3.3.1. Certificate Compression + 3.4. TLS Session Resumption + 3.5. Renegotiation in TLS 1.2 + 3.6. Post-Handshake Authentication + 3.7. Server Name Indication (SNI) + 3.8. Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) + 3.9. Multi-Server Deployment + 3.10. Zero Round-Trip Time (0-RTT) Data in TLS 1.3 + 4. Recommendations: Cipher Suites + 4.1. General Guidelines + 4.2. Cipher Suites for TLS 1.2 + 4.2.1. Implementation Details + 4.3. Cipher Suites for TLS 1.3 + 4.4. Limits on Key Usage + 4.5. Public Key Length + 4.6. Truncated HMAC + 5. Applicability Statement + 5.1. Security Services + 5.2. Opportunistic Security + 6. IANA Considerations + 7. Security Considerations + 7.1. Host Name Validation + 7.2. AES-GCM + 7.2.1. Nonce Reuse in TLS 1.2 + 7.3. Forward Secrecy + 7.4. Diffie-Hellman Exponent Reuse + 7.5. Certificate Revocation + 8. References + 8.1. Normative References + 8.2. Informative References + Appendix A. Differences from RFC 7525 + Acknowledgments + Authors' Addresses + +1. Introduction + + Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security + (DTLS) are used to protect data exchanged over a wide variety of + application protocols, including HTTP [RFC9112] [RFC9113], IMAP + [RFC9051], Post Office Protocol (POP) [STD53], SIP [RFC3261], SMTP + [RFC5321], and the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) + [RFC6120]. Such protocols use both the TLS or DTLS handshake + protocol and the TLS or DTLS record layer. Although the TLS + handshake protocol can also be used with different record layers to + define secure transport protocols (the most prominent example is QUIC + [RFC9000]), such transport protocols are not directly in scope for + this document; nevertheless, many of the recommendations here might + apply insofar as such protocols use the TLS handshake protocol. + + Over the years leading to 2015, the industry had witnessed serious + attacks on TLS and DTLS, including attacks on the most commonly used + cipher suites and their modes of operation. For instance, both the + AES-CBC [RFC3602] and RC4 [RFC7465] encryption algorithms, which + together were once the most widely deployed ciphers, were attacked in + the context of TLS. Detailed information about the attacks known + prior to 2015 is provided in a companion document [RFC7457] to the + previous version of the TLS recommendations [RFC7525], which will + help the reader understand the rationale behind the recommendations + provided here. That document has not been updated in concert with + this one; instead, newer attacks are described in this document, as + are mitigations for those attacks. + + The TLS community reacted to the attacks described in [RFC7457] in + several ways: + + * Detailed guidance was published on the use of TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] + and DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347] along with earlier protocol versions. This + guidance is included in the original [RFC7525] and mostly retained + in this revised version; note that this guidance was mostly + adopted by the industry since the publication of RFC 7525 in 2015. + + * Versions of TLS earlier than 1.2 were deprecated [RFC8996]. + + * Version 1.3 of TLS [RFC8446] was released, followed by version 1.3 + of DTLS [RFC9147]; these versions largely mitigate or resolve the + described attacks. + + Those who implement and deploy TLS and TLS-based protocols need + guidance on how they can be used securely. This document provides + guidance for deployed services as well as for software + implementations, assuming the implementer expects their code to be + deployed in the environments defined in Section 5. Concerning + deployment, this document targets a wide audience, namely all + deployers who wish to add authentication (be it one-way only or + mutual), confidentiality, and data integrity protection to their + communications. + + The recommendations herein take into consideration the security of + various mechanisms, their technical maturity and interoperability, + and their prevalence in implementations at the time of writing. + Unless it is explicitly called out that a recommendation applies to + TLS alone or to DTLS alone, each recommendation applies to both TLS + and DTLS. + + This document attempts to minimize new guidance to TLS 1.2 + implementations, and the overall approach is to encourage systems to + move to TLS 1.3. However, this is not always practical. Newly + discovered attacks, as well as ecosystem changes, necessitated some + new requirements that apply to TLS 1.2 environments. Those are + summarized in Appendix A. + + Naturally, future attacks are likely, and this document cannot + address them. Those who implement and deploy TLS/DTLS and protocols + based on TLS/DTLS are strongly advised to pay attention to future + developments. In particular, although it is known that the creation + of quantum computers will have a significant impact on the security + of cryptographic primitives and the technologies that use them, + currently post-quantum cryptography is a work in progress and it is + too early to make recommendations; once the relevant specifications + are standardized in the IETF or elsewhere, this document should be + updated to reflect best practices at that time. + + As noted, the TLS 1.3 specification resolves many of the + vulnerabilities listed in this document. A system that deploys TLS + 1.3 should have fewer vulnerabilities than TLS 1.2 or below. + Therefore, this document replaces [RFC7525], with an explicit goal to + encourage migration of most uses of TLS 1.2 to TLS 1.3. + + These are minimum recommendations for the use of TLS in the vast + majority of implementation and deployment scenarios, with the + exception of unauthenticated TLS (see Section 5). Other + specifications that reference this document can have stricter + requirements related to one or more aspects of the protocol, based on + their particular circumstances (e.g., for use with a specific + application protocol); when that is the case, implementers are + advised to adhere to those stricter requirements. Furthermore, this + document provides a floor, not a ceiling: where feasible, + administrators of services are encouraged to go beyond the minimum + support available in implementations to provide the strongest + security possible. For example, based on knowledge about the + deployed base for an existing application protocol and a cost-benefit + analysis regarding security strength vs. interoperability, a given + service provider might decide to disable TLS 1.2 entirely and offer + only TLS 1.3. + + Community knowledge about the strength of various algorithms and + feasible attacks can change quickly, and experience shows that a Best + Current Practice (BCP) document about security is a point-in-time + statement. Readers are advised to seek out any errata or updates + that apply to this document. + + This document updates [RFC5288] in view of the [Boeck2016] attack. + See Section 7.2.1 for the details. + + This document updates [RFC6066] in view of the [ALPACA] attack. See + Section 3.7 for the details. + +2. Terminology + + A number of security-related terms in this document are used in the + sense defined in [RFC4949], including "attack", "authentication", + "certificate", "cipher", "compromise", "confidentiality", + "credential", "data integrity", "encryption", "forward secrecy", + "key", "key length", "self-signed certificate", "strength", and + "strong". + + 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. + +3. General Recommendations + + This section provides general recommendations on the secure use of + TLS. Recommendations related to cipher suites are discussed in the + following section. + +3.1. Protocol Versions + +3.1.1. SSL/TLS Protocol Versions + + It is important both to stop using old, less secure versions of SSL/ + TLS and to start using modern, more secure versions; therefore, the + following are the recommendations concerning TLS/SSL protocol + versions: + + * Implementations MUST NOT negotiate SSL version 2. + + Rationale: Today, SSLv2 is considered insecure [RFC6176]. + + * Implementations MUST NOT negotiate SSL version 3. + + Rationale: SSLv3 [RFC6101] was an improvement over SSLv2 and + plugged some significant security holes but did not support strong + cipher suites. SSLv3 does not support TLS extensions, some of + which (e.g., renegotiation_info [RFC5746]) are security critical. + In addition, with the emergence of the Padding Oracle On + Downgraded Legacy Encryption (POODLE) attack [POODLE], SSLv3 is + now widely recognized as fundamentally insecure. See [RFC7568] + for further details. + + * Implementations MUST NOT negotiate TLS version 1.0 [RFC2246]. + + Rationale: TLS 1.0 (published in 1999) does not support many + modern, strong cipher suites. In addition, TLS 1.0 lacks a per- + record Initialization Vector (IV) for cipher suites based on + cipher block chaining (CBC) and does not warn against common + padding errors. This and other recommendations in this section + are in line with [RFC8996]. + + * Implementations MUST NOT negotiate TLS version 1.1 [RFC4346]. + + Rationale: TLS 1.1 (published in 2006) is a security improvement + over TLS 1.0 but still does not support certain stronger cipher + suites that were introduced with the standardization of TLS 1.2 in + 2008, including the cipher suites recommended for TLS 1.2 by this + document (see Section 4.2 below). + + * Implementations MUST support TLS 1.2 [RFC5246]. + + Rationale: TLS 1.2 is implemented and deployed more widely than + TLS 1.3 at this time, and when the recommendations in this + document are followed to mitigate known attacks, the use of TLS + 1.2 is as safe as the use of TLS 1.3. In most application + protocols that reuse TLS and DTLS, there is no immediate need to + migrate solely to TLS 1.3. Indeed, because many application + clients are dependent on TLS libraries or operating systems that + do not yet support TLS 1.3, proactively deprecating TLS 1.2 would + introduce significant interoperability issues, thus harming + security more than helping it. Nevertheless, it is expected that + a future version of this BCP will deprecate the use of TLS 1.2 + when it is appropriate to do so. + + * Implementations SHOULD support TLS 1.3 [RFC8446] and, if + implemented, MUST prefer to negotiate TLS 1.3 over earlier + versions of TLS. + + Rationale: TLS 1.3 is a major overhaul to the protocol and + resolves many of the security issues with TLS 1.2. To the extent + that an implementation supports TLS 1.2 (even if it defaults to + TLS 1.3), it MUST follow the recommendations regarding TLS 1.2 + specified in this document. + + * New transport protocols that integrate the TLS/DTLS handshake + protocol and/or record layer MUST use only TLS/DTLS 1.3 (for + instance, QUIC [RFC9001] took this approach). New application + protocols that employ TLS/DTLS for channel or session encryption + MUST integrate with both TLS/DTLS versions 1.2 and 1.3; + nevertheless, in rare cases where broad interoperability is not a + concern, application protocol designers MAY choose to forego TLS + 1.2. + + Rationale: Secure deployment of TLS 1.3 is significantly easier + and less error prone than secure deployment of TLS 1.2. When + designing a new secure transport protocol such as QUIC, there is + no reason to support TLS 1.2. By contrast, new application + protocols that reuse TLS need to support both TLS 1.3 and TLS 1.2 + in order to take advantage of underlying library or operating + system support for both versions. + + This BCP applies to TLS 1.3, TLS 1.2, and earlier versions. It is + not safe for readers to assume that the recommendations in this BCP + apply to any future version of TLS. + +3.1.2. DTLS Protocol Versions + + DTLS, an adaptation of TLS for UDP datagrams, was introduced when TLS + 1.1 was published. The following are the recommendations with + respect to DTLS: + + * Implementations MUST NOT negotiate DTLS version 1.0 [RFC4347]. + + Version 1.0 of DTLS correlates to version 1.1 of TLS (see above). + + * Implementations MUST support DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347]. + + Version 1.2 of DTLS correlates to version 1.2 of TLS (see above). + (There is no version 1.1 of DTLS.) + + * Implementations SHOULD support DTLS 1.3 [RFC9147] and, if + implemented, MUST prefer to negotiate DTLS version 1.3 over + earlier versions of DTLS. + + Version 1.3 of DTLS correlates to version 1.3 of TLS (see above). + +3.1.3. Fallback to Lower Versions + + TLS/DTLS 1.2 clients MUST NOT fall back to earlier TLS versions, + since those versions have been deprecated [RFC8996]. As a result, + the downgrade-protection Signaling Cipher Suite Value (SCSV) + mechanism [RFC7507] is no longer needed for clients. In addition, + TLS 1.3 implements a new version-negotiation mechanism. + +3.2. Strict TLS + + The following recommendations are provided to help prevent "SSL + Stripping" and STARTTLS command injection (attacks that are + summarized in [RFC7457]): + + * Many existing application protocols were designed before the use + of TLS became common. These protocols typically support TLS in + one of two ways: either via a separate port for TLS-only + communication (e.g., port 443 for HTTPS) or via a method for + dynamically upgrading a channel from unencrypted to TLS protected + (e.g., STARTTLS, which is used in protocols such as IMAP and + XMPP). Regardless of the mechanism for protecting the + communication channel (TLS-only port or dynamic upgrade), what + matters is the end state of the channel. When a protocol defines + both a dynamic upgrade method and a separate TLS-only method, then + the separate TLS-only method MUST be supported by implementations + and MUST be configured by administrators to be used in preference + to the dynamic upgrade method. When a protocol supports only a + dynamic upgrade method, implementations MUST provide a way for + administrators to set a strict local policy that forbids use of + plaintext in the absence of a negotiated TLS channel, and + administrators MUST use this policy. + + * HTTP client and server implementations intended for use in the + World Wide Web (see Section 5) MUST support the HTTP Strict + Transport Security (HSTS) header field [RFC6797] so that web + servers can advertise that they are willing to accept TLS-only + clients. Web servers SHOULD use HSTS to indicate that they are + willing to accept TLS-only clients, unless they are deployed in + such a way that using HSTS would in fact weaken overall security + (e.g., it can be problematic to use HSTS with self-signed + certificates, as described in Section 11.3 of [RFC6797]). Similar + technologies exist for non-HTTP application protocols, such as + Mail Transfer Agent Strict Transport Security (MTA-STS) for mail + transfer agents [RFC8461] and methods based on DNS-Based + Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) [RFC6698] for SMTP + [RFC7672] and XMPP [RFC7712]. + + Rationale: Combining unprotected and TLS-protected communication + opens the way to SSL Stripping and similar attacks, since an initial + part of the communication is not integrity protected and therefore + can be manipulated by an attacker whose goal is to keep the + communication in the clear. + +3.3. Compression + + In order to help prevent compression-related attacks (summarized in + Section 2.6 of [RFC7457]) when using TLS 1.2, implementations and + deployments SHOULD NOT support TLS-level compression (Section 6.2.2 + of [RFC5246]); the only exception is when the application protocol in + question has been proven not to be open to such attacks. However, + even in this case, extreme caution is warranted because of the + potential for future attacks related to TLS compression. More + specifically, the HTTP protocol is known to be vulnerable to + compression-related attacks. (This recommendation applies to TLS 1.2 + only, because compression has been removed from TLS 1.3.) + + Rationale: TLS compression has been subject to security attacks such + as the Compression Ratio Info-leak Made Easy (CRIME) attack. + + Implementers should note that compression at higher protocol levels + can allow an active attacker to extract cleartext information from + the connection. The Browser Reconnaissance and Exfiltration via + Adaptive Compression of Hypertext (BREACH) attack is one such case. + These issues can only be mitigated outside of TLS and are thus + outside the scope of this document. See Section 2.6 of [RFC7457] for + further details. + +3.3.1. Certificate Compression + + Certificate chains often take up most of the bytes transmitted during + the handshake. In order to manage their size, some or all of the + following methods can be employed (see also Section 4 of [RFC9191] + for further suggestions): + + * Limit the number of names or extensions. + + * Use keys with small public key representations, like the Elliptic + Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA). + + * Use certificate compression. + + To achieve the latter, TLS 1.3 defines the compress_certificate + extension in [RFC8879]. See also Section 5 of [RFC8879] for security + and privacy considerations associated with its use. For the + avoidance of doubt, CRIME-style attacks on TLS compression do not + apply to certificate compression. + + Due to the strong likelihood of middlebox interference, compression + in the style of [RFC8879] has not been made available in TLS 1.2. In + theory, the cached_info extension defined in [RFC7924] could be used, + but it is not supported widely enough to be considered a practical + alternative. + +3.4. TLS Session Resumption + + Session resumption drastically reduces the number of full TLS + handshakes and thus is an essential performance feature for most + deployments. + + Stateless session resumption with session tickets is a popular + strategy. For TLS 1.2, it is specified in [RFC5077]. For TLS 1.3, a + more secure mechanism based on the use of a pre-shared key (PSK) is + described in Section 4.6.1 of [RFC8446]. See [Springall16] for a + quantitative study of the risks induced by TLS cryptographic + "shortcuts", including session resumption. + + When it is used, the resumption information MUST be authenticated and + encrypted to prevent modification or eavesdropping by an attacker. + Further recommendations apply to session tickets: + + * A strong cipher MUST be used when encrypting the ticket (at least + as strong as the main TLS cipher suite). + + * Ticket-encryption keys MUST be changed regularly, e.g., once every + week, so as not to negate the benefits of forward secrecy (see + Section 7.3 for details on forward secrecy). Old ticket- + encryption keys MUST be destroyed at the end of the validity + period. + + * For similar reasons, session ticket validity MUST be limited to a + reasonable duration (e.g., half as long as ticket-encryption key + validity). + + * TLS 1.2 does not roll the session key forward within a single + session. Thus, to prevent an attack where the server's ticket- + encryption key is stolen and used to decrypt the entire content of + a session (negating the concept of forward secrecy), a TLS 1.2 + server SHOULD NOT resume sessions that are too old, e.g., sessions + that have been open longer than two ticket-encryption key rotation + periods. + + Rationale: Session resumption is another kind of TLS handshake and + therefore must be as secure as the initial handshake. This document + (Section 4) recommends the use of cipher suites that provide forward + secrecy, i.e., that prevent an attacker who gains momentary access to + the TLS endpoint (either client or server) and its secrets from + reading either past or future communication. The tickets must be + managed so as not to negate this security property. + + TLS 1.3 provides the powerful option of forward secrecy even within a + long-lived connection that is periodically resumed. Section 2.2 of + [RFC8446] recommends that clients SHOULD send a "key_share" when + initiating session resumption. In order to gain forward secrecy, + this document recommends that server implementations SHOULD select + the "psk_dhe_ke" PSK key exchange mode and respond with a "key_share" + to complete an Ephemeral Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDHE) + exchange on each session resumption. As a more performant + alternative, server implementations MAY refrain from responding with + a "key_share" until a certain amount of time (e.g., measured in + hours) has passed since the last ECDHE exchange; this implies that + the "key_share" operation would not occur for the presumed majority + of session resumption requests (which would occur within a few hours) + while still ensuring forward secrecy for longer-lived sessions. + + TLS session resumption introduces potential privacy issues where the + server is able to track the client, in some cases indefinitely. See + [Sy2018] for more details. + +3.5. Renegotiation in TLS 1.2 + + The recommendations in this section apply to TLS 1.2 only, because + renegotiation has been removed from TLS 1.3. + + Renegotiation in TLS 1.2 is a handshake that establishes new + cryptographic parameters for an existing session. The mechanism + existed in TLS 1.2 and in earlier protocol versions and was improved + following several major attacks including a plaintext injection + attack, CVE-2009-3555 [CVE]. + + TLS 1.2 clients and servers MUST implement the renegotiation_info + extension, as defined in [RFC5746]. + + TLS 1.2 clients MUST send renegotiation_info in the Client Hello. If + the server does not acknowledge the extension, the client MUST + generate a fatal handshake_failure alert prior to terminating the + connection. + + Rationale: It is not safe for a client to connect to a TLS 1.2 server + that does not support renegotiation_info regardless of whether either + endpoint actually implements renegotiation. See also Section 4.1 of + [RFC5746]. + + A related attack resulting from TLS session parameters not being + properly authenticated is a Triple Handshake [Triple-Handshake]. To + address this attack, TLS 1.2 implementations MUST support the + extended_master_secret extension defined in [RFC7627]. + +3.6. Post-Handshake Authentication + + Renegotiation in TLS 1.2 was (partially) replaced in TLS 1.3 by + separate post-handshake authentication and key update mechanisms. In + the context of protocols that multiplex requests over a single + connection (such as HTTP/2 [RFC9113]), post-handshake authentication + has the same problems as TLS 1.2 renegotiation. Multiplexed + protocols SHOULD follow the advice provided for HTTP/2 in + Section 9.2.3 of [RFC9113]. + +3.7. Server Name Indication (SNI) + + TLS implementations MUST support the Server Name Indication (SNI) + extension defined in Section 3 of [RFC6066] for those higher-level + protocols that would benefit from it, including HTTPS. However, the + actual use of SNI in particular circumstances is a matter of local + policy. At the time of writing, a technology for encrypting the SNI + (called Encrypted Client Hello) is being worked on in the TLS Working + Group [TLS-ECH]. Once that method has been standardized and widely + implemented, it will likely be appropriate to recommend its usage in + a future version of this BCP. + + Rationale: SNI supports deployment of multiple TLS-protected virtual + servers on a single address, and therefore enables fine-grained + security for these virtual servers, by allowing each one to have its + own certificate. However, SNI also leaks the target domain for a + given connection; this information leak will be closed by use of TLS + Encrypted Client Hello once that method has been standardized. + + In order to prevent the attacks described in [ALPACA], a server that + does not recognize the presented server name SHOULD NOT continue the + handshake and instead SHOULD fail with a fatal-level + unrecognized_name(112) alert. Note that this recommendation updates + Section 3 of [RFC6066], which stated: + + | If the server understood the ClientHello extension but does not + | recognize the server name, the server SHOULD take one of two + | actions: either abort the handshake by sending a fatal-level + | unrecognized_name(112) alert or continue the handshake. + + Clients SHOULD abort the handshake if the server acknowledges the SNI + extension but presents a certificate with a different hostname than + the one sent by the client. + +3.8. Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) + + TLS implementations (both client- and server-side) MUST support the + Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) extension [RFC7301]. + + In order to prevent "cross-protocol" attacks resulting from failure + to ensure that a message intended for use in one protocol cannot be + mistaken for a message for use in another protocol, servers are + advised to strictly enforce the behavior prescribed in Section 3.2 of + [RFC7301]: + + | In the event that the server supports no protocols that the client + | advertises, then the server SHALL respond with a fatal + | 'no_application_protocol' alert. + + Clients SHOULD abort the handshake if the server acknowledges the + ALPN extension but does not select a protocol from the client list. + Failure to do so can result in attacks such those described in + [ALPACA]. + + Protocol developers are strongly encouraged to register an ALPN + identifier for their protocols. This applies both to new protocols + and to well-established protocols; however, because the latter might + have a large deployed base, strict enforcement of ALPN usage may not + be feasible when an ALPN identifier is registered for a well- + established protocol. + +3.9. Multi-Server Deployment + + Deployments that involve multiple servers or services can increase + the size of the attack surface for TLS. Two scenarios are of + interest: + + 1. Deployments in which multiple services handle the same domain + name via different protocols (e.g., HTTP and IMAP). In this + case, an attacker might be able to direct a connecting endpoint + to the service offering a different protocol and mount a cross- + protocol attack. In a cross-protocol attack, the client and + server believe they are using different protocols, which the + attacker might exploit if messages sent in one protocol are + interpreted as messages in the other protocol with undesirable + effects (see [ALPACA] for more detailed information about this + class of attacks). To mitigate this threat, service providers + SHOULD deploy ALPN (see Section 3.8). In addition, to the extent + possible, they SHOULD ensure that multiple services handling the + same domain name provide equivalent levels of security that are + consistent with the recommendations in this document; such + measures SHOULD include the handling of configurations across + multiple TLS servers and protections against compromise of + credentials held by those servers. + + 2. Deployments in which multiple servers providing the same service + have different TLS configurations. In this case, an attacker + might be able to direct a connecting endpoint to a server with a + TLS configuration that is more easily exploitable (see [DROWN] + for more detailed information about this class of attacks). To + mitigate this threat, service providers SHOULD ensure that all + servers providing the same service provide equivalent levels of + security that are consistent with the recommendations in this + document. + +3.10. Zero Round-Trip Time (0-RTT) Data in TLS 1.3 + + The 0-RTT early data feature is new in TLS 1.3. It provides reduced + latency when TLS connections are resumed, at the potential cost of + certain security properties. As a result, it requires special + attention from implementers on both the server and the client side. + Typically, this extends to the TLS library as well as protocol layers + above it. + + For HTTP over TLS, refer to [RFC8470] for guidance. + + For QUIC on TLS, refer to Section 9.2 of [RFC9001]. + + For other protocols, generic guidance is given in Section 8 and + Appendix E.5 of [RFC8446]. To paraphrase Appendix E.5, applications + MUST avoid this feature unless an explicit specification exists for + the application protocol in question to clarify when 0-RTT is + appropriate and secure. This can take the form of an IETF RFC, a + non-IETF standard, or documentation associated with a non-standard + protocol. + +4. Recommendations: Cipher Suites + + TLS 1.2 provided considerable flexibility in the selection of cipher + suites. Unfortunately, the security of some of these cipher suites + has degraded over time to the point where some are known to be + insecure (this is one reason why TLS 1.3 restricted such + flexibility). Incorrectly configuring a server leads to no or + reduced security. This section includes recommendations on the + selection and negotiation of cipher suites. + +4.1. General Guidelines + + Cryptographic algorithms weaken over time as cryptanalysis improves: + algorithms that were once considered strong become weak. + Consequently, cipher suites using weak algorithms need to be phased + out and replaced with more secure cipher suites. This helps to + ensure that the desired security properties still hold. SSL/TLS has + been in existence for well over 20 years and many of the cipher + suites that have been recommended in various versions of SSL/TLS are + now considered weak or at least not as strong as desired. Therefore, + this section modernizes the recommendations concerning cipher suite + selection. + + * Implementations MUST NOT negotiate the cipher suites with NULL + encryption. + + Rationale: The NULL cipher suites do not encrypt traffic and so + provide no confidentiality services. Any entity in the network + with access to the connection can view the plaintext of contents + being exchanged by the client and server. Nevertheless, this + document does not discourage software from implementing NULL + cipher suites, since they can be useful for testing and debugging. + + * Implementations MUST NOT negotiate RC4 cipher suites. + + Rationale: The RC4 stream cipher has a variety of cryptographic + weaknesses, as documented in [RFC7465]. Note that DTLS + specifically forbids the use of RC4 already. + + * Implementations MUST NOT negotiate cipher suites offering less + than 112 bits of security, including so-called "export-level" + encryption (which provides 40 or 56 bits of security). + + Rationale: Based on [RFC3766], at least 112 bits of security is + needed. 40-bit and 56-bit security (found in so-called "export + ciphers") are considered insecure today. + + * Implementations SHOULD NOT negotiate cipher suites that use + algorithms offering less than 128 bits of security. + + Rationale: Cipher suites that offer 112 or more bits but less than + 128 bits of security are not considered weak at this time; + however, it is expected that their useful lifespan is short enough + to justify supporting stronger cipher suites at this time. + 128-bit ciphers are expected to remain secure for at least several + years and 256-bit ciphers until the next fundamental technology + breakthrough. Note that, because of so-called "meet-in-the- + middle" attacks [Multiple-Encryption], some legacy cipher suites + (e.g., 168-bit Triple DES (3DES)) have an effective key length + that is smaller than their nominal key length (112 bits in the + case of 3DES). Such cipher suites should be evaluated according + to their effective key length. + + * Implementations SHOULD NOT negotiate cipher suites based on RSA + key transport, a.k.a. "static RSA". + + Rationale: These cipher suites, which have assigned values + starting with the string "TLS_RSA_WITH_*", have several drawbacks, + especially the fact that they do not support forward secrecy. + + * Implementations SHOULD NOT negotiate cipher suites based on non- + ephemeral (static) finite-field Diffie-Hellman (DH) key agreement. + Similarly, implementations SHOULD NOT negotiate non-ephemeral + Elliptic Curve DH key agreement. + + Rationale: The former cipher suites, which have assigned values + prefixed by "TLS_DH_*", have several drawbacks, especially the + fact that they do not support forward secrecy. The latter + ("TLS_ECDH_*") also lack forward secrecy and are subject to + invalid curve attacks [Jager2015]. + + * Implementations MUST support and prefer to negotiate cipher suites + offering forward secrecy. However, TLS 1.2 implementations SHOULD + NOT negotiate cipher suites based on ephemeral finite-field + Diffie-Hellman key agreement (i.e., "TLS_DHE_*" suites). This is + justified by the known fragility of the construction (see + [RACCOON]) and the limitation around negotiation, including using + [RFC7919], which has seen very limited uptake. + + Rationale: Forward secrecy (sometimes called "perfect forward + secrecy") prevents the recovery of information that was encrypted + with older session keys, thus limiting how far back in time data + can be decrypted when an attack is successful. See Sections 7.3 + and 7.4 for a detailed discussion. + +4.2. Cipher Suites for TLS 1.2 + + Given the foregoing considerations, implementation and deployment of + the following cipher suites is RECOMMENDED: + + * TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 + + * TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 + + * TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 + + * TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 + + As these are Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) + algorithms [RFC5116], these cipher suites are supported only in TLS + 1.2 and not in earlier protocol versions. + + Typically, to prefer these suites, the order of suites needs to be + explicitly configured in server software. It would be ideal if + server software implementations were to prefer these suites by + default. + + Some devices have hardware support for AES Counter Mode with CBC-MAC + (AES-CCM) but not AES Galois/Counter Mode (AES-GCM), so they are + unable to follow the foregoing recommendations regarding cipher + suites. There are even devices that do not support public key + cryptography at all, but these are out of scope entirely. + + A cipher suite that operates in CBC (cipher block chaining) mode + (e.g., TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) SHOULD NOT be used + unless the encrypt_then_mac extension [RFC7366] is also successfully + negotiated. This requirement applies to both client and server + implementations. + + When using ECDSA signatures for authentication of TLS peers, it is + RECOMMENDED that implementations use the NIST curve P-256. In + addition, to avoid predictable or repeated nonces (which could reveal + the long-term signing key), it is RECOMMENDED that implementations + implement "deterministic ECDSA" as specified in [RFC6979] and in line + with the recommendations in [RFC8446]. + + Note that implementations of "deterministic ECDSA" may be vulnerable + to certain side-channel and fault injection attacks precisely because + of their determinism. While most fault injection attacks described + in the literature assume physical access to the device (and therefore + are more relevant in Internet of Things (IoT) deployments with poor + or non-existent physical security), some can be carried out remotely + [Poddebniak2017], e.g., as Rowhammer [Kim2014] variants. In + deployments where side-channel attacks and fault injection attacks + are a concern, implementation strategies combining both randomness + and determinism (for example, as described in [CFRG-DET-SIGS]) can be + used to avoid the risk of successful extraction of the signing key. + +4.2.1. Implementation Details + + Clients SHOULD include TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 as the + first proposal to any server. Servers MUST prefer this cipher suite + over weaker cipher suites whenever it is proposed, even if it is not + the first proposal. Clients are of course free to offer stronger + cipher suites, e.g., using AES-256; when they do, the server SHOULD + prefer the stronger cipher suite unless there are compelling reasons + (e.g., seriously degraded performance) to choose otherwise. + + The previous version of the TLS recommendations [RFC7525] implicitly + allowed the old RFC 5246 mandatory-to-implement cipher suite, + TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA. At the time of writing, this cipher + suite does not provide additional interoperability, except with very + old clients. As with other cipher suites that do not provide forward + secrecy, implementations SHOULD NOT support this cipher suite. Other + application protocols specify other cipher suites as mandatory to + implement (MTI). + + [RFC8422] allows clients and servers to negotiate ECDH parameters + (curves). Both clients and servers SHOULD include the "Supported + Elliptic Curves Extension" [RFC8422]. Clients and servers SHOULD + support the NIST P-256 (secp256r1) [RFC8422] and X25519 (x25519) + [RFC7748] curves. Note that [RFC8422] deprecates all but the + uncompressed point format. Therefore, if the client sends an + ec_point_formats extension, the ECPointFormatList MUST contain a + single element, "uncompressed". + +4.3. Cipher Suites for TLS 1.3 + + This document does not specify any cipher suites for TLS 1.3. + Readers are referred to Section 9.1 of [RFC8446] for cipher suite + recommendations. + +4.4. Limits on Key Usage + + All ciphers have an upper limit on the amount of traffic that can be + securely protected with any given key. In the case of AEAD cipher + suites, two separate limits are maintained for each key: + + 1. Confidentiality limit (CL), i.e., the number of records that can + be encrypted. + + 2. Integrity limit (IL), i.e., the number of records that are + allowed to fail authentication. + + The latter applies to DTLS (and also to QUIC) but not to TLS itself, + since TLS connections are torn down on the first decryption failure. + + When a sender is approaching CL, the implementation SHOULD initiate a + new handshake (in TLS 1.3, this can be achieved by sending a + KeyUpdate message on the established session) to rotate the session + key. When a receiver has reached IL, the implementation SHOULD close + the connection. Although these recommendations are a best practice, + implementers need to be aware that it is not always easy to + accomplish them in protocols that are built on top of TLS/DTLS + without introducing coordination across layer boundaries. See + Section 6 of [RFC9001] for an example of the cooperation that was + necessary in QUIC between the crypto and transport layers to support + key updates. Note that in general, application protocols might not + be able to emulate that method given their more constrained + interaction with TLS/DTLS. As a result of these complexities, these + recommendations are not mandatory. + + For all TLS 1.3 cipher suites, readers are referred to Section 5.5 of + [RFC8446] for the values of CL and IL. For all DTLS 1.3 cipher + suites, readers are referred to Section 4.5.3 of [RFC9147]. + + For all AES-GCM cipher suites recommended for TLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.2 in + this document, CL can be derived by plugging the corresponding + parameters into the inequalities in Section 6.1 of [AEAD-LIMITS] that + apply to random, partially implicit nonces, i.e., the nonce + construction used in TLS 1.2. Although the obtained figures are + slightly higher than those for TLS 1.3, it is RECOMMENDED that the + same limit of 2^24.5 records is used for both versions. + + For all AES-GCM cipher suites recommended for DTLS 1.2, IL (obtained + from the same inequalities referenced above) is 2^28. + +4.5. Public Key Length + + When using the cipher suites recommended in this document, two public + keys are normally used in the TLS handshake: one for the Diffie- + Hellman key agreement and one for server authentication. Where a + client certificate is used, a third public key is added. + + With a key exchange based on modular exponential (MODP) Diffie- + Hellman groups ("DHE" cipher suites), DH key lengths of at least 2048 + bits are REQUIRED. + + Rationale: For various reasons, in practice, DH keys are typically + generated in lengths that are powers of two (e.g., 2^10 = 1024 bits, + 2^11 = 2048 bits, 2^12 = 4096 bits). Because a DH key of 1228 bits + would be roughly equivalent to only an 80-bit symmetric key + [RFC3766], it is better to use keys longer than that for the "DHE" + family of cipher suites. A DH key of 1926 bits would be roughly + equivalent to a 100-bit symmetric key [RFC3766]. A DH key of 2048 + bits (equivalent to a 112-bit symmetric key) is the minimum allowed + by the latest revision of [NIST.SP.800-56A] as of this writing (see + in particular Appendix D of that document). + + As noted in [RFC3766], correcting for the emergence of The Weizmann + Institute Relation Locator (TWIRL) machine [TWIRL] would imply that + 1024-bit DH keys yield about 61 bits of equivalent strength and that + a 2048-bit DH key would yield about 92 bits of equivalent strength. + The Logjam attack [Logjam] further demonstrates that 1024-bit Diffie- + Hellman parameters should be avoided. + + With regard to ECDH keys, implementers are referred to the IANA "TLS + Supported Groups" registry (formerly known as the "EC Named Curve + Registry") within the "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters" + registry [IANA_TLS] and in particular to the "recommended" groups. + Curves of less than 224 bits MUST NOT be used. This recommendation + is in line with the latest revision of [NIST.SP.800-56A]. + + When using RSA, servers MUST authenticate using certificates with at + least a 2048-bit modulus for the public key. In addition, the use of + the SHA-256 hash algorithm is RECOMMENDED and SHA-1 or MD5 MUST NOT + be used [RFC9155] (for more details, see also [CAB-Baseline], for + which the current version at the time of writing is 1.8.4). Clients + MUST indicate to servers that they request SHA-256 by using the + "Signature Algorithms" extension defined in TLS 1.2. For TLS 1.3, + the same requirement is already specified by [RFC8446]. + + +4.6. Truncated HMAC + + Implementations MUST NOT use the Truncated HMAC Extension, defined in + Section 7 of [RFC6066]. + + Rationale: The extension does not apply to the AEAD cipher suites + recommended above. However, it does apply to most other TLS cipher + suites. Its use has been shown to be insecure in [PatersonRS11]. + +5. Applicability Statement + + The recommendations of this document primarily apply to the + implementation and deployment of application protocols that are most + commonly used with TLS and DTLS on the Internet today. Examples + include, but are not limited to: + + * Web software and services that wish to protect HTTP traffic with + TLS. + + * Email software and services that wish to protect IMAP, Post Office + Protocol version 3 (POP3), or SMTP traffic with TLS. + + * Instant-messaging software and services that wish to protect + Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) or Internet + Relay Chat (IRC) traffic with TLS. + + * Realtime media software and services that wish to protect Secure + Realtime Transport Protocol (SRTP) traffic with DTLS. + + This document does not modify the implementation and deployment + recommendations (e.g., mandatory-to-implement cipher suites) + prescribed by existing application protocols that employ TLS or DTLS. + If the community that uses such an application protocol wishes to + modernize its usage of TLS or DTLS to be consistent with the best + practices recommended here, it needs to explicitly update the + existing application protocol definition (one example is [RFC7590], + which updates [RFC6120]). + + Designers of new application protocols developed through the Internet + Standards Process [RFC2026] are expected at minimum to conform to the + best practices recommended here, unless they provide documentation of + compelling reasons that would prevent such conformance (e.g., + widespread deployment on constrained devices that lack support for + the necessary algorithms). + + Although many of the recommendations provided here might also apply + to QUIC insofar that it uses the TLS 1.3 handshake protocol, QUIC and + other such secure transport protocols are out of scope of this + document. For QUIC specifically, readers are referred to Section 9.2 + of [RFC9001]. + + This document does not address the use of TLS in constrained-node + networks [RFC7228]. For recommendations regarding the profiling of + TLS and DTLS for small devices with severe constraints on power, + memory, and processing resources, the reader is referred to [RFC7925] + and [IOT-PROFILE]. + +5.1. Security Services + + This document provides recommendations for an audience that wishes to + secure their communication with TLS to achieve the following: + + Confidentiality: all application-layer communication is encrypted + with the goal that no party should be able to decrypt it except + the intended receiver. + + Data integrity: any changes made to the communication in transit are + detectable by the receiver. + + Authentication: an endpoint of the TLS communication is + authenticated as the intended entity to communicate with. + + With regard to authentication, TLS enables authentication of one or + both endpoints in the communication. In the context of opportunistic + security [RFC7435], TLS is sometimes used without authentication. As + discussed in Section 5.2, considerations for opportunistic security + are not in scope for this document. + + If deployers deviate from the recommendations given in this document, + they need to be aware that they might lose access to one of the + foregoing security services. + + This document applies only to environments where confidentiality is + required. It requires algorithms and configuration options that + enforce secrecy of the data in transit. + + This document also assumes that data integrity protection is always + one of the goals of a deployment. In cases where integrity is not + required, it does not make sense to employ TLS in the first place. + There are attacks against confidentiality-only protection that + utilize the lack of integrity to also break confidentiality (see, for + instance, [DegabrieleP07] in the context of IPsec). + + This document addresses itself to application protocols that are most + commonly used on the Internet with TLS and DTLS. Typically, all + communication between TLS clients and TLS servers requires all three + of the above security services. This is particularly true where TLS + clients are user agents like web browsers or email clients. + + This document does not address the rarer deployment scenarios where + one of the above three properties is not desired, such as the use + case described in Section 5.2. As another scenario where + confidentiality is not needed, consider a monitored network where the + authorities in charge of the respective traffic domain require full + access to unencrypted (plaintext) traffic and where users collaborate + and send their traffic in the clear. + +5.2. Opportunistic Security + + There are several important scenarios in which the use of TLS is + optional, i.e., the client decides dynamically ("opportunistically") + whether to use TLS with a particular server or to connect in the + clear. This practice, often called "opportunistic security", is + described at length in [RFC7435] and is often motivated by a desire + for backward compatibility with legacy deployments. + + In these scenarios, some of the recommendations in this document + might be too strict, since adhering to them could cause fallback to + cleartext, a worse outcome than using TLS with an outdated protocol + version or cipher suite. + +6. IANA Considerations + + This document has no IANA actions. + +7. Security Considerations + + This entire document discusses the security practices directly + affecting applications using the TLS protocol. This section contains + broader security considerations related to technologies used in + conjunction with or by TLS. The reader is referred to the Security + Considerations sections of TLS 1.3 [RFC8446], DTLS 1.3 [RFC9147], TLS + 1.2 [RFC5246], and DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347] for further context. + +7.1. Host Name Validation + + Application authors should take note that some TLS implementations do + not validate host names. If the TLS implementation they are using + does not validate host names, authors might need to write their own + validation code or consider using a different TLS implementation. + + It is noted that the requirements regarding host name validation + (and, in general, binding between the TLS layer and the protocol that + runs above it) vary between different protocols. For HTTPS, these + requirements are defined by Sections 4.3.3, 4.3.4, and 4.3.5 of + [RFC9110]. + + Host name validation is security-critical for all common TLS use + cases. Without it, TLS ensures that the certificate is valid and + guarantees possession of the private key but does not ensure that the + connection terminates at the desired endpoint. Readers are referred + to [RFC6125] for further details regarding generic host name + validation in the TLS context. In addition, that RFC contains a long + list of application protocols, some of which implement a policy very + different from HTTPS. + + If the host name is discovered indirectly and insecurely (e.g., by a + cleartext DNS query for an SRV or Mail Exchange (MX) record), it + SHOULD NOT be used as a reference identifier [RFC6125] even when it + matches the presented certificate. This proviso does not apply if + the host name is discovered securely (for further discussion, see + [RFC7673] and [RFC7672]). + + Host name validation typically applies only to the leaf "end entity" + certificate. Naturally, in order to ensure proper authentication in + the context of the PKI, application clients need to verify the entire + certification path in accordance with [RFC5280]. + +7.2. AES-GCM + + Section 4.2 recommends the use of the AES-GCM authenticated + encryption algorithm. Please refer to Section 6 of [RFC5288] for + security considerations that apply specifically to AES-GCM when used + with TLS. + +7.2.1. Nonce Reuse in TLS 1.2 + + The existence of deployed TLS stacks that mistakenly reuse the AES- + GCM nonce is documented in [Boeck2016], showing there is an actual + risk of AES-GCM getting implemented insecurely and thus making TLS + sessions that use an AES-GCM cipher suite vulnerable to attacks such + as [Joux2006]. (See [CVE] records: CVE-2016-0270, CVE-2016-10213, + CVE-2016-10212, and CVE-2017-5933.) + + While this problem has been fixed in TLS 1.3, which enforces a + deterministic method to generate nonces from record sequence numbers + and shared secrets for all its AEAD cipher suites (including AES- + GCM), TLS 1.2 implementations could still choose their own + (potentially insecure) nonce generation methods. + + It is therefore RECOMMENDED that TLS 1.2 implementations use the + 64-bit sequence number to populate the nonce_explicit part of the GCM + nonce, as described in the first two paragraphs of Section 5.3 of + [RFC8446]. This stronger recommendation updates Section 3 of + [RFC5288], which specifies that the use of 64-bit sequence numbers to + populate the nonce_explicit field is optional. + + We note that at the time of writing, there are no cipher suites + defined for nonce-reuse-resistant algorithms such as AES-GCM-SIV + [RFC8452]. + +7.3. Forward Secrecy + + Forward secrecy (also called "perfect forward secrecy" or "PFS" and + defined in [RFC4949]) is a defense against an attacker who records + encrypted conversations where the session keys are only encrypted + with the communicating parties' long-term keys. + + Should the attacker be able to obtain these long-term keys at some + point later in time, the session keys and thus the entire + conversation could be decrypted. + + In the context of TLS and DTLS, such compromise of long-term keys is + not entirely implausible. It can happen, for example, due to: + + * A client or server being attacked by some other attack vector, and + the private key retrieved. + + * A long-term key retrieved from a device that has been sold or + otherwise decommissioned without prior wiping. + + * A long-term key used on a device as a default key [Heninger2012]. + + * A key generated by a trusted third party like a CA and later + retrieved from it by either extortion or compromise + [Soghoian2011]. + + * A cryptographic breakthrough or the use of asymmetric keys with + insufficient length [Kleinjung2010]. + + * Social engineering attacks against system administrators. + + * Collection of private keys from inadequately protected backups. + + Forward secrecy ensures in such cases that it is not feasible for an + attacker to determine the session keys even if the attacker has + obtained the long-term keys some time after the conversation. It + also protects against an attacker who is in possession of the long- + term keys but remains passive during the conversation. + + Forward secrecy is generally achieved by using the Diffie-Hellman + scheme to derive session keys. The Diffie-Hellman scheme has both + parties maintain private secrets and send parameters over the network + as modular powers over certain cyclic groups. The properties of the + so-called Discrete Logarithm Problem (DLP) allow the parties to + derive the session keys without an eavesdropper being able to do so. + There is currently no known attack against DLP if sufficiently large + parameters are chosen. A variant of the Diffie-Hellman scheme uses + elliptic curves instead of the originally proposed modular + arithmetic. Given the current state of the art, Elliptic Curve + Diffie-Hellman appears to be more efficient, permits shorter key + lengths, and allows less freedom for implementation errors than + finite-field Diffie-Hellman. + + Unfortunately, many TLS/DTLS cipher suites were defined that do not + feature forward secrecy, e.g., TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256. This + document therefore advocates strict use of forward-secrecy-only + ciphers. + +7.4. Diffie-Hellman Exponent Reuse + + For performance reasons, it is not uncommon for TLS implementations + to reuse Diffie-Hellman and Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman exponents + across multiple connections. Such reuse can result in major security + issues: + + * If exponents are reused for too long (in some cases, even as + little as a few hours), an attacker who gains access to the host + can decrypt previous connections. In other words, exponent reuse + negates the effects of forward secrecy. + + * TLS implementations that reuse exponents should test the DH public + key they receive for group membership, in order to avoid some + known attacks. These tests are not standardized in TLS at the + time of writing, although general guidance in this area is + provided by [NIST.SP.800-56A] and available in many protocol + implementations. + + * Under certain conditions, the use of static finite-field DH keys, + or of ephemeral finite-field DH keys that are reused across + multiple connections, can lead to timing attacks (such as those + described in [RACCOON]) on the shared secrets used in Diffie- + Hellman key exchange. + + * An "invalid curve" attack can be mounted against Elliptic Curve DH + if the victim does not verify that the received point lies on the + correct curve. If the victim is reusing the DH secrets, the + attacker can repeat the probe varying the points to recover the + full secret (see [Antipa2003] and [Jager2015]). + + To address these concerns: + + * TLS implementations SHOULD NOT use static finite-field DH keys and + SHOULD NOT reuse ephemeral finite-field DH keys across multiple + connections. + + * Server implementations that want to reuse Elliptic Curve DH keys + SHOULD either use a "safe curve" [SAFECURVES] (e.g., X25519) or + perform the checks described in [NIST.SP.800-56A] on the received + points. + +7.5. Certificate Revocation + + The following considerations and recommendations represent the + current state of the art regarding certificate revocation, even + though no complete and efficient solution exists for the problem of + checking the revocation status of common public key certificates + [RFC5280]: + + * Certificate revocation is an important tool when recovering from + attacks on the TLS implementation as well as cases of misissued + certificates. TLS implementations MUST implement a strategy to + distrust revoked certificates. + + * Although Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs) are the most widely + supported mechanism for distributing revocation information, they + have known scaling challenges that limit their usefulness, despite + workarounds such as partitioned CRLs and delta CRLs. The more + modern [CRLite] and the follow-on Let's Revoke [LetsRevoke] build + on the availability of Certificate Transparency [RFC9162] logs and + aggressive compression to allow practical use of the CRL + infrastructure, but at the time of writing, neither solution is + deployed for client-side revocation processing at scale. + + * Proprietary mechanisms that embed revocation lists in the web + browser's configuration database cannot scale beyond the few most + heavily used web servers. + + * The Online Certification Status Protocol (OCSP) [RFC6960] in its + basic form presents both scaling and privacy issues. In addition, + clients typically "soft-fail", meaning that they do not abort the + TLS connection if the OCSP server does not respond. (However, + this might be a workaround to avoid denial-of-service attacks if + an OCSP responder is taken offline.) For a recent survey of the + status of OCSP deployment in the web PKI, see [Chung18]. + + * The TLS Certificate Status Request extension (Section 8 of + [RFC6066]), commonly called "OCSP stapling", resolves the + operational issues with OCSP. However, it is still ineffective in + the presence of an active on-path attacker because the attacker + can simply ignore the client's request for a stapled OCSP + response. + + * [RFC7633] defines a certificate extension that indicates that + clients must expect stapled OCSP responses for the certificate and + must abort the handshake ("hard-fail") if such a response is not + available. + + * OCSP stapling as used in TLS 1.2 does not extend to intermediate + certificates within a certificate chain. The Multiple Certificate + Status extension [RFC6961] addresses this shortcoming, but it has + seen little deployment and had been deprecated by [RFC8446]. As a + result, although this extension was recommended for TLS 1.2 in + [RFC7525], it is no longer recommended by this document. + + * TLS 1.3 (Section 4.4.2.1 of [RFC8446]) allows the association of + OCSP information with intermediate certificates by using an + extension to the CertificateEntry structure. However, using this + facility remains impractical because many certification + authorities (CAs) either do not publish OCSP for CA certificates + or publish OCSP reports with a lifetime that is too long to be + useful. + + * Both CRLs and OCSP depend on relatively reliable connectivity to + the Internet, which might not be available to certain kinds of + nodes. A common example is newly provisioned devices that need to + establish a secure connection in order to boot up for the first + time. + + For the common use cases of public key certificates in TLS, servers + SHOULD support the following as a best practice given the current + state of the art and as a foundation for a possible future solution: + OCSP [RFC6960] and OCSP stapling using the status_request extension + defined in [RFC6066]. Note that the exact mechanism for embedding + the status_request extension differs between TLS 1.2 and 1.3. As a + matter of local policy, server operators MAY request that CAs issue + must-staple [RFC7633] certificates for the server and/or for client + authentication, but we recommend reviewing the operational conditions + before deciding on this approach. + + The considerations in this section do not apply to scenarios where + the DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) TLSA resource + record [RFC6698] is used to signal to a client which certificate a + server considers valid and good to use for TLS connections. + +8. References + +8.1. Normative References + + [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>. + + [RFC3766] Orman, H. and P. Hoffman, "Determining Strengths For + Public Keys Used For Exchanging Symmetric Keys", BCP 86, + RFC 3766, DOI 10.17487/RFC3766, April 2004, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3766>. + + [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security + (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, + DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>. + + [RFC5288] Salowey, J., Choudhury, A., and D. McGrew, "AES Galois + Counter Mode (GCM) Cipher Suites for TLS", RFC 5288, + DOI 10.17487/RFC5288, August 2008, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5288>. + + [RFC5746] Rescorla, E., Ray, M., Dispensa, S., and N. Oskov, + "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Renegotiation Indication + Extension", RFC 5746, DOI 10.17487/RFC5746, February 2010, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5746>. + + [RFC6066] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) + Extensions: Extension Definitions", RFC 6066, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6066, January 2011, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6066>. + + [RFC6125] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and + Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity + within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 + (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer + Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March + 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6125>. + + [RFC6176] Turner, S. and T. Polk, "Prohibiting Secure Sockets Layer + (SSL) Version 2.0", RFC 6176, DOI 10.17487/RFC6176, March + 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6176>. + + [RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer + Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347, + January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>. + + [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>. + + [RFC7301] Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan, + "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol + Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301, + July 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301>. + + [RFC7366] Gutmann, P., "Encrypt-then-MAC for Transport Layer + Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security + (DTLS)", RFC 7366, DOI 10.17487/RFC7366, September 2014, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7366>. + + [RFC7465] Popov, A., "Prohibiting RC4 Cipher Suites", RFC 7465, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7465, February 2015, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7465>. + + [RFC7627] Bhargavan, K., Ed., Delignat-Lavaud, A., Pironti, A., + Langley, A., and M. Ray, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) + Session Hash and Extended Master Secret Extension", + RFC 7627, DOI 10.17487/RFC7627, September 2015, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7627>. + + [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>. + + [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>. + + [RFC8422] Nir, Y., Josefsson, S., and M. Pegourie-Gonnard, "Elliptic + Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites for Transport Layer + Security (TLS) Versions 1.2 and Earlier", RFC 8422, + DOI 10.17487/RFC8422, August 2018, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8422>. + + [RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol + Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>. + + [RFC8996] Moriarty, K. and S. Farrell, "Deprecating TLS 1.0 and TLS + 1.1", BCP 195, RFC 8996, DOI 10.17487/RFC8996, March 2021, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8996>. + + [RFC9147] Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The + Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version + 1.3", RFC 9147, DOI 10.17487/RFC9147, April 2022, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9147>. + + [RFC9155] Velvindron, L., Moriarty, K., and A. Ghedini, "Deprecating + MD5 and SHA-1 Signature Hashes in TLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.2", + RFC 9155, DOI 10.17487/RFC9155, December 2021, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9155>. + +8.2. Informative References + + [AEAD-LIMITS] + Günther, F., Thomson, M., and C. A. Wood, "Usage Limits on + AEAD Algorithms", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- + irtf-cfrg-aead-limits-05, 11 July 2022, + <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg- + aead-limits-05>. + + [ALPACA] Brinkmann, M., Dresen, C., Merget, R., Poddebniak, D., + Müller, J., Somorovsky, J., Schwenk, J., and S. Schinzel, + "ALPACA: Application Layer Protocol Confusion - Analyzing + and Mitigating Cracks in TLS Authentication", 30th USENIX + Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21), August 2021, + <https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity21/ + presentation/brinkmann>. + + [Antipa2003] + Antipa, A., Brown, D. R. L., Menezes, A., Struik, R., and + S. Vanstone, "Validation of Elliptic Curve Public Keys", + Public Key Cryptography - PKC 2003, December 2003, + <https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36288-6_16>. + + [Boeck2016] + Böck, H., Zauner, A., Devlin, S., Somorovsky, J., and P. + Jovanovic, "Nonce-Disrespecting Adversaries: Practical + Forgery Attacks on GCM in TLS", May 2016, + <https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/475.pdf>. + + [CAB-Baseline] + CA/Browser Forum, "Baseline Requirements for the Issuance + and Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates", + Version 1.8.4, April 2022, + <https://cabforum.org/documents/>. + + [CFRG-DET-SIGS] + Preuß Mattsson, J., Thormarker, E., and S. Ruohomaa, + "Deterministic ECDSA and EdDSA Signatures with Additional + Randomness", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-irtf- + cfrg-det-sigs-with-noise-00, 8 August 2022, + <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-cfrg- + det-sigs-with-noise-00>. + + [Chung18] Chung, T., Lok, J., Chandrasekaran, B., Choffnes, D., + Levin, D., Maggs, B., Mislove, A., Rula, J., Sullivan, N., + and C. Wilson, "Is the Web Ready for OCSP Must-Staple?", + Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018, + DOI 10.1145/3278532.3278543, October 2018, + <https://doi.org/10.1145/3278532.3278543>. + + [CRLite] Larisch, J., Choffnes, D., Levin, D., Maggs, B., Mislove, + A., and C. Wilson, "CRLite: A Scalable System for Pushing + All TLS Revocations to All Browsers", 2017 IEEE Symposium + on Security and Privacy (SP), DOI 10.1109/sp.2017.17, May + 2017, <https://doi.org/10.1109/sp.2017.17>. + + [CVE] MITRE, "Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures", + <https://cve.mitre.org>. + + [DegabrieleP07] + Degabriele, J. and K. Paterson, "Attacking the IPsec + Standards in Encryption-only Configurations", 2007 IEEE + Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP '07), + DOI 10.1109/sp.2007.8, May 2007, + <https://doi.org/10.1109/sp.2007.8>. + + [DROWN] Aviram, N., Schinzel, S., Somorovsky, J., Heninger, N., + Dankel, M., Steube, J., Valenta, L., Adrian, D., + Halderman, J., Dukhovni, V., Käsper, E., Cohney, S., + Engels, S., Paar, C., and Y. Shavitt, "DROWN: Breaking TLS + using SSLv2", 25th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX + Security 16), August 2016, + <https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity16/ + technical-sessions/presentation/aviram>. + + [Heninger2012] + Heninger, N., Durumeric, Z., Wustrow, E., and J. A. + Halderman, "Mining Your Ps and Qs: Detection of Widespread + Weak Keys in Network Devices", 21st Usenix Security + Symposium, August 2012. + + [IANA_TLS] IANA, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Parameters", + <https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters>. + + [IOT-PROFILE] + Tschofenig, H. and T. Fossati, "TLS/DTLS 1.3 Profiles for + the Internet of Things", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, + draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile-05, 6 July 2022, + <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-uta- + tls13-iot-profile-05>. + + [Jager2015] + Jager, T., Schwenk, J., and J. Somorovsky, "Practical + Invalid Curve Attacks on TLS-ECDH", Computer Security -- + ESORICS 2015, pp. 407-425, + DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-24174-6_21, 2015, + <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24174-6_21>. + + [Joux2006] Joux, A., "Authentication Failures in NIST version of + GCM", 2006, <https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/projects/ + block-cipher-techniques/documents/bcm/comments/800-38- + series-drafts/gcm/joux_comments.pdf>. + + [Kim2014] Kim, Y., Daly, R., Kim, J., Fallin, C., Lee, J. H., Lee, + D., Wilkerson, C., Lai, K., and O. Mutlu, "Flipping Bits + in Memory Without Accessing Them: An Experimental Study of + DRAM Disturbance Errors", DOI 10.1109/ISCA.2014.6853210, + July 2014, <https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~yoonguk/papers/kim- + isca14.pdf>. + + [Kleinjung2010] + Kleinjung, T., Aoki, K., Franke, J., Lenstra, A., Thomé, + E., Bos, J., Gaudry, P., Kruppa, A., Montgomery, P., + Osvik, D., te Riele, H., Timofeev, A., and P. Zimmermann, + "Factorization of a 768-Bit RSA Modulus", Advances in + Cryptology - CRYPTO 2010, pp. 333-350, + DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-14623-7_18, 2010, + <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14623-7_18>. + + [LetsRevoke] + Smith, T., Dickinson, L., and K. Seamons, "Let's Revoke: + Scalable Global Certificate Revocation", Proceedings 2020 + Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, + DOI 10.14722/ndss.2020.24084, February 2020, + <https://doi.org/10.14722/ndss.2020.24084>. + + [Logjam] Adrian, D., Bhargavan, K., Durumeric, Z., Gaudry, P., + Green, M., Halderman, J., Heninger, N., Springall, D., + Thomé, E., Valenta, L., VanderSloot, B., Wustrow, E., + Zanella-Béguelin, S., and P. Zimmermann, "Imperfect + Forward Secrecy: How Diffie-Hellman Fails in Practice", + Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer + and Communications Security, pp. 5-17, + DOI 10.1145/2810103.2813707, October 2015, + <https://doi.org/10.1145/2810103.2813707>. + + [Multiple-Encryption] + Merkle, R. and M. Hellman, "On the security of multiple + encryption", Communications of the ACM, Vol. 24, Issue 7, + pp. 465-467, DOI 10.1145/358699.358718, July 1981, + <https://doi.org/10.1145/358699.358718>. + + [NIST.SP.800-56A] + National Institute of Standards and Technology, + "Recommendation for Pair-Wise Key-Establishment Schemes + Using Discrete Logarithm Cryptography", Revision 3, NIST + Special Publication 800-56A, + DOI 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-56Ar3, April 2018, + <https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-56Ar3>. + + [PatersonRS11] + Paterson, K., Ristenpart, T., and T. Shrimpton, "Tag Size + Does Matter: Attacks and Proofs for the TLS Record + Protocol", Proceedings of the 17th International + conference on The Theory and Application of Cryptology and + Information Security, pp. 372-389, + DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-25385-0_20, December 2011, + <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25385-0_20>. + + [Poddebniak2017] + Poddebniak, D., Somorovsky, J., Schinzel, S., Lochter, M., + and P. Rösler, "Attacking Deterministic Signature Schemes + using Fault Attacks", Conference: 2018 IEEE European + Symposium on Security and Privacy, + DOI 10.1109/EuroSP.2018.00031, April 2018, + <https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/1014.pdf>. + + [POODLE] US-CERT, "SSL 3.0 Protocol Vulnerability and POODLE + Attack", October 2014, + <https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/alerts/TA14-290A>. + + [RACCOON] Merget, R., Brinkmann, M., Aviram, N., Somorovsky, J., + Mittmann, J., and J. Schwenk, "Raccoon Attack: Finding and + Exploiting Most-Significant-Bit-Oracles in TLS-DH(E)", + 30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21), 2021, + <https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity21/ + presentation/merget>. + + [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision + 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>. + + [RFC2246] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", + RFC 2246, DOI 10.17487/RFC2246, January 1999, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2246>. + + [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, + A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. + Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, + DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>. + + [RFC3602] Frankel, S., Glenn, R., and S. Kelly, "The AES-CBC Cipher + Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec", RFC 3602, + DOI 10.17487/RFC3602, September 2003, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3602>. + + [RFC4346] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security + (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1", RFC 4346, + DOI 10.17487/RFC4346, April 2006, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4346>. + + [RFC4347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer + Security", RFC 4347, DOI 10.17487/RFC4347, April 2006, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4347>. + + [RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2", + FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949>. + + [RFC5077] Salowey, J., Zhou, H., Eronen, P., and H. Tschofenig, + "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session Resumption without + Server-Side State", RFC 5077, DOI 10.17487/RFC5077, + January 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5077>. + + [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>. + + [RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., + Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key + Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List + (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>. + + [RFC5321] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321, + DOI 10.17487/RFC5321, October 2008, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5321>. + + [RFC6101] Freier, A., Karlton, P., and P. Kocher, "The Secure + Sockets Layer (SSL) Protocol Version 3.0", RFC 6101, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6101, August 2011, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6101>. + + [RFC6120] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence + Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, DOI 10.17487/RFC6120, + March 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6120>. + + [RFC6698] Hoffman, P. and J. Schlyter, "The DNS-Based Authentication + of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS) + Protocol: TLSA", RFC 6698, DOI 10.17487/RFC6698, August + 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6698>. + + [RFC6797] Hodges, J., Jackson, C., and A. Barth, "HTTP Strict + Transport Security (HSTS)", RFC 6797, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6797, November 2012, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6797>. + + [RFC6960] Santesson, S., Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A., + Galperin, S., and C. Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key + Infrastructure Online Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP", + RFC 6960, DOI 10.17487/RFC6960, June 2013, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6960>. + + [RFC6961] Pettersen, Y., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) + Multiple Certificate Status Request Extension", RFC 6961, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6961, June 2013, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6961>. + + [RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for + Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>. + + [RFC7435] Dukhovni, V., "Opportunistic Security: Some Protection + Most of the Time", RFC 7435, DOI 10.17487/RFC7435, + December 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7435>. + + [RFC7457] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre, "Summarizing + Known Attacks on Transport Layer Security (TLS) and + Datagram TLS (DTLS)", RFC 7457, DOI 10.17487/RFC7457, + February 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7457>. + + [RFC7507] Moeller, B. and A. Langley, "TLS Fallback Signaling Cipher + Suite Value (SCSV) for Preventing Protocol Downgrade + Attacks", RFC 7507, DOI 10.17487/RFC7507, April 2015, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7507>. + + [RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre, + "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer + Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security + (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May + 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>. + + [RFC7568] Barnes, R., Thomson, M., Pironti, A., and A. Langley, + "Deprecating Secure Sockets Layer Version 3.0", RFC 7568, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7568, June 2015, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7568>. + + [RFC7590] Saint-Andre, P. and T. Alkemade, "Use of Transport Layer + Security (TLS) in the Extensible Messaging and Presence + Protocol (XMPP)", RFC 7590, DOI 10.17487/RFC7590, June + 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7590>. + + [RFC7633] Hallam-Baker, P., "X.509v3 Transport Layer Security (TLS) + Feature Extension", RFC 7633, DOI 10.17487/RFC7633, + October 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7633>. + + [RFC7672] Dukhovni, V. and W. Hardaker, "SMTP Security via + Opportunistic DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities + (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 7672, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7672, October 2015, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7672>. + + [RFC7673] Finch, T., Miller, M., and P. Saint-Andre, "Using DNS- + Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) TLSA Records + with SRV Records", RFC 7673, DOI 10.17487/RFC7673, October + 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7673>. + + [RFC7712] Saint-Andre, P., Miller, M., and P. Hancke, "Domain Name + Associations (DNA) in the Extensible Messaging and + Presence Protocol (XMPP)", RFC 7712, DOI 10.17487/RFC7712, + November 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7712>. + + [RFC7919] Gillmor, D., "Negotiated Finite Field Diffie-Hellman + Ephemeral Parameters for Transport Layer Security (TLS)", + RFC 7919, DOI 10.17487/RFC7919, August 2016, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7919>. + + [RFC7924] Santesson, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Transport Layer Security + (TLS) Cached Information Extension", RFC 7924, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7924, July 2016, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7924>. + + [RFC7925] Tschofenig, H., Ed. and T. Fossati, "Transport Layer + Security (TLS) / Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) + Profiles for the Internet of Things", RFC 7925, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7925, July 2016, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7925>. + + [RFC8452] Gueron, S., Langley, A., and Y. Lindell, "AES-GCM-SIV: + Nonce Misuse-Resistant Authenticated Encryption", + RFC 8452, DOI 10.17487/RFC8452, April 2019, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8452>. + + [RFC8461] Margolis, D., Risher, M., Ramakrishnan, B., Brotman, A., + and J. Jones, "SMTP MTA Strict Transport Security (MTA- + STS)", RFC 8461, DOI 10.17487/RFC8461, September 2018, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8461>. + + [RFC8470] Thomson, M., Nottingham, M., and W. Tarreau, "Using Early + Data in HTTP", RFC 8470, DOI 10.17487/RFC8470, September + 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8470>. + + [RFC8879] Ghedini, A. and V. Vasiliev, "TLS Certificate + Compression", RFC 8879, DOI 10.17487/RFC8879, December + 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8879>. + + [RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based + Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000, + DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>. + + [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>. + + [RFC9051] Melnikov, A., Ed. and B. Leiba, Ed., "Internet Message + Access Protocol (IMAP) - Version 4rev2", RFC 9051, + DOI 10.17487/RFC9051, August 2021, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9051>. + + [RFC9110] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, + Ed., "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110, + DOI 10.17487/RFC9110, June 2022, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9110>. + + [RFC9112] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, + Ed., "HTTP/1.1", STD 99, RFC 9112, DOI 10.17487/RFC9112, + June 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9112>. + + [RFC9113] Thomson, M., Ed. and C. Benfield, Ed., "HTTP/2", RFC 9113, + DOI 10.17487/RFC9113, June 2022, + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9113>. + + [RFC9162] Laurie, B., Messeri, E., and R. Stradling, "Certificate + Transparency Version 2.0", RFC 9162, DOI 10.17487/RFC9162, + December 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9162>. + + [RFC9191] Sethi, M., Preuß Mattsson, J., and S. Turner, "Handling + Large Certificates and Long Certificate Chains in TLS- + Based EAP Methods", RFC 9191, DOI 10.17487/RFC9191, + February 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9191>. + + [SAFECURVES] + Bernstein, D. J. and T. Lange, "SafeCurves: choosing safe + curves for elliptic-curve cryptography", December 2014, + <https://safecurves.cr.yp.to>. + + [Soghoian2011] + Soghoian, C. and S. Stamm, "Certified Lies: Detecting and + Defeating Government Interception Attacks Against SSL", + SSRN Electronic Journal, DOI 10.2139/ssrn.1591033, April + 2010, <https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1591033>. + + [Springall16] + Springall, D., Durumeric, Z., and J. Halderman, "Measuring + the Security Harm of TLS Crypto Shortcuts", Proceedings of + the 2016 Internet Measurement Conference, pp. 33-47, + DOI 10.1145/2987443.2987480, November 2016, + <https://doi.org/10.1145/2987443.2987480>. + + [STD53] Myers, J. and M. Rose, "Post Office Protocol - Version 3", + STD 53, RFC 1939, May 1996. + + <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std53> + + [Sy2018] Sy, E., Burkert, C., Federrath, H., and M. Fischer, + "Tracking Users across the Web via TLS Session + Resumption", Proceedings of the 34th Annual Computer + Security Applications Conference, pp. 289-299, + DOI 10.1145/3274694.3274708, December 2018, + <https://doi.org/10.1145/3274694.3274708>. + + [TLS-ECH] Rescorla, E., Oku, K., Sullivan, N., and C. A. Wood, "TLS + Encrypted Client Hello", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, + draft-ietf-tls-esni-15, 3 October 2022, + <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls- + esni-15>. + + [Triple-Handshake] + Bhargavan, K., Lavaud, A., Fournet, C., Pironti, A., and + P. Strub, "Triple Handshakes and Cookie Cutters: Breaking + and Fixing Authentication over TLS", 2014 IEEE Symposium + on Security and Privacy, DOI 10.1109/sp.2014.14, May 2014, + <https://doi.org/10.1109/sp.2014.14>. + + [TWIRL] Shamir, A. and E. Tromer, "Factoring Large Numbers with + the TWIRL Device", 2014 IEEE Symposium on Security and + Privacy, DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-45146-4_1, 2004, + <https://cs.tau.ac.il/~tromer/papers/twirl.pdf>. + +Appendix A. Differences from RFC 7525 + + This revision of the Best Current Practices contains numerous + changes, and this section is focused on the normative changes. + + * High-level differences: + + - Described the expectations from new TLS-incorporating transport + protocols and from new application protocols layered on TLS. + + - Clarified items (e.g., renegotiation) that only apply to TLS + 1.2. + + - Changed the status of TLS 1.0 and 1.1 from "SHOULD NOT" to + "MUST NOT". + + - Added TLS 1.3 at a "SHOULD" level. + + - Made similar changes to DTLS. + + - Included specific guidance for multiplexed protocols. + + - MUST-level implementation requirement for ALPN and more + specific SHOULD-level guidance for ALPN and SNI. + + - Clarified discussion of strict TLS policies, including MUST- + level recommendations. + + - Limits on key usage. + + - New attacks since [RFC7457]: ALPACA, Raccoon, Logjam, and + "Nonce-Disrespecting Adversaries". + + - RFC 6961 (OCSP status_request_v2) has been deprecated. + + - MUST-level requirement for server-side RSA certificates to have + a 2048-bit modulus at a minimum, replacing a "SHOULD". + + * Differences specific to TLS 1.2: + + - SHOULD-level guidance on AES-GCM nonce generation. + + - SHOULD NOT use (static or ephemeral) finite-field DH key + agreement. + + - SHOULD NOT reuse ephemeral finite-field DH keys across multiple + connections. + + - SHOULD NOT use static Elliptic Curve DH key exchange. + + - 2048-bit DH is now a "MUST" and ECDH minimal curve size is 224 + (vs. 192 previously). + + - Support for extended_master_secret is now a "MUST" (previously + it was a soft recommendation, as the RFC had not been published + at the time). Also removed other, more complicated, related + mitigations. + + - MUST-level restriction on session ticket validity, replacing a + "SHOULD". + + - SHOULD-level restriction on the TLS session duration, depending + on the rotation period of an [RFC5077] ticket key. + + - Dropped TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES from the recommended ciphers. + + - Added TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES to the recommended ciphers. + + - SHOULD NOT use the old MTI cipher suite, + TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA. + + - Recommended curve X25519 alongside NIST P-256. + + * Differences specific to TLS 1.3: + + - New TLS 1.3 capabilities: 0-RTT. + + - Removed capabilities: renegotiation and compression. + + - Added mention of TLS Encrypted Client Hello, but no + recommendation for use until it is finalized. + + - SHOULD-level requirement for forward secrecy in TLS 1.3 session + resumption. + + - Generic MUST-level guidance to avoid 0-RTT unless it is + documented for the particular protocol. + +Acknowledgments + + Thanks to Alexey Melnikov, Alvaro Retana, Andrei Popov, Ben Kaduk, + Christian Huitema, Corey Bonnell, Cullen Jennings, Daniel Kahn + Gillmor, David Benjamin, Eric Rescorla, Éric Vyncke, Francesca + Palombini, Hannes Tschofenig, Hubert Kario, Ilari Liusvaara, John + Preuß Mattsson, John R. Levine, Julien Élie, Lars Eggert, Leif + Johansson, Magnus Westerlund, Martin Duke, Martin Thomson, Mohit + Sahni, Nick Sullivan, Nimrod Aviram, Paul Wouters, Peter Gutmann, + Rich Salz, Robert Sayre, Robert Wilton, Roman Danyliw, Ryan Sleevi, + Sean Turner, Stephen Farrell, Tim Evans, Valery Smyslov, Viktor + Dukhovni, and Warren Kumari for helpful comments and discussions that + have shaped this document. + + The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of Ralph Holz, + who was a coauthor of RFC 7525, the previous version of the TLS + recommendations. + + See RFC 7525 for additional acknowledgments specific to the previous + version of the TLS recommendations. + +Authors' Addresses + + Yaron Sheffer + Intuit + Email: yaronf.ietf@gmail.com + + + Peter Saint-Andre + Independent + Email: stpeter@stpeter.im + + + Thomas Fossati + ARM Limited + Email: thomas.fossati@arm.com |