From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc5054.txt | 1347 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 1347 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc5054.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc5054.txt') diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc5054.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc5054.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..86e391c --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc5054.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1347 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group D. Taylor +Request for Comments: 5054 Independent +Category: Informational T. Wu + Cisco + N. Mavrogiannopoulos + T. Perrin + Independent + November 2007 + + + Using the Secure Remote Password (SRP) Protocol for TLS Authentication + +Status of This Memo + + This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does + not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this + memo is unlimited. + +Abstract + + This memo presents a technique for using the Secure Remote Password + protocol as an authentication method for the Transport Layer Security + protocol. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Taylor, et al. Informational [Page 1] + +RFC 5054 Using SRP for TLS Authentication November 2007 + + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 2. SRP Authentication in TLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 2.1. Notation and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 2.2. Handshake Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 2.3. Text Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 2.4. SRP Verifier Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 2.5. Changes to the Handshake Message Contents . . . . . . . . 5 + 2.5.1. Client Hello . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 2.5.2. Server Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 2.5.3. Server Key Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 2.5.4. Client Key Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 2.6. Calculating the Premaster Secret . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 2.7. Ciphersuite Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 2.8. New Message Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 2.8.1. Client Hello . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 2.8.2. Server Key Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 2.8.3. Client Key Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 2.9. Error Alerts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 3.1. General Considerations for Implementors . . . . . . . . . 12 + 3.2. Accepting Group Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 3.3. Protocol Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 3.4. Hash Function Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + Appendix A. SRP Group Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + Appendix B. SRP Test Vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + Appendix C. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Taylor, et al. Informational [Page 2] + +RFC 5054 Using SRP for TLS Authentication November 2007 + + +1. Introduction + + At the time of writing TLS [TLS] uses public key certificates, pre- + shared keys, or Kerberos for authentication. + + These authentication methods do not seem well suited to certain + applications now being adapted to use TLS ([IMAP], for example). + Given that many protocols are designed to use the user name and + password method of authentication, being able to safely use user + names and passwords provides an easier route to additional security. + + SRP ([SRP], [SRP-6]) is an authentication method that allows the use + of user names and passwords over unencrypted channels without + revealing the password to an eavesdropper. SRP also supplies a + shared secret at the end of the authentication sequence that can be + used to generate encryption keys. + + This document describes the use of the SRP authentication method for + TLS. + + 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 [REQ]. + +2. SRP Authentication in TLS + +2.1. Notation and Terminology + + The version of SRP used here is sometimes referred to as "SRP-6" + [SRP-6]. This version is a slight improvement over "SRP-3", which + was described in [SRP] and [SRP-RFC]. For convenience, this document + and [SRP-RFC] include the details necessary to implement SRP-6; + [SRP-6] is cited for informative purposes only. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Taylor, et al. Informational [Page 3] + +RFC 5054 Using SRP for TLS Authentication November 2007 + + + This document uses the variable names defined in [SRP-6]: + + N, g: group parameters (prime and generator) + + s: salt + + B, b: server's public and private values + + A, a: client's public and private values + + I: user name (aka "identity") + + P: password + + v: verifier + + k: SRP-6 multiplier + + The | symbol indicates string concatenation, the ^ operator is the + exponentiation operation, and the % operator is the integer remainder + operation. + + Conversion between integers and byte-strings assumes the most + significant bytes are stored first, as per [TLS] and [SRP-RFC]. In + the following text, if a conversion from integer to byte-string is + implicit, the most significant byte in the resultant byte-string MUST + be non-zero. If a conversion is explicitly specified with the + operator PAD(), the integer will first be implicitly converted, then + the resultant byte-string will be left-padded with zeros (if + necessary) until its length equals the implicitly-converted length of + N. + +2.2. Handshake Protocol Overview + + The advent of [SRP-6] allows the SRP protocol to be implemented using + the standard sequence of handshake messages defined in [TLS]. + + The parameters to various messages are given in the following + diagram. + + + + + + + + + + + + +Taylor, et al. Informational [Page 4] + +RFC 5054 Using SRP for TLS Authentication November 2007 + + + Client Server + + Client Hello (I) --------> + Server Hello + Certificate* + Server Key Exchange (N, g, s, B) + <-------- Server Hello Done + Client Key Exchange (A) --------> + [Change cipher spec] + Finished --------> + [Change cipher spec] + <-------- Finished + + Application Data <-------> Application Data + + * Indicates an optional message that is not always sent. + + Figure 1 + +2.3. Text Preparation + + The user name and password strings SHALL be UTF-8 encoded Unicode, + prepared using the [SASLPREP] profile of [STRINGPREP]. + +2.4. SRP Verifier Creation + + The verifier is calculated as described in Section 3 of [SRP-RFC]. + We give the algorithm here for convenience. + + The verifier (v) is computed based on the salt (s), user name (I), + password (P), and group parameters (N, g). The computation uses the + [SHA1] hash algorithm: + + x = SHA1(s | SHA1(I | ":" | P)) + v = g^x % N + +2.5. Changes to the Handshake Message Contents + + This section describes the changes to the TLS handshake message + contents when SRP is being used for authentication. The definitions + of the new message contents and the on-the-wire changes are given in + Section 2.8. + + + + + + + + + +Taylor, et al. Informational [Page 5] + +RFC 5054 Using SRP for TLS Authentication November 2007 + + +2.5.1. Client Hello + + The user name is appended to the standard client hello message using + the extension mechanism defined in [TLSEXT] (see Section 2.8.1). + This user name extension is henceforth called the "SRP extension". + The following subsections give details of its use. + +2.5.1.1. Session Resumption + + When a client attempts to resume a session that uses SRP + authentication, the client MUST include the SRP extension in the + client hello message, in case the server cannot or will not allow + session resumption, meaning a full handshake is required. + + If the server does agree to resume an existing session, the server + MUST ignore the information in the SRP extension of the client hello + message, except for its inclusion in the finished message hashes. + This is to ensure that attackers cannot replace the authenticated + identity without supplying the proper authentication information. + +2.5.1.2. Missing SRP Extension + + The client may offer SRP cipher suites in the hello message but omit + the SRP extension. If the server would like to select an SRP cipher + suite in this case, the server SHOULD return a fatal + "unknown_psk_identity" alert (see Section 2.9) immediately after + processing the client hello message. + + A client receiving this alert MAY choose to reconnect and resend the + hello message, this time with the SRP extension. This allows the + client to advertise that it supports SRP, but not have to prompt the + user for his user name and password, nor expose the user name in the + clear, unless necessary. + +2.5.1.3. Unknown SRP User Name + + If the server doesn't have a verifier for the user name in the SRP + extension, the server MAY abort the handshake with an + "unknown_psk_identity" alert (see Section 2.9). Alternatively, if + the server wishes to hide the fact that this user name doesn't have a + verifier, the server MAY simulate the protocol as if a verifier + existed, but then reject the client's finished message with a + "bad_record_mac" alert, as if the password was incorrect. + + To simulate the existence of an entry for each user name, the server + must consistently return the same salt (s) and group (N, g) values + for the same user name. For example, the server could store a secret + "seed key" and then use HMAC-SHA1(seed_key, "salt" | user_name) to + + + +Taylor, et al. Informational [Page 6] + +RFC 5054 Using SRP for TLS Authentication November 2007 + + + generate the salts [HMAC]. For B, the server can return a random + value between 1 and N-1 inclusive. However, the server should take + care to simulate computation delays. One way to do this is to + generate a fake verifier using the "seed key" approach, and then + proceed with the protocol as usual. + +2.5.2. Server Certificate + + The server MUST send a certificate if it agrees to an SRP cipher + suite that requires the server to provide additional authentication + in the form of a digital signature. See Section 2.7 for details of + which cipher suites defined in this document require a server + certificate to be sent. + +2.5.3. Server Key Exchange + + The server key exchange message contains the prime (N), the generator + (g), and the salt value (s) read from the SRP password file based on + the user name (I) received in the client hello extension. + + The server key exchange message also contains the server's public + value (B). The server calculates this value as B = k*v + g^b % N, + where b is a random number that SHOULD be at least 256 bits in length + and k = SHA1(N | PAD(g)). + + If the server has sent a certificate message, the server key exchange + message MUST be signed. + + The group parameters (N, g) sent in this message MUST have N as a + safe prime (a prime of the form N=2q+1, where q is also prime). The + integers from 1 to N-1 will form a group under multiplication % N, + and g MUST be a generator of this group. In addition, the group + parameters MUST NOT be specially chosen to allow efficient + computation of discrete logarithms. + + The SRP group parameters in Appendix A satisfy the above + requirements, so the client SHOULD accept any parameters from this + appendix that have large enough N values to meet her security + requirements. + + The client MAY accept other group parameters from the server, if the + client has reason to believe that these parameters satisfy the above + requirements, and the parameters have large enough N values. For + example, if the parameters transmitted by the server match parameters + on a "known-good" list, the client may choose to accept them. See + Section 3 for additional security considerations relevant to the + acceptance of the group parameters. + + + + +Taylor, et al. Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 5054 Using SRP for TLS Authentication November 2007 + + + Group parameters that are not accepted via one of the above methods + MUST be rejected with an "insufficient_security" alert (see + Section 2.9). + + The client MUST abort the handshake with an "illegal_parameter" alert + if B % N = 0. + +2.5.4. Client Key Exchange + + The client key exchange message carries the client's public value + (A). The client calculates this value as A = g^a % N, where a is a + random number that SHOULD be at least 256 bits in length. + + The server MUST abort the handshake with an "illegal_parameter" alert + if A % N = 0. + +2.6. Calculating the Premaster Secret + + The premaster secret is calculated by the client as follows: + + I, P = + N, g, s, B = + a = random() + A = g^a % N + u = SHA1(PAD(A) | PAD(B)) + k = SHA1(N | PAD(g)) + x = SHA1(s | SHA1(I | ":" | P)) + = (B - (k * g^x)) ^ (a + (u * x)) % N + + The premaster secret is calculated by the server as follows: + + N, g, s, v = + b = random() + k = SHA1(N | PAD(g)) + B = k*v + g^b % N + A = + u = SHA1(PAD(A) | PAD(B)) + = (A * v^u) ^ b % N + + The finished messages perform the same function as the client and + server evidence messages (M1 and M2) specified in [SRP-RFC]. If + either the client or the server calculates an incorrect premaster + secret, the finished messages will fail to decrypt properly, and the + other party will return a "bad_record_mac" alert. + + If a client application receives a "bad_record_mac" alert when + performing an SRP handshake, it should inform the user that the + entered user name and password are incorrect. + + + +Taylor, et al. Informational [Page 8] + +RFC 5054 Using SRP for TLS Authentication November 2007 + + +2.7. Ciphersuite Definitions + + The following cipher suites are added by this document. The usage of + Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) cipher suites is as defined in + [AESCIPH]. + + CipherSuite TLS_SRP_SHA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA = { 0xC0,0x1A }; + + CipherSuite TLS_SRP_SHA_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA = { 0xC0,0x1B }; + + CipherSuite TLS_SRP_SHA_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA = { 0xC0,0x1C }; + + CipherSuite TLS_SRP_SHA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA = { 0xC0,0x1D }; + + CipherSuite TLS_SRP_SHA_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA = { 0xC0,0x1E }; + + CipherSuite TLS_SRP_SHA_DSS_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA = { 0xC0,0x1F }; + + CipherSuite TLS_SRP_SHA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA = { 0xC0,0x20 }; + + CipherSuite TLS_SRP_SHA_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA = { 0xC0,0x21 }; + + CipherSuite TLS_SRP_SHA_DSS_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA = { 0xC0,0x22 }; + + Cipher suites that begin with TLS_SRP_SHA_RSA or TLS_SRP_SHA_DSS + require the server to send a certificate message containing a + certificate with the specified type of public key, and to sign the + server key exchange message using a matching private key. + + Cipher suites that do not include a digital signature algorithm + identifier assume that the server is authenticated by its possession + of the SRP verifier. + + Implementations conforming to this specification MUST implement the + TLS_SRP_SHA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA cipher suite, SHOULD implement the + TLS_SRP_SHA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA and TLS_SRP_SHA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA + cipher suites, and MAY implement the remaining cipher suites. + +2.8. New Message Structures + + This section shows the structure of the messages passed during a + handshake that uses SRP for authentication. The representation + language used is the same as that used in [TLS]. + + + + + + + + +Taylor, et al. Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 5054 Using SRP for TLS Authentication November 2007 + + +2.8.1. Client Hello + + A new extension "srp", with value 12, has been added to the + enumerated ExtensionType defined in [TLSEXT]. This value MUST be + used as the extension number for the SRP extension. + + The "extension_data" field of the SRP extension SHALL contain: + + opaque srp_I<1..2^8-1>; + + where srp_I is the user name, encoded per Section 2.3. + +2.8.2. Server Key Exchange + + A new value, "srp", has been added to the enumerated + KeyExchangeAlgorithm originally defined in [TLS]. + + When the value of KeyExchangeAlgorithm is set to "srp", the server's + SRP parameters are sent in the server key exchange message, encoded + in a ServerSRPParams structure. + + If a certificate is sent to the client, the server key exchange + message must be signed. + + enum { rsa, diffie_hellman, srp } KeyExchangeAlgorithm; + + struct { + select (KeyExchangeAlgorithm) { + case diffie_hellman: + ServerDHParams params; + Signature signed_params; + case rsa: + ServerRSAParams params; + Signature signed_params; + case srp: /* new entry */ + ServerSRPParams params; + Signature signed_params; + }; + } ServerKeyExchange; + + struct { + opaque srp_N<1..2^16-1>; + opaque srp_g<1..2^16-1>; + opaque srp_s<1..2^8-1>; + opaque srp_B<1..2^16-1>; + } ServerSRPParams; /* SRP parameters */ + + + + + +Taylor, et al. Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 5054 Using SRP for TLS Authentication November 2007 + + +2.8.3. Client Key Exchange + + When the value of KeyExchangeAlgorithm is set to "srp", the client's + public value (A) is sent in the client key exchange message, encoded + in a ClientSRPPublic structure. + + struct { + select (KeyExchangeAlgorithm) { + case rsa: EncryptedPreMasterSecret; + case diffie_hellman: ClientDiffieHellmanPublic; + case srp: ClientSRPPublic; /* new entry */ + } exchange_keys; + } ClientKeyExchange; + + struct { + opaque srp_A<1..2^16-1>; + } ClientSRPPublic; + +2.9. Error Alerts + + This document introduces four new uses of alerts: + + o "unknown_psk_identity" (115) - this alert MAY be sent by a server + that would like to select an offered SRP cipher suite, if the SRP + extension is absent from the client's hello message. This alert + is always fatal. See Section 2.5.1.2 for details. + + o "unknown_psk_identity" (115) - this alert MAY be sent by a server + that receives an unknown user name. This alert is always fatal. + See Section 2.5.1.3 for details. + + o "insufficient_security" (71) - this alert MUST be sent by a client + that receives unknown or untrusted (N, g) values. This alert is + always fatal. See Section 2.5.3 for details. + + o "illegal_parameter" (47) - this alert MUST be sent by a client or + server that receives a key exchange message with A % N = 0 or B % + N = 0. This alert is always fatal. See Section 2.5.3 and + Section 2.5.4 and for details. + + The "insufficient_security" and "illegal_parameter" alerts are + defined in [TLS]. The "unknown_psk_identity" alert is defined in + [PSK]. + + + + + + + + +Taylor, et al. Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 5054 Using SRP for TLS Authentication November 2007 + + +3. Security Considerations + +3.1. General Considerations for Implementors + + The checks described in Section 2.5.3 and Section 2.5.4 on the + received values for A and B are CRUCIAL for security and MUST be + performed. + + The private values a and b SHOULD be at least 256-bit random numbers, + to give approximately 128 bits of security against certain methods of + calculating discrete logarithms. See [TLS], Section D.1, for advice + on choosing cryptographically secure random numbers. + +3.2. Accepting Group Parameters + + An attacker who could calculate discrete logarithms % N could + compromise user passwords, and could also compromise the + confidentiality and integrity of TLS sessions. Clients MUST ensure + that the received parameter N is large enough to make calculating + discrete logarithms computationally infeasible. + + An attacker may try to send a prime value N that is large enough to + be secure, but that has a special form for which the attacker can + more easily compute discrete logarithms (e.g., using the algorithm + discussed in [TRAPDOOR]). If the client executes the protocol using + such a prime, the client's password could be compromised. Because of + the difficulty of checking for such primes in real time, clients + SHOULD only accept group parameters that come from a trusted source, + such as those listed in Appendix A, or parameters configured locally + by a trusted administrator. + +3.3. Protocol Characteristics + + If an attacker learns a user's SRP verifier (e.g., by gaining access + to a server's password file), the attacker can masquerade as the real + server to that user, and can also attempt a dictionary attack to + recover that user's password. + + An attacker could repeatedly contact an SRP server and try to guess a + legitimate user's password. Servers SHOULD take steps to prevent + this, such as limiting the rate of authentication attempts from a + particular IP address or against a particular user name. + + The client's user name is sent in the clear in the Client Hello + message. To avoid sending the user name in the clear, the client + could first open a conventional anonymous or server-authenticated + connection, then renegotiate an SRP-authenticated connection with the + handshake protected by the first connection. + + + +Taylor, et al. Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 5054 Using SRP for TLS Authentication November 2007 + + + If the client receives an "unknown_psk_identity" alert in response to + a client hello, this alert may have been inserted by an attacker. + The client should be careful about making any decisions, or forming + any conclusions, based on receiving this alert. + + It is possible to choose a (user name, password) pair such that the + resulting verifier will also match other, related, (user name, + password) pairs. Thus, anyone using verifiers should be careful not + to assume that only a single (user name, password) pair matches the + verifier. + +3.4. Hash Function Considerations + + This protocol uses SHA-1 to derive several values: + + o u prevents an attacker who learns a user's verifier from being + able to authenticate as that user (see [SRP-6]). + + o k prevents an attacker who can select group parameters from being + able to launch a 2-for-1 guessing attack (see [SRP-6]). + + o x contains the user's password mixed with a salt. + + Cryptanalytic attacks against SHA-1 that only affect its collision- + resistance do not compromise these uses. If attacks against SHA-1 + are discovered that do compromise these uses, new cipher suites + should be specified to use a different hash algorithm. + + In this situation, clients could send a Client Hello message + containing new and/or old SRP cipher suites along with a single SRP + extension. The server could then select the appropriate cipher suite + based on the type of verifier it has stored for this user. + +4. IANA Considerations + + This document defines a new TLS extension "srp" (value 12), whose + value has been assigned from the TLS ExtensionType Registry defined + in [TLSEXT]. + + This document defines nine new cipher suites, whose values have been + assigned from the TLS Ciphersuite registry defined in [TLS]. + + CipherSuite TLS_SRP_SHA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA = { 0xC0,0x1A }; + + CipherSuite TLS_SRP_SHA_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA = { 0xC0,0x1B }; + + CipherSuite TLS_SRP_SHA_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA = { 0xC0,0x1C }; + + + + +Taylor, et al. Informational [Page 13] + +RFC 5054 Using SRP for TLS Authentication November 2007 + + + CipherSuite TLS_SRP_SHA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA = { 0xC0,0x1D }; + + CipherSuite TLS_SRP_SHA_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA = { 0xC0,0x1E }; + + CipherSuite TLS_SRP_SHA_DSS_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA = { 0xC0,0x1F }; + + CipherSuite TLS_SRP_SHA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA = { 0xC0,0x20 }; + + CipherSuite TLS_SRP_SHA_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA = { 0xC0,0x21 }; + + CipherSuite TLS_SRP_SHA_DSS_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA = { 0xC0,0x22 }; + +5. References + +5.1. Normative References + + [REQ] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. + + [TLS] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The TLS Protocol version + 1.1", RFC 4346, April 2006. + + [TLSEXT] Blake-Wilson, S., Nystrom, M., Hopwood, D., Mikkelsen, + J., and T. Wright, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) + Extensions", RFC 4366, April 2006. + + [STRINGPREP] Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Preparation of + Internationalized Strings ("stringprep")", RFC 3454, + December 2002. + + [SASLPREP] Zeilenga, K., "SASLprep: Stringprep profile for user + names and passwords", RFC 4013, February 2005. + + [SRP-RFC] Wu, T., "The SRP Authentication and Key Exchange + System", RFC 2945, September 2000. + + [SHA1] "Secure Hash Standard (SHS)", FIPS 180-2, August 2002. + + [HMAC] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: + Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, + February 1997. + + [AESCIPH] Chown, P., "Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) + Ciphersuites for Transport Layer Security (TLS)", + RFC 3268, June 2002. + + + + + + +Taylor, et al. Informational [Page 14] + +RFC 5054 Using SRP for TLS Authentication November 2007 + + + [PSK] Eronen, P. and H. Tschofenig, "Pre-Shared Key + Ciphersuites for Transport Layer Security (TLS)", + RFC 4279, December 2005. + + [MODP] Kivinen, T. and M. Kojo, "More Modular Exponentiation + (MODP) Diffie-Hellman groups for Internet Key Exchange + (IKE)", RFC 3526, May 2003. + +5.2. Informative References + + [IMAP] Newman, C., "Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP", + RFC 2595, June 1999. + + [SRP-6] Wu, T., "SRP-6: Improvements and Refinements to the + Secure Remote Password Protocol", Submission to IEEE + P1363.2 working group, October 2002, + . + + [SRP] Wu, T., "The Secure Remote Password Protocol", + Proceedings of the 1998 Internet Society Network and + Distributed System Security Symposium pp. 97-111, + March 1998. + + [TRAPDOOR] Gordon, D., "Designing and Detecting Trapdoors for + Discrete Log Cryptosystems", Springer-Verlag Advances + in Cryptology - Crypto '92, pp. 66-75, 1993. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Taylor, et al. Informational [Page 15] + +RFC 5054 Using SRP for TLS Authentication November 2007 + + +Appendix A. SRP Group Parameters + + The 1024-, 1536-, and 2048-bit groups are taken from software + developed by Tom Wu and Eugene Jhong for the Stanford SRP + distribution, and subsequently proven to be prime. The larger primes + are taken from [MODP], but generators have been calculated that are + primitive roots of N, unlike the generators in [MODP]. + + The 1024-bit and 1536-bit groups MUST be supported. + + 1. 1024-bit Group + + The hexadecimal value for the prime is: + + EEAF0AB9 ADB38DD6 9C33F80A FA8FC5E8 60726187 75FF3C0B 9EA2314C + 9C256576 D674DF74 96EA81D3 383B4813 D692C6E0 E0D5D8E2 50B98BE4 + 8E495C1D 6089DAD1 5DC7D7B4 6154D6B6 CE8EF4AD 69B15D49 82559B29 + 7BCF1885 C529F566 660E57EC 68EDBC3C 05726CC0 2FD4CBF4 976EAA9A + FD5138FE 8376435B 9FC61D2F C0EB06E3 + + The generator is: 2. + + 2. 1536-bit Group + + The hexadecimal value for the prime is: + + 9DEF3CAF B939277A B1F12A86 17A47BBB DBA51DF4 99AC4C80 BEEEA961 + 4B19CC4D 5F4F5F55 6E27CBDE 51C6A94B E4607A29 1558903B A0D0F843 + 80B655BB 9A22E8DC DF028A7C EC67F0D0 8134B1C8 B9798914 9B609E0B + E3BAB63D 47548381 DBC5B1FC 764E3F4B 53DD9DA1 158BFD3E 2B9C8CF5 + 6EDF0195 39349627 DB2FD53D 24B7C486 65772E43 7D6C7F8C E442734A + F7CCB7AE 837C264A E3A9BEB8 7F8A2FE9 B8B5292E 5A021FFF 5E91479E + 8CE7A28C 2442C6F3 15180F93 499A234D CF76E3FE D135F9BB + + The generator is: 2. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Taylor, et al. Informational [Page 16] + +RFC 5054 Using SRP for TLS Authentication November 2007 + + + 3. 2048-bit Group + + The hexadecimal value for the prime is: + + AC6BDB41 324A9A9B F166DE5E 1389582F AF72B665 1987EE07 FC319294 + 3DB56050 A37329CB B4A099ED 8193E075 7767A13D D52312AB 4B03310D + CD7F48A9 DA04FD50 E8083969 EDB767B0 CF609517 9A163AB3 661A05FB + D5FAAAE8 2918A996 2F0B93B8 55F97993 EC975EEA A80D740A DBF4FF74 + 7359D041 D5C33EA7 1D281E44 6B14773B CA97B43A 23FB8016 76BD207A + 436C6481 F1D2B907 8717461A 5B9D32E6 88F87748 544523B5 24B0D57D + 5EA77A27 75D2ECFA 032CFBDB F52FB378 61602790 04E57AE6 AF874E73 + 03CE5329 9CCC041C 7BC308D8 2A5698F3 A8D0C382 71AE35F8 E9DBFBB6 + 94B5C803 D89F7AE4 35DE236D 525F5475 9B65E372 FCD68EF2 0FA7111F + 9E4AFF73 + + The generator is: 2. + + 4. 3072-bit Group + + This prime is: 2^3072 - 2^3008 - 1 + 2^64 * { [2^2942 pi] + + 1690314 } + + Its hexadecimal value is: + + FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF C90FDAA2 2168C234 C4C6628B 80DC1CD1 29024E08 + 8A67CC74 020BBEA6 3B139B22 514A0879 8E3404DD EF9519B3 CD3A431B + 302B0A6D F25F1437 4FE1356D 6D51C245 E485B576 625E7EC6 F44C42E9 + A637ED6B 0BFF5CB6 F406B7ED EE386BFB 5A899FA5 AE9F2411 7C4B1FE6 + 49286651 ECE45B3D C2007CB8 A163BF05 98DA4836 1C55D39A 69163FA8 + FD24CF5F 83655D23 DCA3AD96 1C62F356 208552BB 9ED52907 7096966D + 670C354E 4ABC9804 F1746C08 CA18217C 32905E46 2E36CE3B E39E772C + 180E8603 9B2783A2 EC07A28F B5C55DF0 6F4C52C9 DE2BCBF6 95581718 + 3995497C EA956AE5 15D22618 98FA0510 15728E5A 8AAAC42D AD33170D + 04507A33 A85521AB DF1CBA64 ECFB8504 58DBEF0A 8AEA7157 5D060C7D + B3970F85 A6E1E4C7 ABF5AE8C DB0933D7 1E8C94E0 4A25619D CEE3D226 + 1AD2EE6B F12FFA06 D98A0864 D8760273 3EC86A64 521F2B18 177B200C + BBE11757 7A615D6C 770988C0 BAD946E2 08E24FA0 74E5AB31 43DB5BFC + E0FD108E 4B82D120 A93AD2CA FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF + + The generator is: 5. + + + + + + + + + + + +Taylor, et al. Informational [Page 17] + +RFC 5054 Using SRP for TLS Authentication November 2007 + + + 5. 4096-bit Group + + This prime is: 2^4096 - 2^4032 - 1 + 2^64 * { [2^3966 pi] + + 240904 } + + Its hexadecimal value is: + + FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF C90FDAA2 2168C234 C4C6628B 80DC1CD1 29024E08 + 8A67CC74 020BBEA6 3B139B22 514A0879 8E3404DD EF9519B3 CD3A431B + 302B0A6D F25F1437 4FE1356D 6D51C245 E485B576 625E7EC6 F44C42E9 + A637ED6B 0BFF5CB6 F406B7ED EE386BFB 5A899FA5 AE9F2411 7C4B1FE6 + 49286651 ECE45B3D C2007CB8 A163BF05 98DA4836 1C55D39A 69163FA8 + FD24CF5F 83655D23 DCA3AD96 1C62F356 208552BB 9ED52907 7096966D + 670C354E 4ABC9804 F1746C08 CA18217C 32905E46 2E36CE3B E39E772C + 180E8603 9B2783A2 EC07A28F B5C55DF0 6F4C52C9 DE2BCBF6 95581718 + 3995497C EA956AE5 15D22618 98FA0510 15728E5A 8AAAC42D AD33170D + 04507A33 A85521AB DF1CBA64 ECFB8504 58DBEF0A 8AEA7157 5D060C7D + B3970F85 A6E1E4C7 ABF5AE8C DB0933D7 1E8C94E0 4A25619D CEE3D226 + 1AD2EE6B F12FFA06 D98A0864 D8760273 3EC86A64 521F2B18 177B200C + BBE11757 7A615D6C 770988C0 BAD946E2 08E24FA0 74E5AB31 43DB5BFC + E0FD108E 4B82D120 A9210801 1A723C12 A787E6D7 88719A10 BDBA5B26 + 99C32718 6AF4E23C 1A946834 B6150BDA 2583E9CA 2AD44CE8 DBBBC2DB + 04DE8EF9 2E8EFC14 1FBECAA6 287C5947 4E6BC05D 99B2964F A090C3A2 + 233BA186 515BE7ED 1F612970 CEE2D7AF B81BDD76 2170481C D0069127 + D5B05AA9 93B4EA98 8D8FDDC1 86FFB7DC 90A6C08F 4DF435C9 34063199 + FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF + + The generator is: 5. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Taylor, et al. Informational [Page 18] + +RFC 5054 Using SRP for TLS Authentication November 2007 + + + 6. 6144-bit Group + + This prime is: 2^6144 - 2^6080 - 1 + 2^64 * { [2^6014 pi] + + 929484 } + + Its hexadecimal value is: + + FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF C90FDAA2 2168C234 C4C6628B 80DC1CD1 29024E08 + 8A67CC74 020BBEA6 3B139B22 514A0879 8E3404DD EF9519B3 CD3A431B + 302B0A6D F25F1437 4FE1356D 6D51C245 E485B576 625E7EC6 F44C42E9 + A637ED6B 0BFF5CB6 F406B7ED EE386BFB 5A899FA5 AE9F2411 7C4B1FE6 + 49286651 ECE45B3D C2007CB8 A163BF05 98DA4836 1C55D39A 69163FA8 + FD24CF5F 83655D23 DCA3AD96 1C62F356 208552BB 9ED52907 7096966D + 670C354E 4ABC9804 F1746C08 CA18217C 32905E46 2E36CE3B E39E772C + 180E8603 9B2783A2 EC07A28F B5C55DF0 6F4C52C9 DE2BCBF6 95581718 + 3995497C EA956AE5 15D22618 98FA0510 15728E5A 8AAAC42D AD33170D + 04507A33 A85521AB DF1CBA64 ECFB8504 58DBEF0A 8AEA7157 5D060C7D + B3970F85 A6E1E4C7 ABF5AE8C DB0933D7 1E8C94E0 4A25619D CEE3D226 + 1AD2EE6B F12FFA06 D98A0864 D8760273 3EC86A64 521F2B18 177B200C + BBE11757 7A615D6C 770988C0 BAD946E2 08E24FA0 74E5AB31 43DB5BFC + E0FD108E 4B82D120 A9210801 1A723C12 A787E6D7 88719A10 BDBA5B26 + 99C32718 6AF4E23C 1A946834 B6150BDA 2583E9CA 2AD44CE8 DBBBC2DB + 04DE8EF9 2E8EFC14 1FBECAA6 287C5947 4E6BC05D 99B2964F A090C3A2 + 233BA186 515BE7ED 1F612970 CEE2D7AF B81BDD76 2170481C D0069127 + D5B05AA9 93B4EA98 8D8FDDC1 86FFB7DC 90A6C08F 4DF435C9 34028492 + 36C3FAB4 D27C7026 C1D4DCB2 602646DE C9751E76 3DBA37BD F8FF9406 + AD9E530E E5DB382F 413001AE B06A53ED 9027D831 179727B0 865A8918 + DA3EDBEB CF9B14ED 44CE6CBA CED4BB1B DB7F1447 E6CC254B 33205151 + 2BD7AF42 6FB8F401 378CD2BF 5983CA01 C64B92EC F032EA15 D1721D03 + F482D7CE 6E74FEF6 D55E702F 46980C82 B5A84031 900B1C9E 59E7C97F + BEC7E8F3 23A97A7E 36CC88BE 0F1D45B7 FF585AC5 4BD407B2 2B4154AA + CC8F6D7E BF48E1D8 14CC5ED2 0F8037E0 A79715EE F29BE328 06A1D58B + B7C5DA76 F550AA3D 8A1FBFF0 EB19CCB1 A313D55C DA56C9EC 2EF29632 + 387FE8D7 6E3C0468 043E8F66 3F4860EE 12BF2D5B 0B7474D6 E694F91E + 6DCC4024 FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF + + The generator is: 5. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Taylor, et al. Informational [Page 19] + +RFC 5054 Using SRP for TLS Authentication November 2007 + + + 7. 8192-bit Group + + This prime is: 2^8192 - 2^8128 - 1 + 2^64 * { [2^8062 pi] + + 4743158 } + + Its hexadecimal value is: + + FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF C90FDAA2 2168C234 C4C6628B 80DC1CD1 29024E08 + 8A67CC74 020BBEA6 3B139B22 514A0879 8E3404DD EF9519B3 CD3A431B + 302B0A6D F25F1437 4FE1356D 6D51C245 E485B576 625E7EC6 F44C42E9 + A637ED6B 0BFF5CB6 F406B7ED EE386BFB 5A899FA5 AE9F2411 7C4B1FE6 + 49286651 ECE45B3D C2007CB8 A163BF05 98DA4836 1C55D39A 69163FA8 + FD24CF5F 83655D23 DCA3AD96 1C62F356 208552BB 9ED52907 7096966D + 670C354E 4ABC9804 F1746C08 CA18217C 32905E46 2E36CE3B E39E772C + 180E8603 9B2783A2 EC07A28F B5C55DF0 6F4C52C9 DE2BCBF6 95581718 + 3995497C EA956AE5 15D22618 98FA0510 15728E5A 8AAAC42D AD33170D + 04507A33 A85521AB DF1CBA64 ECFB8504 58DBEF0A 8AEA7157 5D060C7D + B3970F85 A6E1E4C7 ABF5AE8C DB0933D7 1E8C94E0 4A25619D CEE3D226 + 1AD2EE6B F12FFA06 D98A0864 D8760273 3EC86A64 521F2B18 177B200C + BBE11757 7A615D6C 770988C0 BAD946E2 08E24FA0 74E5AB31 43DB5BFC + E0FD108E 4B82D120 A9210801 1A723C12 A787E6D7 88719A10 BDBA5B26 + 99C32718 6AF4E23C 1A946834 B6150BDA 2583E9CA 2AD44CE8 DBBBC2DB + 04DE8EF9 2E8EFC14 1FBECAA6 287C5947 4E6BC05D 99B2964F A090C3A2 + 233BA186 515BE7ED 1F612970 CEE2D7AF B81BDD76 2170481C D0069127 + D5B05AA9 93B4EA98 8D8FDDC1 86FFB7DC 90A6C08F 4DF435C9 34028492 + 36C3FAB4 D27C7026 C1D4DCB2 602646DE C9751E76 3DBA37BD F8FF9406 + AD9E530E E5DB382F 413001AE B06A53ED 9027D831 179727B0 865A8918 + DA3EDBEB CF9B14ED 44CE6CBA CED4BB1B DB7F1447 E6CC254B 33205151 + 2BD7AF42 6FB8F401 378CD2BF 5983CA01 C64B92EC F032EA15 D1721D03 + F482D7CE 6E74FEF6 D55E702F 46980C82 B5A84031 900B1C9E 59E7C97F + BEC7E8F3 23A97A7E 36CC88BE 0F1D45B7 FF585AC5 4BD407B2 2B4154AA + CC8F6D7E BF48E1D8 14CC5ED2 0F8037E0 A79715EE F29BE328 06A1D58B + B7C5DA76 F550AA3D 8A1FBFF0 EB19CCB1 A313D55C DA56C9EC 2EF29632 + 387FE8D7 6E3C0468 043E8F66 3F4860EE 12BF2D5B 0B7474D6 E694F91E + 6DBE1159 74A3926F 12FEE5E4 38777CB6 A932DF8C D8BEC4D0 73B931BA + 3BC832B6 8D9DD300 741FA7BF 8AFC47ED 2576F693 6BA42466 3AAB639C + 5AE4F568 3423B474 2BF1C978 238F16CB E39D652D E3FDB8BE FC848AD9 + 22222E04 A4037C07 13EB57A8 1A23F0C7 3473FC64 6CEA306B 4BCBC886 + 2F8385DD FA9D4B7F A2C087E8 79683303 ED5BDD3A 062B3CF5 B3A278A6 + 6D2A13F8 3F44F82D DF310EE0 74AB6A36 4597E899 A0255DC1 64F31CC5 + 0846851D F9AB4819 5DED7EA1 B1D510BD 7EE74D73 FAF36BC3 1ECFA268 + 359046F4 EB879F92 4009438B 481C6CD7 889A002E D5EE382B C9190DA6 + FC026E47 9558E447 5677E9AA 9E3050E2 765694DF C81F56E8 80B96E71 + 60C980DD 98EDD3DF FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF + + The generator is: 19 (decimal). + + + + + +Taylor, et al. Informational [Page 20] + +RFC 5054 Using SRP for TLS Authentication November 2007 + + +Appendix B. SRP Test Vectors + + The following test vectors demonstrate calculation of the verifier + and premaster secret. + + I = "alice" + + P = "password123" + + s = BEB25379 D1A8581E B5A72767 3A2441EE + + N, g = <1024-bit parameters from Appendix A> + + k = 7556AA04 5AEF2CDD 07ABAF0F 665C3E81 8913186F + + x = 94B7555A ABE9127C C58CCF49 93DB6CF8 4D16C124 + + v = + + 7E273DE8 696FFC4F 4E337D05 B4B375BE B0DDE156 9E8FA00A 9886D812 + 9BADA1F1 822223CA 1A605B53 0E379BA4 729FDC59 F105B478 7E5186F5 + C671085A 1447B52A 48CF1970 B4FB6F84 00BBF4CE BFBB1681 52E08AB5 + EA53D15C 1AFF87B2 B9DA6E04 E058AD51 CC72BFC9 033B564E 26480D78 + E955A5E2 9E7AB245 DB2BE315 E2099AFB + + a = + + 60975527 035CF2AD 1989806F 0407210B C81EDC04 E2762A56 AFD529DD + DA2D4393 + + b = + + E487CB59 D31AC550 471E81F0 0F6928E0 1DDA08E9 74A004F4 9E61F5D1 + 05284D20 + + A = + + 61D5E490 F6F1B795 47B0704C 436F523D D0E560F0 C64115BB 72557EC4 + 4352E890 3211C046 92272D8B 2D1A5358 A2CF1B6E 0BFCF99F 921530EC + 8E393561 79EAE45E 42BA92AE ACED8251 71E1E8B9 AF6D9C03 E1327F44 + BE087EF0 6530E69F 66615261 EEF54073 CA11CF58 58F0EDFD FE15EFEA + B349EF5D 76988A36 72FAC47B 0769447B + + + + + + + + + +Taylor, et al. Informational [Page 21] + +RFC 5054 Using SRP for TLS Authentication November 2007 + + + B = + + BD0C6151 2C692C0C B6D041FA 01BB152D 4916A1E7 7AF46AE1 05393011 + BAF38964 DC46A067 0DD125B9 5A981652 236F99D9 B681CBF8 7837EC99 + 6C6DA044 53728610 D0C6DDB5 8B318885 D7D82C7F 8DEB75CE 7BD4FBAA + 37089E6F 9C6059F3 88838E7A 00030B33 1EB76840 910440B1 B27AAEAE + EB4012B7 D7665238 A8E3FB00 4B117B58 + + u = + + CE38B959 3487DA98 554ED47D 70A7AE5F 462EF019 + + = + + B0DC82BA BCF30674 AE450C02 87745E79 90A3381F 63B387AA F271A10D + 233861E3 59B48220 F7C4693C 9AE12B0A 6F67809F 0876E2D0 13800D6C + 41BB59B6 D5979B5C 00A172B4 A2A5903A 0BDCAF8A 709585EB 2AFAFA8F + 3499B200 210DCC1F 10EB3394 3CD67FC8 8A2F39A4 BE5BEC4E C0A3212D + C346D7E4 74B29EDE 8A469FFE CA686E5A + +Appendix C. Acknowledgements + + Thanks to all on the IETF TLS mailing list for ideas and analysis. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Taylor, et al. Informational [Page 22] + +RFC 5054 Using SRP for TLS Authentication November 2007 + + +Authors' Addresses + + David Taylor + Independent + + EMail: dtaylor@gnutls.org + + + Tom Wu + Cisco + + EMail: thomwu@cisco.com + + + Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos + Independent + + EMail: nmav@gnutls.org + URI: http://www.gnutls.org/ + + + Trevor Perrin + Independent + + EMail: trevp@trevp.net + URI: http://trevp.net/ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Taylor, et al. Informational [Page 23] + +RFC 5054 Using SRP for TLS Authentication November 2007 + + +Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). + + This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions + contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors + retain all their rights. + + This document and the information contained herein are provided on an + "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS + OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND + THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS + OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF + THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED + WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + +Intellectual Property + + The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any + Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to + pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in + this document or the extent to which any license under such rights + might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has + made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information + on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be + found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. + + Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any + assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an + attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of + such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this + specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at + http://www.ietf.org/ipr. + + The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any + copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary + rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement + this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at + ietf-ipr@ietf.org. + + + + + + + + + + + + +Taylor, et al. Informational [Page 24] + -- cgit v1.2.3