Internet Engineering Task Force A. Malhotra
Internet-Draft S. Goldberg
Intended status: Standards Track Boston University
Expires: January 4, 2018 July 3, 2017
Message Authentication Code for the Network Time Protocol
draft-ietf-ntp-mac-01
Abstract
RFC 5905 [RFC5905] states that Network Time Protocol (NTP) packets
should be authenticated by appending a 128-bit key to the NTP data,
and hashing the result with MD5 to obtain a 128-bit tag. This
document deprecates MD5-based authentication, which is considered to
be too weak, and recommends the use of AES-CMAC [RFC4493] as a
replacement.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
Malhotra & Goldberg Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MAC for NTP July 2017
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Deprecating MD5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Replacement Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Test Vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Introduction
RFC 5905 [RFC5905] states that Network Time Protocol (NTP) packets
should be authenticated by appending a 128-bit key to the NTP data,
and hashing the result with MD5 to obtain a 128-bit tag. This
document deprecates MD5-based authentication, which is considered to
be too weak, and recommends the use of AES-CMAC [RFC4493] as a
replacement.
1.1. Requirements Language
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 [RFC2119].
2. Deprecating MD5
RFC 5905 [RFC5905] defines how the MD5 digest algorithm in RFC 1321
[RFC1321] can be used as a message authentication code (MAC) for
authenticating NTP packets. However, as discussed in [BCK] and RFC
6151 [RFC6151], this is not a secure MAC and therefore MUST be
deprecated.
3. Replacement Recommendation
If authentication is implemented, then AES-CMAC as specified in RFC
4493 [RFC4493] should be computed over all fields in the NTP header,
and any extension fields that are present in the NTP packet as
described in RFC 5905 [RFC5905]. We recommend that the MAC key for
NTP SHOULD be 128 bits long AES-128 key and the resulting MAC tag
SHOULD be 128 bits long as stated in section 2.4 of RFC 4493
Malhotra & Goldberg Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MAC for NTP July 2017
[RFC4493]. NTP makes this transition possible as it supports
algorithm agility as described in Section 2.1 of RFC 7696 [RFC7696].
4. Motivation
AES-CMAC is recommended for the following reasons:
1. It is an IETF standard that is available in many open source
implementations.
2. It is immune to nonce-reuse vulnerabilities (e.g. [Joux])
because it does not use a nonce.
3. It has fine performance in terms of latency and throughput.
These are important considerations for NTP, since latency
directly affects jitter and therefore the accuracy of time
synchronization.
4. It benefits from native hardware support, for instance, Intel's
New Instruction set.
5. Test Vectors
FOr test vectors and their outputs refer to Section 4 of RFC 4493
[RFC4493]
6. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge useful discussions with Leen
Alshenibr, Daniel Franke, Ethan Heilman, Kenny Paterson, Leonid
Reyzin, Harlan Stenn, and Mayank Varia.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC1321] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1321, April 1992,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1321>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4493] Song, JH., Poovendran, R., Lee, J., and T. Iwata, "The
AES-CMAC Algorithm", RFC 4493, DOI 10.17487/RFC4493, June
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4493>.
Malhotra & Goldberg Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MAC for NTP July 2017
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
"Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.
[RFC6151] Turner, S. and L. Chen, "Updated Security Considerations
for the MD5 Message-Digest and the HMAC-MD5 Algorithms",
RFC 6151, DOI 10.17487/RFC6151, March 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6151>.
[RFC7696] Housley, R., "Guidelines for Cryptographic Algorithm
Agility and Selecting Mandatory-to-Implement Algorithms",
BCP 201, RFC 7696, DOI 10.17487/RFC7696, November 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7696>.
7.2. Informative References
[BCK] Bellare, M., Canetti, R., and H. Krawczyk, "Keyed Hash
Functions and Message Authentication", in Proceedings of
Crypto'96, 1996.
[Joux] Joux, A., "Authentication Failures in NIST version of
GCM",
<http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/toolkit/BCM/documents/
comments/800-38_Series-Drafts/GCM/Joux_comments.pdf>.
Authors' Addresses
Aanchal Malhotra
Boston University
111 Cummington St
Boston, MA 02215
US
Email: aanchal4@bu.edu
Sharon Goldberg
Boston University
111 Cummington St
Boston, MA 02215
US
Email: goldbe@cs.bu.edu
Malhotra & Goldberg Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 4]