1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Turner
Request for Comments: 6149 IECA
Obsoletes: 1319 L. Chen
Category: Informational NIST
ISSN: 2070-1721 March 2011
MD2 to Historic Status
Abstract
This document retires MD2 and discusses the reasons for doing so.
This document moves RFC 1319 to Historic status.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
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). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6149.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Turner & Chen Informational [Page 1]
^L
RFC 6149 MD2 to Historic Status March 2011
1. Introduction
MD2 [MD2] is a message digest algorithm that takes as input a message
of arbitrary length and produces as output a 128-bit "fingerprint" or
"message digest" of the input. This document retires MD2.
Specifically, this document moves RFC 1319 [MD2] to Historic status.
The reasons for taking this action are discussed.
[HASH-Attack] summarizes the use of hashes in many protocols and
discusses how attacks against a message digest algorithm's one-way
and collision-free properties affect and do not affect Internet
protocols. Familiarity with [HASH-Attack] is assumed.
2. Rationale
MD2 was published in 1992 as an Informational RFC. Since its
publication, MD2 has been shown to not be collision-free [ROCH1995]
[KNMA2005] [ROCH1997], albeit successful collision attacks for
properly implemented MD2 are not that damaging. Successful pre-image
and second pre-image attacks against MD2 have been shown [KNMA2005]
[MULL2004] [KMM2010].
3. Documents that Reference RFC 1319
Use of MD2 has been specified in the following RFCs:
Proposed Standard (PS):
o [RFC3279] Algorithms and Identifiers for the Internet X.509 Public
Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation
List (CRL) Profile.
o [RFC4572] Connection-Oriented Media Transport over the Transport
Layer Security (TLS) Protocol in the Session Description
Protocol (SDP).
Informational:
o [RFC1983] Internet Users' Glossary.
o [RFC2315] PKCS #7: Cryptographic Message Syntax Version 1.5.
o [RFC2898] PKCS #5: Password-Based Cryptography Specification
Version 2.0.
o [RFC3447] Public-Key Cryptography Standards (PKCS) #1: RSA
Cryptography Specifications Version 2.1.
Turner & Chen Informational [Page 2]
^L
RFC 6149 MD2 to Historic Status March 2011
Experimental:
o [RFC2660] The Secure HyperText Transfer Protocol.
There are other RFCs that refer to MD2, but they have been either
moved to Historic status or obsoleted by a later RFC. References and
discussions about these RFCs are omitted. The exceptions are:
o [RFC2313] PKCS #1: RSA Encryption Version 1.5.
o [RFC2437] PKCS #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications Version 2.0.
4. Impact on Moving MD2 to Historic
The impact of moving MD2 to Historic on the RFCs specified in Section
3 is minimal, as described below.
Regarding PS RFCs:
o MD2 support in TLS was dropped in TLS 1.1.
o MD2 support is optional in [RFC4572], and SHA-1 is specified as the
preferred algorithm.
o MD2 is included in the original PKIX certificate profile and the
PKIX algorithm document [RFC3279] for compatibility with older
applications, but its use is discouraged. SHA-1 is identified as
the preferred algorithm for the Internet PKI.
Regarding Informational RFCs:
o The Internet Users' Guide [RFC1983] provided a definition for
Message Digest and listed MD2 as one example.
o PKCS#1 v1.5 [RFC2313] stated that there are no known attacks
against MD2. PKCS#1 v2.0 [RFC2437] updated this stance to indicate
that MD2 should only be supported for backward compatibility and to
mention the attacks in [ROCH1995]. PKCS#1 [RFC3447] indicates that
support of MD2 is only retained for compatibility with existing
applications.
o PKCS#5 [RFC2898] recommends that the Password-Based Encryption
Scheme (PBES) that uses MD2 not be used for new applications.
o PKCS#7 [RFC2315] was replaced by a series of Standards Track
publications, "Cryptographic Message Syntax" [RFC2630] [RFC3369]
[RFC5652] and "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Algorithms"
[RFC3370]. Support for MD2 was dropped in [RFC3370].
Turner & Chen Informational [Page 3]
^L
RFC 6149 MD2 to Historic Status March 2011
RFC 2818, "HTTP Over TLS", which does not reference MD2, largely
supplanted implementation of [RFC2660]. [RFC2660] specified MD2 for
use both as a digest algorithm and as a MAC (Message Authentication
Code) algorithm [RFC2104]. Note that this is the only reference to
HMAC-MD2 found in the RFC repository.
5. Other Considerations
MD2 has also fallen out of favor because it is slower than both MD4
[MD4] and MD5 [MD5]. This is because MD2 was optimized for 8-bit
machines, while MD4 and MD5 were optimized for 32-bit machines. MD2
is also slower than the Secure Hash Standard (SHS) [SHS] algorithms:
SHA-1, SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512.
6. Security Considerations
MD2 is different from MD4 and MD5 in that is not a straight Merkle-
Damgaard design. For a padded message with t blocks, it generates a
nonlinear checksum as its t+1 block. The checksum is considered as
the final block input of MD2.
As confirmed in 1997 by Rogier et al. [ROCH1997], the collision
resistance property of MD2 highly depends on the nonlinear checksum.
Without the checksum, a collision can be found in 2^12 MD2
operations, while with the checksum, the best collision attack takes
2^63.3 operations with 2^50 memory complexity [MULL2004], which is
not significantly better than the birthday attack.
Even though collision attacks on MD2 are not significantly more
powerful than the birthday attack, MD2 was found not to be one-way.
In [KMM2010], a pre-image can be found with 2^104 MD2 operations. In
an improved attack described in [KMM2010], a pre-image can be found
in 2^73 MD2 operations. Because of this "invertible" property of
MD2, when using MD2 in HMAC, it may leak information of the keys.
Obviously, the pre-image attack can be used to find a second pre-
image. The second pre-image attack is even more severe than a
collision attack to digital signatures. Therefore, MD2 must not be
used for digital signatures.
Some may find the guidance for key lengths and algorithm strengths in
[SP800-57] and [SP800-131] useful.
Turner & Chen Informational [Page 4]
^L
RFC 6149 MD2 to Historic Status March 2011
7. Recommendation
Despite MD2 seeing some deployment on the Internet, this
specification recommends obsoleting MD2. MD2 is not a reasonable
candidate for further standardization and should be deprecated in
favor of one or more existing hash algorithms (e.g., SHA-256 [SHS]).
RSA Security considers it appropriate to move the MD2 algorithm to
Historic status.
It takes a number of years to deploy crypto and it also takes a
number of years to withdraw it. Algorithms need to be withdrawn
before a catastrophic break is discovered. MD2 is clearly showing
signs of weakness, and implementations should strongly consider
removing support and migrating to another hash algorithm.
8. Acknowledgements
We'd like to thank RSA for publishing MD2. We'd also like to thank
all the cryptographers who studied the algorithm. For their
contributions to this document, we'd like to thank Ran Atkinson,
Alfred Hoenes, John Linn, and Martin Rex.
9. Informative References
[HASH-Attack] Hoffman, P. and B. Schneier, "Attacks on Cryptographic
Hashes in Internet Protocols", RFC 4270, November 2005.
[KMM2010] Knudsen, L., Mathiassen, J., Muller, F., and Thomsen,
S., "Cryptanalysis of MD2", Journal of Cryptology,
23(1):72-90, 2010.
[KNMA2005] Knudsen, L., and J. Mathiassen, "Preimage and Collision
Attacks on MD2", FSE 2005.
[MD2] Kaliski, B., "The MD2 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC
1319, April 1992.
[MD4] Rivest, R., "The MD4 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC
1320, April 1992.
[MD5] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC
1321, April 1992.
[MULL2004] Muller, F., "The MD2 Hash Function Is Not One-Way",
ASIACRYPT, LNCS 3329, pp. 214-229, Springer, 2004.
Turner & Chen Informational [Page 5]
^L
RFC 6149 MD2 to Historic Status March 2011
[RFC1983] Malkin, G., Ed., "Internet Users' Glossary", FYI 18,
RFC 1983, August 1996.
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC:
Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
February 1997.
[RFC2313] Kaliski, B., "PKCS #1: RSA Encryption Version 1.5", RFC
2313, March 1998.
[RFC2315] Kaliski, B., "PKCS #7: Cryptographic Message Syntax
Version 1.5", RFC 2315, March 1998.
[RFC2437] Kaliski, B. and J. Staddon, "PKCS #1: RSA Cryptography
Specifications Version 2.0", RFC 2437, October 1998.
[RFC2630] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax", RFC 2630,
June 1999.
[RFC2660] Rescorla, E. and A. Schiffman, "The Secure HyperText
Transfer Protocol", RFC 2660, August 1999.
[RFC2898] Kaliski, B., "PKCS #5: Password-Based Cryptography
Specification Version 2.0", RFC 2898, September 2000.
[RFC3279] Bassham, L., Polk, W., and R. Housley, "Algorithms and
Identifiers for the Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation
List (CRL) Profile", RFC 3279, April 2002.
[RFC3369] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC
3369, August 2002.
[RFC3370] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
Algorithms", RFC 3370, August 2002.
[RFC3447] Jonsson, J. and B. Kaliski, "Public-Key Cryptography
Standards (PKCS) #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications
Version 2.1", RFC 3447, February 2003.
[RFC4572] Lennox, J., "Connection-Oriented Media Transport over
the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol in the
Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 4572, July
2006.
[RFC5652] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD
70, RFC 5652, September 2009.
Turner & Chen Informational [Page 6]
^L
RFC 6149 MD2 to Historic Status March 2011
[ROCH1995] Rogier, N., and P. Chauvaud, "The compression function
of MD2 is not collision free", Presented at Selected
Areas in Cryptography '95, Carleton University, Ottawa,
Canada. May 18-19, 1995.
[ROCH1997] Rogier, N. and P. Chauvaud, "MD2 is not secure without
the checksum byte", Des. Codes Cryptogr. 12(3), 245-251
(1997).
[SHS] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
FIPS Publication 180-3: Secure Hash Standard, October
2008.
[SP800-57] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
Special Publication 800-57: Recommendation for Key
Management - Part 1 (Revised), March 2007.
[SP800-131] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
Special Publication 800-131: DRAFT Recommendation for
the Transitioning of Cryptographic Algorithms and Key
Sizes, June 2010.
Authors' Addresses
Sean Turner
IECA, Inc.
3057 Nutley Street, Suite 106
Fairfax, VA 22031
USA
EMail: turners@ieca.com
Lily Chen
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8930
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8930
USA
EMail: lily.chen@nist.gov
Turner & Chen Informational [Page 7]
^L
|
