| Internet-Draft | Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHO | May 2021 |
| Selander, et al. | Expires 25 November 2021 | [Page] |
This document specifies Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC), a very compact and lightweight authenticated Diffie-Hellman key exchange with ephemeral keys. EDHOC provides mutual authentication, perfect forward secrecy, and identity protection. EDHOC is intended for usage in constrained scenarios and a main use case is to establish an OSCORE security context. By reusing COSE for cryptography, CBOR for encoding, and CoAP for transport, the additional code size can be kept very low.¶
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 https://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 25 November 2021.¶
Copyright (c) 2021 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 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.¶
Many Internet of Things (IoT) deployments require technologies which are highly performant in constrained environments [RFC7228]. IoT devices may be constrained in various ways, including memory, storage, processing capacity, and power. The connectivity for these settings may also exhibit constraints such as unreliable and lossy channels, highly restricted bandwidth, and dynamic topology. The IETF has acknowledged this problem by standardizing a range of lightweight protocols and enablers designed for the IoT, including the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP, [RFC7252]), Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, [RFC8949]), and Static Context Header Compression (SCHC, [RFC8724]).¶
The need for special protocols targeting constrained IoT deployments extends also to the security domain [I-D.ietf-lake-reqs]. Important characteristics in constrained environments are the number of round trips and protocol message sizes, which if kept low can contribute to good performance by enabling transport over a small number of radio frames, reducing latency due to fragmentation or duty cycles, etc. Another important criteria is code size, which may be prohibitive for certain deployments due to device capabilities or network load during firmware update. Some IoT deployments also need to support a variety of underlying transport technologies, potentially even with a single connection.¶
Some security solutions for such settings exist already. CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE, [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]) specifies basic application-layer security services efficiently encoded in CBOR. Another example is Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE, [RFC8613]) which is a lightweight communication security extension to CoAP using CBOR and COSE. In order to establish good quality cryptographic keys for security protocols such as COSE and OSCORE, the two endpoints may run an authenticated Diffie-Hellman key exchange protocol, from which shared secret key material can be derived. Such a key exchange protocol should also be lightweight; to prevent bad performance in case of repeated use, e.g., due to device rebooting or frequent rekeying for security reasons; or to avoid latencies in a network formation setting with many devices authenticating at the same time.¶
This document specifies Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC), a lightweight authenticated key exchange protocol providing good security properties including perfect forward secrecy, identity protection, and cipher suite negotiation. Authentication can be based on raw public keys (RPK) or public key certificates, and requires the application to provide input on how to verify that endpoints are trusted. This specification focuses on referencing instead of transporting credentials to reduce message overhead.¶
EDHOC makes use of known protocol constructions, such as SIGMA [SIGMA] and Extract-and-Expand [RFC5869]. COSE also provides crypto agility and enables the use of future algorithms targeting IoT.¶
EDHOC is designed for highly constrained settings making it especially suitable for low-power wide area networks [RFC8376] such as Cellular IoT, 6TiSCH, and LoRaWAN. A main objective for EDHOC is to be a lightweight authenticated key exchange for OSCORE, i.e. to provide authentication and session key establishment for IoT use cases such as those built on CoAP [RFC7252]. CoAP is a specialized web transfer protocol for use with constrained nodes and networks, providing a request/response interaction model between application endpoints. As such, EDHOC is targeting a large variety of use cases involving 'things' with embedded microcontrollers, sensors, and actuators.¶
A typical setting is when one of the endpoints is constrained or in a constrained network, and the other endpoint is a node on the Internet (such as a mobile phone) or at the edge of the constrained network (such as a gateway). Thing-to-thing interactions over constrained networks are also relevant since both endpoints would then benefit from the lightweight properties of the protocol. EDHOC could e.g. be run when a device connects for the first time, or to establish fresh keys which are not revealed by a later compromise of the long-term keys. Further security properties are described in Section 8.1.¶
EDHOC enables the reuse of the same lightweight primitives as OSCORE: CBOR for encoding, COSE for cryptography, and CoAP for transport. By reusing existing libraries the additional code size can be kept very low. Note that, while CBOR and COSE primitives are built into the protocol messages, EDHOC is not bound to a particular transport. However, it is recommended to transfer EDHOC messages in CoAP payloads as is detailed in Section 7.2.¶
Compared to the DTLS 1.3 handshake [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13] with ECDHE and connection ID, the number of bytes in EDHOC + CoAP can be less than 1/6 when RPK authentication is used, see [I-D.ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison]. Figure 1 shows two examples of message sizes for EDHOC with different kinds of authentication keys and different COSE header parameters for identification: static Diffie-Hellman keys identified by 'kid' [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct], and X.509 signature certificates identified by a hash value using 'x5t' [I-D.ietf-cose-x509].¶
=================================
kid x5t
---------------------------------
message_1 37 37
message_2 46 117
message_3 20 91
---------------------------------
Total 103 245
=================================
The remainder of the document is organized as follows: Section 2 outlines EDHOC authenticated with digital signatures, Section 3 describes the protocol elements of EDHOC, including message flow, and formatting of the ephemeral public keys, Section 4 describes the key derivation, Section 5 specifies EDHOC with authentication based on signature keys or static Diffie-Hellman keys, Section 6 specifies the EDHOC error message, and Section 7 describes how EDHOC can be transferred in CoAP and used to establish an OSCORE security context.¶
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.¶
Readers are expected to be familiar with the terms and concepts described in CBOR [RFC8949], CBOR Sequences [RFC8742], COSE structures and process [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct], COSE algorithms [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs], and CDDL [RFC8610]. The Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL) is used to express CBOR data structures [RFC8949]. Examples of CBOR and CDDL are provided in Appendix B.1. When referring to CBOR, this specification always refer to Deterministically Encoded CBOR as specified in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of [RFC8949].¶
The single output from authenticated encryption (including the authentication tag) is called 'ciphertext', following [RFC5116].¶
EDHOC specifies different authentication methods of the Diffie-Hellman key exchange: digital signatures and static Diffie-Hellman keys. This section outlines the digital signature based method. Further details of protocol elements and other authentication methods are provided in the remainder of this document.¶
SIGMA (SIGn-and-MAc) is a family of theoretical protocols with a large number of variants [SIGMA]. Like IKEv2 [RFC7296] and (D)TLS 1.3 [RFC8446], EDHOC authenticated with digital signatures is built on a variant of the SIGMA protocol which provides identity protection of the initiator (SIGMA-I), and like IKEv2 [RFC7296], EDHOC implements the SIGMA-I variant as MAC-then-Sign. The SIGMA-I protocol using an authenticated encryption algorithm is shown in Figure 2.¶
Initiator Responder | G_X | +-------------------------------------------------------->| | | | G_Y, AEAD( K_2; ID_CRED_R, Sig(R; CRED_R, G_X, G_Y) ) | |<--------------------------------------------------------+ | | | AEAD( K_3; ID_CRED_I, Sig(I; CRED_I, G_Y, G_X) ) | +-------------------------------------------------------->| | |
The parties exchanging messages are called Initiator (I) and Responder (R). They exchange ephemeral public keys, compute a shared secret, and derive symmetric application keys used to protect application data.¶
In order to create a "full-fledged" protocol some additional protocol elements are needed. EDHOC adds:¶
Verification of a common preferred cipher suite:¶
EDHOC is designed to encrypt and integrity protect as much information as possible, and all symmetric keys are derived using as much previous information as possible. EDHOC is furthermore designed to be as compact and lightweight as possible, in terms of message sizes, processing, and the ability to reuse already existing CBOR, COSE, and CoAP libraries.¶
To simplify for implementors, the use of CBOR and COSE in EDHOC is summarized in Appendix B and test vectors including CBOR diagnostic notation are given in Appendix C.¶
An EDHOC message flow consists of three mandatory messages (message_1, message_2, message_3) between Initiator and Responder, an optional fourth message (message_4), plus an EDHOC error message. EDHOC messages are CBOR Sequences [RFC8742], see Figure 3. The protocol elements in the figure are introduced in the following sections. Message formatting and processing is specified in Section 5 and Section 6. An implementation may support only Initiator or only Responder.¶
Application data is protected using the agreed application algorithms (AEAD, hash) in the selected cipher suite (see Section 3.4) and the application can make use of the established connection identifiers C_1, C_I, and C_R (see Section 3.2.4). EDHOC may be used with the media type application/edhoc defined in Section 9.¶
The Initiator can derive symmetric application keys after creating EDHOC message_3, see Section 4.1. Application protected data can therefore be sent in parallel or together with EDHOC message_3.¶
Initiator Responder | C_1, METHOD_CORR, SUITES_I, G_X, C_I, EAD_1 | +------------------------------------------------------------------>| | message_1 | | | | C_I, G_Y, C_R, Enc(ID_CRED_R, Signature_or_MAC_2, EAD_2) | |<------------------------------------------------------------------+ | message_2 | | | | C_R, AEAD(K_3ae; ID_CRED_I, Signature_or_MAC_3, EAD_3) | +------------------------------------------------------------------>| | message_3 |
The data item METHOD_CORR in message_1 (see Section 5.3.1), is an integer specifying the method and the correlation properties of the transport, which are described in this section.¶
EDHOC supports authentication with signature or static Diffie-Hellman keys, as defined in the four authentication methods: 0, 1, 2, and 3, see Figure 4. (Method 0 corresponds to the case outlined in Section 2 where both Initiator and Responder authenticate with signature keys.)¶
An implementation may support only a single method. The Initiator and the Responder need to have agreed on a single method to be used for EDHOC, see Section 3.7.¶
+-------+-------------------+-------------------+-------------------+ | Value | Initiator | Responder | Reference | +-------+-------------------+-------------------+-------------------+ | 0 | Signature Key | Signature Key | [[this document]] | | 1 | Signature Key | Static DH Key | [[this document]] | | 2 | Static DH Key | Signature Key | [[this document]] | | 3 | Static DH Key | Static DH Key | [[this document]] | +-------+-------------------+-------------------+-------------------+
EDHOC includes optional connection identifiers (C_1, C_I, C_R). The connection identifiers C_1, C_I, and C_R do not have any cryptographic purpose in EDHOC. They contain information facilitating retrieval of the protocol state and may therefore be very short. C_1 is always set to null, while C_I and C_R are chosen by I and R, respectively. One byte connection identifiers are realistic in many scenarios as most constrained devices only have a few connections. In cases where a node only has one connection, the identifiers may even be the empty byte string.¶
The connection identifier MAY be used with an application protocol (e.g. OSCORE) for which EDHOC establishes keys, in which case the connection identifiers SHALL adhere to the requirements for that protocol. Each party choses a connection identifier it desires the other party to use in outgoing messages. (For OSCORE this results in the endpoint selecting its Recipient ID, see Section 3.1 of [RFC8613]).¶
Cryptographically, EDHOC does not put requirements on the lower layers. EDHOC is not bound to a particular transport layer, and can be used in environments without IP. The application using EDHOC is responsible to handle message loss, reordering, message duplication, fragmentation, demultiplex EDHOC messages from other types of messages, and denial of service protection, where necessary.¶
The Initiator and the Responder need to have agreed on a transport to be used for EDHOC, see Section 3.7. It is recommended to transport EDHOC in CoAP payloads, see Section 7.¶
If the whole transport path provides a mechanism for correlating messages received with messages previously sent, then some of the connection identifiers may be omitted. There are four cases:¶
For example, if the key exchange is transported over CoAP, the CoAP Token can be used to correlate messages, see Section 7.2.¶
The authentication key MUST be a signature key or static Diffie-Hellman key. The Initiator and the Responder MAY use different types of authentication keys, e.g. one uses a signature key and the other uses a static Diffie-Hellman key. When using a signature key, the authentication is provided by a signature. When using a static Diffie-Hellman key the authentication is provided by a Message Authentication Code (MAC) computed from an ephemeral-static ECDH shared secret which enables significant reductions in message sizes. The MAC is implemented with an AEAD algorithm. When using static Diffie-Hellman keys the Initiator's and Responder's private authentication keys are called I and R, respectively, and the public authentication keys are called G_I and G_R, respectively. The authentication key algorithm needs to specified with enough parameters to make it completely determined. Note that for most signature algorithms, the signature is determined by the signature algorithm and the authentication key algorithm together. For example, the curve used in the signature is typically determined by the authentication key parameters.¶
EDHOC assumes the existence of mechanisms (certification authority, trusted third party, manual distribution, etc.) for specifying and distributing authentication keys and identities. Policies are set based on the identity of the other party, and parties typically only allow connections from a specific identity or a small restricted set of identities. For example, in the case of a device connecting to a network, the network may only allow connections from devices which authenticate with certificates having a particular range of serial numbers in the subject field and signed by a particular CA. On the other side, the device may only be allowed to connect to a network which authenticates with a particular public key (information of which may be provisioned, e.g., out of band or in the external authorization data, see Section 3.6).¶
The EDHOC implementation must be able to receive and enforce information from the application about what is the intended endpoint, and in particular whether it is a specific identity or a set of identities.¶
The authentication credentials, CRED_I and CRED_R, contain the public authentication key of the Initiator and the Responder, respectively. The Initiator and the Responder MAY use different types of credentials, e.g. one uses an RPK and the other uses a public key certificate.¶
The credentials CRED_I and CRED_R are signed or MAC:ed (depending on method) by the Initiator and the Responder, respectively, see Section 5.5 and Section 5.4.¶
When the credential is a certificate, CRED_x is an end-entity certificate (i.e. not the certificate chain) encoded as a CBOR bstr. In X.509 certificates, signature keys typically have key usage "digitalSignature" and Diffie-Hellman keys typically have key usage "keyAgreement".¶
To prevent misbinding attacks in systems where an attacker can register public keys without proving knowledge of the private key, SIGMA [SIGMA] enforces a MAC to be calculated over the "Identity", which in case of a X.509 certificate would be the 'subject' and 'subjectAltName' fields. EDHOC follows SIGMA by calculating a MAC over the whole certificate. While the SIGMA paper only focuses on the identity, the same principle is true for any information such as policies connected to the public key.¶
When the credential is a COSE_Key, CRED_x is a CBOR map only containing specific fields from the COSE_Key identifying the public key, and optionally the "Identity". CRED_x needs to be defined such that it is identical when generated by Initiator or Responder. The parameters SHALL be encoded in bytewise lexicographic order of their deterministic encodings as specified in Section 4.2.1 of [RFC8949].¶
If the parties have agreed on an identity besides the public key, the identity is included in the CBOR map with the label "subject name", otherwise the subject name is the empty text string. The public key parameters depend on key type.¶
An example of CRED_x when the RPK contains an X25519 static Diffie-Hellman key and the parties have agreed on an EUI-64 identity is shown below:¶
CRED_x = {
1: 1,
-1: 4,
-2: h'b1a3e89460e88d3a8d54211dc95f0b90
3ff205eb71912d6db8f4af980d2db83a',
"subject name" : "42-50-31-FF-EF-37-32-39"
}
¶
ID_CRED_I and ID_CRED_R are used to identify and optionally transport the public authentication keys of the Initiator and the Responder, respectively. ID_CRED_I and ID_CRED_R do not have any cryptographic purpose in EDHOC.¶
The identifiers ID_CRED_I and ID_CRED_R are COSE header_maps, i.e. CBOR maps containing Common COSE Header Parameters, see Section 3.1 of [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]). In the following we give some examples of COSE header_maps.¶
Raw public keys are most optimally stored as COSE_Key objects and identified with a 'kid' parameter:¶
Public key certificates can be identified in different ways. Header parameters for identifying C509 certificates and X.509 certificates are defined in [I-D.ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert] and [I-D.ietf-cose-x509], for example:¶
by a hash value with the 'c5t' or 'x5t' parameters;¶
by a URI with the 'c5u' or 'x5u' parameters;¶
It is RECOMMENDED that ID_CRED_x uniquely identify the public authentication key as the recipient may otherwise have to try several keys. ID_CRED_I and ID_CRED_R are transported in the 'ciphertext', see Section 5.5 and Section 5.4.¶
When ID_CRED_x does not contain the actual credential it may be very short. One byte credential identifiers are realistic in many scenarios as most constrained devices only have a few keys. In cases where a node only has one key, the identifier may even be the empty byte string.¶
An EDHOC cipher suite consists of an ordered set of algorithms from the "COSE Algorithms" and "COSE Elliptic Curves" registries. Algorithms need to be specified with enough parameters to make them completely determined. Currently, none of the algorithms require parameters. EDHOC is only specified for use with key exchange algorithms of type ECDH curves. Use with other types of key exchange algorithms would likely require a specification updating EDHOC. Note that for most signature algorithms, the signature is determined by the signature algorithm and the authentication key algorithm together, see Section 3.3.1.¶
Each cipher suite is identified with a pre-defined int label.¶
EDHOC can be used with all algorithms and curves defined for COSE. Implementation can either use one of the pre-defined cipher suites (Section 9.2) or use any combination of COSE algorithms and parameters to define their own private cipher suite. Private cipher suites can be identified with any of the four values -24, -23, -22, -21.¶
The following cipher suites are for constrained IoT where message overhead is a very important factor:¶
0. ( 10, -16, 4, -8, 10, -16 )
(AES-CCM-16-64-128, SHA-256, X25519, EdDSA,
AES-CCM-16-64-128, SHA-256)
1. ( 30, -16, 4, -8, 10, -16 )
(AES-CCM-16-128-128, SHA-256, X25519, EdDSA,
AES-CCM-16-64-128, SHA-256)
2. ( 10, -16, 1, -7, 10, -16 )
(AES-CCM-16-64-128, SHA-256, P-256, ES256,
AES-CCM-16-64-128, SHA-256)
3. ( 30, -16, 1, -7, 10, -16 )
(AES-CCM-16-128-128, SHA-256, P-256, ES256,
AES-CCM-16-64-128, SHA-256)
¶
The following cipher suite is for general non-constrained applications. It uses very high performance algorithms that also are widely supported:¶
4. ( 1, -16, 4, -7, 1, -16 )
(A128GCM, SHA-256, X25519, ES256,
A128GCM, SHA-256)
¶
The following cipher suite is for high security application such as government use and financial applications. It is compatible with the CNSA suite [CNSA].¶
5. ( 3, -43, 2, -35, 3, -43 )
(A256GCM, SHA-384, P-384, ES384,
A256GCM, SHA-384)
¶
The different methods use the same cipher suites, but some algorithms are not used in some methods. The EDHOC signature algorithm is not used in methods without signature authentication.¶
The Initiator needs to have a list of cipher suites it supports in order of preference. The Responder needs to have a list of cipher suites it supports. SUITES_I is a CBOR array containing cipher suites that the Initiator supports. SUITES_I is formatted and processed as detailed in Section 5.3.1 to secure the cipher suite negotiation. Examples of cipher suite negotiation are given in Section 6.3.2.¶
EDHOC always uses compact representation of elliptic curve points, see Appendix A. In COSE compact representation is achieved by formatting the ECDH ephemeral public keys as COSE_Keys of type EC2 or OKP according to Sections 7.1 and 7.2 of [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs], but only including the 'x' parameter in G_X and G_Y. For Elliptic Curve Keys of type EC2, compact representation MAY be used also in the COSE_Key. If the COSE implementation requires an 'y' parameter, the value y = false SHALL be used. COSE always use compact output for Elliptic Curve Keys of type EC2.¶
In order to reduce round trips and number of messages or to simplify processing, external security applications may be integrated into EDHOC by transporting authorization related data together with the messages. One example is the transport third-party identity and authorization information protected out of scope of EDHOC [I-D.selander-ace-ake-authz]. Another example is the embedding of a certificate enrolment request or a newly issued certificate.¶
EDHOC allows opaque external authorization data (EAD) to be sent in the EDHOC messages. External authorization data sent in message_1 (EAD_1) or message_2 (EAD_2) must be considered unprotected by EDHOC, see Section 8.4. External authorization data sent in message_3 (EAD_3) or message_4 (EAD_4) is protected between Initiator and Responder.¶
External authorization data is a CBOR sequence (see Appendix B.1) as defined below:¶
EAD = ( type : int, 1* ext_authz_data : any, )¶
where type is an int and is followed by one or more ext_authz_data depending on type as defined in a separate specification.¶
The EAD fields of EDHOC are not intended for generic application data. Since data carried in EAD_1 and EAD_2 fields may not be protected, special considerations need to be made such that a) it does not violate security, privacy etc. requirements of the service which uses this data, and b) it does not violate the security properties of EDHOC. Security applications making use of the EAD fields must perform the necessary security analysis.¶
EDHOC requires certain parameters to be agreed upon between Initiator and Responder. Some parameters can be agreed through the protocol execution (specifically cipher suite negotiation, see Section 3.4) but other parameters may need to be known out-of-band (e.g., which authentication method is used, see Section 3.2.1).¶
The purpose of the applicability statement is describe the intended use of EDHOC to allow for the relevant processing and verifications to be made, including things like:¶
null of message_1 is present; see Section 5.3.1¶
The applicability statement may also contain information about supported cipher suites. The procedure for selecting and verifying cipher suite is still performed as specified by the protocol, but it may become simplified by this knowledge.¶
An example of an applicability statement is shown in Appendix D.¶
For some parameters, like METHOD_CORR, ID_CRED_x, type of EAD, the receiver is able to verify compliance with applicability statement, and if it needs to fail because of incompliance, to infer the reason why the protocol failed.¶
For other parameters, like CRED_x in the case that it is not transported, it may not be possible to verify that incompliance with applicability statement was the reason for failure: Integrity verification in message_2 or message_3 may fail not only because of wrong authentication credential. For example, in case the Initiator uses public key certificate by reference (i.e. not transported within the protocol) then both endpoints need to use an identical data structure as CRED_I or else the integrity verification will fail.¶
Note that it is not necessary for the endpoints to specify a single transport for the EDHOC messages. For example, a mix of CoAP and HTTP may be used along the path, and this may still allow correlation between messages.¶
The applicability statement may be dependent on the identity of the other endpoint, but this applies only to the later phases of the protocol when identities are known. (Initiator does not know identity of Responder before having verified message_2, and Responder does not know identity of Initiator before having verified message_3.)¶
Other conditions may be part of the applicability statement, such as target application or use (if there is more than one application/use) to the extent that EDHOC can distinguish between them. In case multiple applicability statements are used, the receiver needs to be able to determine which is applicable for a given session, for example based on URI or external authorization data type.¶
EDHOC uses Extract-and-Expand [RFC5869] with the EDHOC hash algorithm in the selected cipher suite to derive keys used in EDHOC and in the application. Extract is used to derive fixed-length uniformly pseudorandom keys (PRK) from ECDH shared secrets. Expand is used to derive additional output keying material (OKM) from the PRKs. The PRKs are derived using Extract.¶
PRK = Extract( salt, IKM )¶
If the EDHOC hash algorithm is SHA-2, then Extract( salt, IKM ) = HKDF-Extract( salt, IKM ) [RFC5869]. If the EDHOC hash algorithm is SHAKE128, then Extract( salt, IKM ) = KMAC128( salt, IKM, 256, "" ). If the EDHOC hash algorithm is SHAKE256, then Extract( salt, IKM ) = KMAC256( salt, IKM, 512, "" ).¶
PRK_2e is used to derive a keystream to encrypt message_2. PRK_3e2m is used to derive keys and IVs to produce a MAC in message_2 and to encrypt message_3. PRK_4x3m is used to derive keys and IVs to produce a MAC in message_3 and to derive application specific data.¶
PRK_2e is derived with the following input:¶
Example: Assuming the use of SHA-256 the extract phase of HKDF produces PRK_2e as follows:¶
PRK_2e = HMAC-SHA-256( salt, G_XY )¶
where salt = 0x (the empty byte string).¶
The pseudorandom keys PRK_3e2m and PRK_4x3m are defined as follow:¶
Example: Assuming the use of curve25519, the ECDH shared secrets G_XY, G_RX, and G_IY are the outputs of the X25519 function [RFC7748]:¶
G_XY = X25519( Y, G_X ) = X25519( X, G_Y )¶
The keys and IVs used in EDHOC are derived from PRKs using Expand [RFC5869] where the EDHOC-KDF is instantiated with the EDHOC AEAD algorithm in the selected cipher suite.¶
OKM = EDHOC-KDF( PRK, transcript_hash, label, length )
= Expand( PRK, info, length )
¶
where info is the CBOR encoding of¶
info = [ edhoc_aead_id : int / tstr, transcript_hash : bstr, label : tstr, length : uint ]¶
where¶
If the EDHOC hash algorithm is SHA-2, then Expand( PRK, info, length ) = HKDF-Expand( PRK, info, length ) [RFC5869]. If the EDHOC hash algorithm is SHAKE128, then Expand( PRK, info, length ) = KMAC128( PRK, info, L, "" ). If the EDHOC hash algorithm is SHAKE256, then Expand( PRK, info, length ) = KMAC256( PRK, info, L, "" ).¶
KEYSTREAM_2 are derived using the transcript hash TH_2 and the pseudorandom key PRK_2e. K_2m and IV_2m are derived using the transcript hash TH_2 and the pseudorandom key PRK_3e2m. K_3ae and IV_3ae are derived using the transcript hash TH_3 and the pseudorandom key PRK_3e2m. K_3m and IV_3m are derived using the transcript hash TH_3 and the pseudorandom key PRK_4x3m. IVs are only used if the EDHOC AEAD algorithm uses IVs.¶
Application keys and other application specific data can be derived using the EDHOC-Exporter interface defined as:¶
EDHOC-Exporter(label, context, length)
= EDHOC-KDF(PRK_4x3m, TH_4, label_context, length)
¶
label_context is a CBOR sequence:¶
label_context = ( label : tstr, context : bstr, )¶
where label is a registered tstr from the EDHOC Exporter Label registry (Section 9.1), context is a bstr defined by the application, and length is a uint defined by the application. The (label, context) pair must be unique, i.e. a (label, context) MUST NOT be used for two different purposes. However an application can re-derive the same key several times as long as it is done in a secure way. For example, in most encryption algorithms the same (key, nonce) pair must not be reused.¶
The transcript hash TH_4 is a CBOR encoded bstr and the input to the hash function is a CBOR Sequence.¶
TH_4 = H( TH_3, CIPHERTEXT_3 )¶
where H() is the hash function in the selected cipher suite. Examples of use of the EDHOC-Exporter are given in Section 7.1.2 and [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-edhoc].¶
To provide forward secrecy in an even more efficient way than re-running EDHOC, EDHOC provides the function EDHOC-KeyUpdate. When EDHOC-KeyUpdate is called the old PRK_4x3m is deleted and the new PRK_4x3m is calculated as a "hash" of the old key using the Extract function as illustrated by the following pseudocode:¶
EDHOC-KeyUpdate( nonce ):
PRK_4x3m = Extract( nonce, PRK_4x3m )
¶
This section specifies formatting of the messages and processing steps. Error messages are specified in Section 6.¶
An EDHOC message is encoded as a sequence of CBOR data (CBOR Sequence, [RFC8742]). Additional optimizations are made to reduce message overhead.¶
While EDHOC uses the COSE_Key, COSE_Sign1, and COSE_Encrypt0 structures, only a subset of the parameters is included in the EDHOC messages. The unprotected COSE header in COSE_Sign1, and COSE_Encrypt0 (not included in the EDHOC message) MAY contain parameters (e.g. 'alg').¶
Byte strings are encoded in CBOR as two or more bytes, whereas integers in the interval -24 to 23 are encoded in CBOR as one byte.¶
bstr_identifier is a special encoding of byte strings, used throughout the protocol to enable the encoding of the shortest byte strings as integers that only require one byte of CBOR encoding.¶
The bstr_identifier encoding is defined as follows: Byte strings in the interval h'00' to h'2f' are encoded as the corresponding integer minus 24, which are all represented by one byte CBOR ints. Other byte strings are encoded as CBOR byte strings.¶
For example, the byte string h'59e9' encoded as a bstr_identifier is equal to h'59e9', while the byte string h'2a' is encoded as the integer 18.¶
The CDDL definition of the bstr_identifier is given below:¶
bstr_identifier = bstr / int¶
Note that, despite what could be interpreted by the CDDL definition only, bstr_identifier once decoded are always byte strings.¶
This section outlines the message processing of EDHOC.¶
For each session, the endpoints are assumed to keep an associated protocol state containing connection identifiers, keys, etc. used for subsequent processing of protocol related data. The protocol state is assumed to be associated to an applicability statement (Section 3.7) which provides the context for how messages are transported, identified and processed.¶
EDHOC messages SHALL be processed according to the current protocol state. The following steps are expected to be performed at reception of an EDHOC message:¶
null byte in message_1 (Section 5.3.1) can be used to distinguish message_1 from other messages. The Responder endpoint needs to make use of available Denial-of-Service mitigation (Section 8.5).¶
If the processing fails, then the protocol is discontinued, an error message sent, and the protocol state erased. Further details are provided in the following subsections.¶
Different instances of the same message MUST NOT be processed in one session. Note that processing will fail if the same message appears a second time for EDHOC processing because the state of the protocol has moved on and now expects something else. This assumes that message duplication due to re-transmissions is handled by the transport protocol, see Section 3.2.3. The case when the transport does not support message deduplication is addressed in Appendix E.¶
message_1 SHALL be a CBOR Sequence (see Appendix B.1) as defined below¶
message_1 = ( ? C_1 : null, METHOD_CORR : int, SUITES_I : [ selected : suite, supported : 2* suite ] / suite, G_X : bstr, C_I : bstr_identifier, ? EAD ; EAD_1 ) suite = int¶
where:¶
null (= 0xf6) MAY be used to distinguish message_1 from other messages.¶
The Initiator SHALL compose message_1 as follows:¶
The Responder SHALL process message_1 as follows:¶
If any processing step fails, the Responder SHOULD send an EDHOC error message back, formatted as defined in Section 6, and the session MUST be discontinued. Sending error messages is essential for debugging but MAY e.g. be skipped due to denial of service reasons, see Section 8.¶
message_2 and data_2 SHALL be CBOR Sequences (see Appendix B.1) as defined below¶
message_2 = ( data_2, CIPHERTEXT_2 : bstr, )¶
data_2 = ( ? C_I : bstr_identifier, G_Y : bstr, C_R : bstr_identifier, )¶
where:¶
The Responder SHALL compose message_2 as follows:¶
Compute an inner COSE_Encrypt0 as defined in Section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct], with the EDHOC AEAD algorithm in the selected cipher suite, K_2m, IV_2m, and the following parameters:¶
protected = << ID_CRED_R >>¶
external_aad = << TH_2, CRED_R, ? EAD_2 >>¶
COSE constructs the input to the AEAD [RFC5116] as follows:¶
Associated data A =¶
[ "Encrypt0", << ID_CRED_R >>, << TH_2, CRED_R, ? EAD_2 >> ]¶
MAC_2 is the 'ciphertext' of the inner COSE_Encrypt0.¶
If the Responder authenticates with a static Diffie-Hellman key (method equals 1 or 3), then Signature_or_MAC_2 is MAC_2. If the Responder authenticates with a signature key (method equals 0 or 2), then Signature_or_MAC_2 is the 'signature' of a COSE_Sign1 object as defined in Section 4.4 of [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct] using the signature algorithm in the selected cipher suite, the private authentication key of the Responder, and the following parameters:¶
COSE constructs the input to the Signature Algorithm as:¶
CIPHERTEXT_2 is encrypted by using the Expand function as a binary additive stream cipher.¶
plaintext = ( ID_CRED_R / bstr_identifier, Signature_or_MAC_2, ? EAD_2 )¶
The Initiator SHALL process message_2 as follows:¶
If any processing step fails, the Initiator SHOULD send an EDHOC error message back, formatted as defined in Section 6. Sending error messages is essential for debugging but MAY e.g.be skipped if a session cannot be found or due to denial of service reasons, see Section 8. If an error message is sent, the session MUST be discontinued.¶
message_3 and data_3 SHALL be CBOR Sequences (see Appendix B.1) as defined below¶
message_3 = ( data_3, CIPHERTEXT_3 : bstr, )¶
data_3 = ( ? C_R : bstr_identifier, )¶
The Initiator SHALL compose message_3 as follows:¶
Compute an inner COSE_Encrypt0 as defined in Section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct], with the EDHOC AEAD algorithm in the selected cipher suite, K_3m, IV_3m, and the following parameters:¶
protected = << ID_CRED_I >>¶
external_aad = << TH_3, CRED_I, ? EAD_3 >>¶
COSE constructs the input to the AEAD [RFC5116] as follows:¶
Associated data A =¶
[ "Encrypt0", << ID_CRED_I >>, << TH_3, CRED_I, ? EAD_3 >> ]¶
MAC_3 is the 'ciphertext' of the inner COSE_Encrypt0.¶
If the Initiator authenticates with a static Diffie-Hellman key (method equals 2 or 3), then Signature_or_MAC_3 is MAC_3. If the Initiator authenticates with a signature key (method equals 0 or 1), then Signature_or_MAC_3 is the 'signature' of a COSE_Sign1 object as defined in Section 4.4 of [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct] using the signature algorithm in the selected cipher suite, the private authentication key of the Initiator, and the following parameters:¶
COSE constructs the input to the Signature Algorithm as:¶
Compute an outer COSE_Encrypt0 as defined in Section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct], with the EDHOC AEAD algorithm in the selected cipher suite, K_3ae, IV_3ae, and the following parameters. The protected header SHALL be empty.¶
plaintext = ( ID_CRED_I / bstr_identifier, Signature_or_MAC_3, ? EAD_3 )¶
COSE constructs the input to the AEAD [RFC5116] as follows:¶
CIPHERTEXT_3 is the 'ciphertext' of the outer COSE_Encrypt0.¶
Pass the connection identifiers (C_I, C_R) and the application algorithms in the selected cipher suite to the application. The application can now derive application keys using the EDHOC-Exporter interface.¶
After sending message_3, the Initiator is assured that no other party than the Responder can compute the key PRK_4x3m (implicit key authentication). The Initiator can securely derive application keys and send protected application data. However, the Initiator does not know that the Responder has actually computed the key PRK_4x3m and therefore the Initiator SHOULD NOT permanently store the keying material PRK_4x3m and TH_4, or derived application keys, until the Initiator is assured that the Responder has actually computed the key PRK_4x3m (explicit key confirmation). This is similar to waiting for acknowledgement (ACK) in a transport protocol. Explicit key confirmation is e.g. assured when the Initiator has verified an OSCORE message or message_4 from the Responder.¶
The Responder SHALL process message_3 as follows:¶
If any processing step fails, the Responder SHOULD send an EDHOC error message back, formatted as defined in Section 6. Sending error messages is essential for debugging but MAY e.g.be skipped if a session cannot be found or due to denial of service reasons, see Section 8. If an error message is sent, the session MUST be discontinued.¶
After verifying message_3, the Responder is assured that the Initiator has calculated the key PRK_4x3m (explicit key confirmation) and that no other party than the Responder can compute the key. The Responder can securely send protected application data and store the keying material PRK_4x3m and TH_4.¶
This section defines the format for error messages.¶
An EDHOC error message can be sent by either endpoint as a reply to any non-error EDHOC message. How errors at the EDHOC layer are transported depends on lower layers, which need to enable error messages to be sent and processed as intended.¶
Errors in EDHOC are fatal. After sending an error message, the sender MUST discontinue the protocol. The receiver SHOULD treat an error message as an indication that the other party likely has discontinued the protocol. But as the error message is not authenticated, a received error message might also have been sent by an attacker and the receiver MAY therefore try to continue the protocol.¶
error SHALL be a CBOR Sequence (see Appendix B.1) as defined below¶
error = ( ? C_x : bstr_identifier, ERR_CODE : int, ERR_INFO : any )
where:¶
The remainder of this section specifies the currently defined error codes, see Figure 6. Error codes 1 and 2 MUST be supported. Additional error codes and corresponding error information may be specified.¶
+----------+---------------+----------------------------------------+ | ERR_CODE | ERR_INFO Type | Description | +==========+===============+========================================+ | 0 | any | Success | +----------+---------------+----------------------------------------+ | 1 | tstr | Unspecified | +----------+---------------+----------------------------------------+ | 2 | SUITES_R | Wrong selected cipher suite | +----------+---------------+----------------------------------------+
Error code 0 MAY be used internally in an application to indicate success, e.g. in log files. ERR_INFO can contain any type of CBOR item. Error code 0 MUST NOT be used as part of the EDHOC message exchange flow.¶
Error code 1 is used for errors that do not have a specific error code defined. ERR_INFO MUST be a text string containing a human-readable diagnostic message written in English. The diagnostic text message is mainly intended for software engineers that during debugging need to interpret it in the context of the EDHOC specification. The diagnostic message SHOULD be provided to the calling application where it SHOULD be logged.¶
Error code 2 MUST only be used in a response to message_1 in case the cipher suite selected by the Initiator is not supported by the Responder, or if the Responder supports a cipher suite more preferred by the Initiator than the selected cipher suite, see Section 5.3.3. ERR_INFO is of type SUITES_R:¶
SUITES_R : [ supported : 2* suite ] / suite¶
If the Responder does not support the selected cipher suite, then SUITES_R MUST include one or more supported cipher suites. If the Responder does not support the selected cipher suite, but supports another cipher suite in SUITES_I, then SUITES_R MUST include the first supported cipher suite in SUITES_I.¶
After receiving SUITES_R, the Initiator can determine which cipher suite to select for the next EDHOC run with the Responder.¶
If the Initiator intends to contact the Responder in the future, the Initiator SHOULD remember which selected cipher suite to use until the next message_1 has been sent, otherwise the Initiator and Responder will likely run into an infinite loop. After a successful run of EDHOC, the Initiator MAY remember the selected cipher suite to use in future EDHOC runs. Note that if the Initiator or Responder is updated with new cipher suite policies, any cached information may be outdated.¶
Assume that the Initiator supports the five cipher suites 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 in decreasing order of preference. Figures 7 and 8 show examples of how the Initiator can truncate SUITES_I and how SUITES_R is used by Responders to give the Initiator information about the cipher suites that the Responder supports.¶
In the first example (Figure 7), the Responder supports cipher suite 6 but not the initially selected cipher suite 5.¶
Initiator Responder | METHOD_CORR, SUITES_I = 5, G_X, C_I, EAD_1 | +------------------------------------------------------------------>| | message_1 | | | | C_I, DIAG_MSG, SUITES_R = 6 | |<------------------------------------------------------------------+ | error | | | | METHOD_CORR, SUITES_I = [6, 5, 6], G_X, C_I, EAD_1 | +------------------------------------------------------------------>| | message_1 |
In the second example (Figure 8), the Responder supports cipher suites 8 and 9 but not the more preferred (by the Initiator) cipher suites 5, 6 or 7. To illustrate the negotiation mechanics we let the Initiator first make a guess that the Responder supports suite 6 but not suite 5. Since the Responder supports neither 5 nor 6, it responds with an error and SUITES_R, after which the Initiator selects its most preferred supported suite. The order of cipher suites in SUITES_R does not matter. (If the Responder had supported suite 5, it would include it in SUITES_R of the response, and it would in that case have become the selected suite in the second message_1.)¶
Initiator Responder | METHOD_CORR, SUITES_I = [6, 5, 6], G_X, C_I, EAD_1 | +------------------------------------------------------------------>| | message_1 | | | | C_I, DIAG_MSG, SUITES_R = [9, 8] | |<------------------------------------------------------------------+ | error | | | | METHOD_CORR, SUITES_I = [8, 5, 6, 7, 8], G_X, C_I, EAD_1 | +------------------------------------------------------------------>| | message_1 |
Note that the Initiator's list of supported cipher suites and order of preference is fixed (see Section 5.3.1 and Section 5.3.2). Furthermore, the Responder shall only accept message_1 if the selected cipher suite is the first cipher suite in SUITES_I that the Responder supports (see Section 5.3.3). Following this procedure ensures that the selected cipher suite is the most preferred (by the Initiator) cipher suite supported by both parties.¶
If the selected cipher suite is not the first cipher suite which the Responder supports in SUITES_I received in message_1, then Responder MUST discontinue the protocol, see Section 5.3.3. If SUITES_I in message_1 is manipulated then the integrity verification of message_2 containing the transcript hash TH_2 will fail and the Initiator will discontinue the protocol.¶
This section specifies message_4 which is OPTIONAL to support. Key confirmation is normally provided by sending an application message from the Responder to the Initiator protected with a key derived with the EDHOC-Exporter, e.g., using OSCORE (see [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-edhoc]). In deployments where no protected application message is sent from the Responder to the Initiator, the Responder MUST send message_4. Two examples of such deployments:¶
Further considerations are provided in Section 3.7.¶
message_4 and data_4 SHALL be CBOR Sequences (see Appendix B.1) as defined below¶
message_4 = ( data_4, CIPHERTEXT_4 : bstr, )¶
data_4 = ( ? C_I : bstr_identifier, )¶
The Responder SHALL compose message_4 as follows:¶
Compute a COSE_Encrypt0 as defined in Section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct], with the EDHOC AEAD algorithm in the selected cipher suite, and the following parameters. The protected header SHALL be empty.¶
where EAD_4 is protected external authorization data, see Section 3.6. COSE constructs the input to the AEAD [RFC5116] as follows:¶
CIPHERTEXT_4 is the 'ciphertext' of the COSE_Encrypt0.¶
The Initiator SHALL process message_4 as follows:¶
If any verification step fails the Initiator MUST send an EDHOC error message back, formatted as defined in Section 6, and the session MUST be discontinued.¶
It is recommended to transport EDHOC as an exchange of CoAP [RFC7252] messages. CoAP is a reliable transport that can preserve packet ordering and handle message duplication. CoAP can also perform fragmentation and protect against denial of service attacks. It is recommended to carry the EDHOC messages in Confirmable messages, especially if fragmentation is used.¶
By default, the CoAP client is the Initiator and the CoAP server is the Responder, but the roles SHOULD be chosen to protect the most sensitive identity, see Section 8. By default, EDHOC is transferred in POST requests and 2.04 (Changed) responses to the Uri-Path: "/.well-known/edhoc", but an application may define its own path that can be discovered e.g. using resource directory [I-D.ietf-core-resource-directory].¶
By default, the message flow is as follows: EDHOC message_1 is sent in the payload of a POST request from the client to the server's resource for EDHOC. EDHOC message_2 or the EDHOC error message is sent from the server to the client in the payload of a 2.04 (Changed) response. EDHOC message_3 or the EDHOC error message is sent from the client to the server's resource in the payload of a POST request. If needed, an EDHOC error message is sent from the server to the client in the payload of a 2.04 (Changed) response. Alternatively, if EDHOC message_4 is used, it is sent from the server to the client in the payload of a 2.04 (Changed) response analogously to message_2.¶
An example of a successful EDHOC exchange using CoAP is shown in Figure 9. In this case the CoAP Token enables the Initiator to correlate message_1 and message_2 so the correlation parameter corr = 1.¶
Client Server | | +--------->| Header: POST (Code=0.02) | POST | Uri-Path: "/.well-known/edhoc" | | Content-Format: application/edhoc | | Payload: EDHOC message_1 | | |<---------+ Header: 2.04 Changed | 2.04 | Content-Format: application/edhoc | | Payload: EDHOC message_2 | | +--------->| Header: POST (Code=0.02) | POST | Uri-Path: "/.well-known/edhoc" | | Content-Format: application/edhoc | | Payload: EDHOC message_3 | | |<---------+ Header: 2.04 Changed | 2.04 | | |
The exchange in Figure 9 protects the client identity against active attackers and the server identity against passive attackers. An alternative exchange that protects the server identity against active attackers and the client identity against passive attackers is shown in Figure 10. In this case the CoAP Token enables the Responder to correlate message_2 and message_3 so the correlation parameter corr = 2. If EDHOC message_4 is used, it is transported with CoAP in the payload of a POST request with a 2.04 (Changed) response.¶
Client Server | | +--------->| Header: POST (Code=0.02) | POST | Uri-Path: "/.well-known/edhoc" | | |<---------+ Header: 2.04 Changed | 2.04 | Content-Format: application/edhoc | | Payload: EDHOC message_1 | | +--------->| Header: POST (Code=0.02) | POST | Uri-Path: "/.well-known/edhoc" | | Content-Format: application/edhoc | | Payload: EDHOC message_2 | | |<---------+ Header: 2.04 Changed | 2.04 | Content-Format: application/edhoc | | Payload: EDHOC message_3 | |
To protect against denial-of-service attacks, the CoAP server MAY respond to the first POST request with a 4.01 (Unauthorized) containing an Echo option [I-D.ietf-core-echo-request-tag]. This forces the initiator to demonstrate its reachability at its apparent network address. If message fragmentation is needed, the EDHOC messages may be fragmented using the CoAP Block-Wise Transfer mechanism [RFC7959]. EDHOC does not restrict how error messages are transported with CoAP, as long as the appropriate error message can to be transported in response to a message that failed (see Section 6). The use of EDHOC with OSCORE is specified in [I-D.ietf-core-oscore-edhoc].¶
EDHOC inherits its security properties from the theoretical SIGMA-I protocol [SIGMA]. Using the terminology from [SIGMA], EDHOC provides perfect forward secrecy, mutual authentication with aliveness, consistency, and peer awareness. As described in [SIGMA], peer awareness is provided to the Responder, but not to the Initiator.¶
EDHOC protects the credential identifier of the Initiator against active attacks and the credential identifier of the Responder against passive attacks. The roles should be assigned to protect the most sensitive identity/identifier, typically that which is not possible to infer from routing information in the lower layers.¶
Compared to [SIGMA], EDHOC adds an explicit method type and expands the message authentication coverage to additional elements such as algorithms, external authorization data, and previous messages. This protects against an attacker replaying messages or injecting messages from another session.¶
EDHOC also adds negotiation of connection identifiers and downgrade protected negotiation of cryptographic parameters, i.e. an attacker cannot affect the negotiated parameters. A single session of EDHOC does not include negotiation of cipher suites, but it enables the Responder to verify that the selected cipher suite is the most preferred cipher suite by the Initiator which is supported by both the Initiator and the Responder.¶
As required by [RFC7258], IETF protocols need to mitigate pervasive monitoring when possible. One way to mitigate pervasive monitoring is to use a key exchange that provides perfect forward secrecy. EDHOC therefore only supports methods with perfect forward secrecy. To limit the effect of breaches, it is important to limit the use of symmetrical group keys for bootstrapping. EDHOC therefore strives to make the additional cost of using raw public keys and self-signed certificates as small as possible. Raw public keys and self-signed certificates are not a replacement for a public key infrastructure, but SHOULD be used instead of symmetrical group keys for bootstrapping.¶
Compromise of the long-term keys (private signature or static DH keys) does not compromise the security of completed EDHOC exchanges. Compromising the private authentication keys of one party lets an active attacker impersonate that compromised party in EDHOC exchanges with other parties, but does not let the attacker impersonate other parties in EDHOC exchanges with the compromised party. Compromise of the long-term keys does not enable a passive attacker to compromise future session keys. Compromise of the HDKF input parameters (ECDH shared secret) leads to compromise of all session keys derived from that compromised shared secret. Compromise of one session key does not compromise other session keys. Compromise of PRK_4x3m leads to compromise of all exported keying material derived after the last invocation of the EDHOC-KeyUpdate function.¶
EDHOC provides a minimum of 64-bit security against online brute force attacks and a minimum of 128-bit security against offline brute force attacks. This is in line with IPsec, TLS, and COSE. To break 64-bit security against online brute force an attacker would on average have to send 4.3 billion messages per second for 68 years, which is infeasible in constrained IoT radio technologies.¶
After sending message_3, the Initiator is assured that no other party than the Responder can compute the key PRK_4x3m (implicit key authentication). The Initiator does however not know that the Responder has actually computed the key PRK_4x3m. While the Initiator can securely send protected application data, the Initiator SHOULD NOT permanently store the keying material PRK_4x3m and TH_4 until the Initiator is assured that the Responder has actually computed the key PRK_4x3m (explicit key confirmation). Explicit key confirmation is e.g. assured when the Initiator has verified an OSCORE message or message_4 from the Responder. After verifying message_3, the Responder is assured that the Initiator has calculated the key PRK_4x3m (explicit key confirmation) and that no other party than the Responder can compute the key. The Responder can securely send protected application data and store the keying material PRK_4x3m and TH_4.¶
Key compromise impersonation (KCI): In EDHOC authenticated with signature keys, EDHOC provides KCI protection against an attacker having access to the long term key or the ephemeral secret key. With static Diffie-Hellman key authentication, KCI protection would be provided against an attacker having access to the long-term Diffie-Hellman key, but not to an attacker having access to the ephemeral secret key. Note that the term KCI has typically been used for compromise of long-term keys, and that an attacker with access to the ephemeral secret key can only attack that specific protocol run.¶
Repudiation: In EDHOC authenticated with signature keys, the Initiator could theoretically prove that the Responder performed a run of the protocol by presenting the private ephemeral key, and vice versa. Note that storing the private ephemeral keys violates the protocol requirements. With static Diffie-Hellman key authentication, both parties can always deny having participated in the protocol.¶
Two earlier versions of EDHOC have been formally analyzed [Norrman20] [Bruni18] and the specification has been updated based on the analysis.¶
The security of the SIGMA protocol requires the MAC to be bound to the identity of the signer. Hence the message authenticating functionality of the authenticated encryption in EDHOC is critical: authenticated encryption MUST NOT be replaced by plain encryption only, even if authentication is provided at another level or through a different mechanism. EDHOC implements SIGMA-I using a MAC-then-Sign approach.¶
To reduce message overhead EDHOC does not use explicit nonces and instead rely on the ephemeral public keys to provide randomness to each session. A good amount of randomness is important for the key generation, to provide liveness, and to protect against interleaving attacks. For this reason, the ephemeral keys MUST NOT be reused, and both parties SHALL generate fresh random ephemeral key pairs.¶
As discussed the [SIGMA], the encryption of message_2 does only need to protect against passive attacker as active attackers can always get the Responders identity by sending their own message_1. EDHOC uses the Expand function (typically HKDF-Expand) as a binary additive stream cipher. HKDF-Expand provides better confidentiality than AES-CTR but is not often used as it is slow on long messages, and most applications require both IND-CCA confidentiality as well as integrity protection. For the encryption of message_2, any speed difference is negligible, IND-CCA does not increase security, and integrity is provided by the inner MAC (and signature depending on method).¶
The data rates in many IoT deployments are very limited. Given that the application keys are protected as well as the long-term authentication keys they can often be used for years or even decades before the cryptographic limits are reached. If the application keys established through EDHOC need to be renewed, the communicating parties can derive application keys with other labels or run EDHOC again.¶
Requirement for how to securely generate, validate, and process the ephermeral public keys depend on the elliptic curve. For X25519 and X448, the requirements are defined in [RFC7748]. For secp256r1, secp384r1, and secp521r1, the requirements are defined in Section 5 of [SP-800-56A]. For secp256r1, secp384r1, and secp521r1, at least partial public-key validation MUST be done.¶
For many constrained IoT devices it is problematic to support more than one cipher suite. Existing devices can be expected to support either ECDSA or EdDSA. To enable as much interoperability as we can reasonably achieve, less constrained devices SHOULD implement both cipher suite 0 (AES-CCM-16-64-128, SHA-256, X25519, EdDSA, AES-CCM-16-64-128, SHA-256) and cipher suite 2 (AES-CCM-16-64-128, SHA-256, P-256, ES256, AES-CCM-16-64-128, SHA-256). Constrained endpoints SHOULD implement cipher suite 0 or cipher suite 2. Implementations only need to implement the algorithms needed for their supported methods.¶
When using private cipher suite or registering new cipher suites, the choice of key length used in the different algorithms needs to be harmonized, so that a sufficient security level is maintained for certificates, EDHOC, and the protection of application data. The Initiator and the Responder should enforce a minimum security level.¶
The hash algorithms SHA-1 and SHA-256/64 (256-bit Hash truncated to 64-bits) SHALL NOT be supported for use in EDHOC except for certificate identification with x5u and c5u. Note that secp256k1 is only defined for use with ECDSA and not for ECDH.¶
The Initiator and the Responder must make sure that unprotected data and metadata do not reveal any sensitive information. This also applies for encrypted data sent to an unauthenticated party. In particular, it applies to EAD_1, ID_CRED_R, EAD_2, and error messages. Using the same EAD_1 in several EDHOC sessions allows passive eavesdroppers to correlate the different sessions. Another consideration is that the list of supported cipher suites may potentially be used to identify the application.¶
The Initiator and the Responder must also make sure that unauthenticated data does not trigger any harmful actions. In particular, this applies to EAD_1 and error messages.¶
EDHOC itself does not provide countermeasures against Denial-of-Service attacks. By sending a number of new or replayed message_1 an attacker may cause the Responder to allocate state, perform cryptographic operations, and amplify messages. To mitigate such attacks, an implementation SHOULD rely on lower layer mechanisms such as the Echo option in CoAP [I-D.ietf-core-echo-request-tag] that forces the initiator to demonstrate reachability at its apparent network address.¶
An attacker can also send faked message_2, message_3, message_4, or error in an attempt to trick the receiving party to send an error message and discontinue the session. EDHOC implementations MAY evaluate if a received message is likely to have be forged by and attacker and ignore it without sending an error message or discontinuing the session.¶
The availability of a secure random number generator is essential for the security of EDHOC. If no true random number generator is available, a truly random seed MUST be provided from an external source and used with a cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator. As each pseudorandom number must only be used once, an implementation need to get a new truly random seed after reboot, or continuously store state in nonvolatile memory, see ([RFC8613], Appendix B.1.1) for issues and solution approaches for writing to nonvolatile memory. Intentionally or unintentionally weak or predictable pseudorandom number generators can be abused or exploited for malicious purposes. [RFC8937] describes a way for security protocol implementations to augment their (pseudo)random number generators using a long-term private keys and a deterministic signature function. This improves randomness from broken or otherwise subverted random number generators. The same idea can be used with other secrets and functions such as a Diffie-Hellman function or a symmetric secret and a PRF like HMAC or KMAC. It is RECOMMENDED to not trust a single source of randomness and to not put unaugmented random numbers on the wire.¶
If ECDSA is supported, "deterministic ECDSA" as specified in [RFC6979] MAY be used. Pure deterministic elliptic-curve signatures such as deterministic ECDSA and EdDSA have gained popularity over randomized ECDSA as their security do not depend on a source of high-quality randomness. Recent research has however found that implementations of these signature algorithms may be vulnerable to certain side-channel and fault injection attacks due to their determinism. See e.g. Section 1 of [I-D.mattsson-cfrg-det-sigs-with-noise] for a list of attack papers. As suggested in Section 6.1.2 of [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs] this can be addressed by combining randomness and determinism.¶
All private keys, symmetric keys, and IVs MUST be secret. Implementations should provide countermeasures to side-channel attacks such as timing attacks. Intermediate computed values such as ephemeral ECDH keys and ECDH shared secrets MUST be deleted after key derivation is completed.¶
The Initiator and the Responder are responsible for verifying the integrity of certificates. The selection of trusted CAs should be done very carefully and certificate revocation should be supported. The private authentication keys MUST be kept secret.¶
The Initiator and the Responder are allowed to select the connection identifiers C_I and C_R, respectively, for the other party to use in the ongoing EDHOC protocol as well as in a subsequent application protocol (e.g. OSCORE [RFC8613]). The choice of connection identifier is not security critical in EDHOC but intended to simplify the retrieval of the right security context in combination with using short identifiers. If the wrong connection identifier of the other party is used in a protocol message it will result in the receiving party not being able to retrieve a security context (which will terminate the protocol) or retrieve the wrong security context (which also terminates the protocol as the message cannot be verified).¶
If two nodes unintentionally initiate two simultaneous EDHOC message exchanges with each other even if they only want to complete a single EDHOC message exchange, they MAY terminate the exchange with the lexicographically smallest G_X. If the two G_X values are equal, the received message_1 MUST be discarded to mitigate reflection attacks. Note that in the case of two simultaneous EDHOC exchanges where the nodes only complete one and where the nodes have different preferred cipher suites, an attacker can affect which of the two nodes' preferred cipher suites will be used by blocking the other exchange.¶
If supported by the device, it is RECOMMENDED that at least the long-term private keys are stored in a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) and that sensitive operations using these keys are performed inside the TEE. To achieve even higher security it is RECOMMENDED that in additional operations such as ephemeral key generation, all computations of shared secrets, and storage of the pseudorandom keys (PRK) can be done inside the TEE. The use of a TEE enforces that code within that environment cannot be tampered with, and that any data used by such code cannot be read or tampered with by code outside that environment. Note that non-EDHOC code inside the TEE might still be able to read EDHOC data and tamper with EDHOC code, to protect against such attacks EDHOC needs to be in its own zone. To provide better protection against some forms of physical attacks, sensitive EDHOC data should be stored inside the SoC or encrypted and integrity protected when sent on a data bus (e.g. between the CPU and RAM or Flash). Secure boot can be used to increase the security of code and data in the Rich Execution Environment (REE) by validating the REE image.¶
IANA has created a new registry titled "EDHOC Exporter Label" under the new heading "EDHOC". The registration procedure is "Expert Review". The columns of the registry are Label, Description, and Reference. All columns are text strings. The initial contents of the registry are:¶
Label: EDHOC_message_4_Key Description: Key used to protect EDHOC message_4 Reference: [[this document]]¶
Label: EDHOC_message_4_Nonce Description: Nonce used to protect EDHOC message_4 Reference: [[this document]]¶
IANA has created a new registry titled "EDHOC Cipher Suites" under the new heading "EDHOC". The registration procedure is "Expert Review". The columns of the registry are Value, Array, Description, and Reference, where Value is an integer and the other columns are text strings. The initial contents of the registry are:¶
Value: -24 Algorithms: N/A Desc: Reserved for Private Use Reference: [[this document]]¶
Value: -23 Algorithms: N/A Desc: Reserved for Private Use Reference: [[this document]]¶
Value: -22 Algorithms: N/A Desc: Reserved for Private Use Reference: [[this document]]¶
Value: -21 Algorithms: N/A Desc: Reserved for Private Use Reference: [[this document]]¶
Value: 0
Array: 10, -16, 4, -8, 10, -16
Desc: AES-CCM-16-64-128, SHA-256, X25519, EdDSA,
AES-CCM-16-64-128, SHA-256
Reference: [[this document]]
¶
Value: 1
Array: 30, -16, 4, -8, 10, -16
Desc: AES-CCM-16-128-128, SHA-256, X25519, EdDSA,
AES-CCM-16-64-128, SHA-256
Reference: [[this document]]
¶
Value: 2
Array: 10, -16, 1, -7, 10, -16
Desc: AES-CCM-16-64-128, SHA-256, P-256, ES256,
AES-CCM-16-64-128, SHA-256
Reference: [[this document]]
¶
Value: 3
Array: 30, -16, 1, -7, 10, -16
Desc: AES-CCM-16-128-128, SHA-256, P-256, ES256,
AES-CCM-16-64-128, SHA-256
Reference: [[this document]]
¶
Value: 4
Array: 1, -16, 4, -7, 1, -16
Desc: A128GCM, SHA-256, X25519, ES256,
A128GCM, SHA-256
Reference: [[this document]]
¶
Value: 5
Array: 3, -43, 2, -35, 3, -43
Desc: A256GCM, SHA-384, P-384, ES384,
A256GCM, SHA-384
Reference: [[this document]]
¶
IANA has created a new registry entitled "EDHOC Method Type" under the new heading "EDHOC". The registration procedure is "Expert Review". The columns of the registry are Value, Description, and Reference, where Value is an integer and the other columns are text strings. The initial contents of the registry is shown in Figure 4.¶
IANA has created a new registry entitled "EDHOC Error Codes" under the new heading "EDHOC". The registration procedure is "Specification Required". The columns of the registry are ERR_CODE, ERR_INFO Type and Description, where ERR_CODE is an integer, ERR_INFO is a CDDL defined type, and Description is a text string. The initial contents of the registry is shown in Figure 6.¶
IANA has added the well-known URI 'edhoc' to the Well-Known URIs registry.¶
IANA has added the media type 'application/edhoc' to the Media Types registry.¶
Additional information:¶
IANA has added the media type 'application/edhoc' to the CoAP Content-Formats registry.¶
The IANA Registries established in this document is defined as "Expert Review". This section gives some general guidelines for what the experts should be looking for, but they are being designated as experts for a reason so they should be given substantial latitude.¶
Expert reviewers should take into consideration the following points:¶
As described in Section 4.2 of [RFC6090] the x-coordinate of an elliptic curve public key is a suitable representative for the entire point whenever scalar multiplication is used as a one-way function. One example is ECDH with compact output, where only the x-coordinate of the computed value is used as the shared secret.¶
This section defines a format for compact representation based on the Elliptic-Curve-Point-to-Octet-String Conversion defined in Section 2.3.3 of [SECG]. Using the notation from [SECG], the output is an octet string of length ceil( (log2 q) / 8 ). See [SECG] for a definition of q, M, X, xp, and ~yp. The steps in Section 2.3.3 of [SECG] are replaced by:¶
The encoding of the point at infinity is not supported. Compact representation does not change any requirements on validation. If a y-coordinate is required for validation or compatibily with APIs the value ~yp SHALL be set to zero. For such use, the compact representation can be transformed into the SECG point compressed format by prepending it with the single byte 0x02 (i.e. M = 0x02 || X).¶
Using compact representation have some security benefits. An implementation does not need to check that the point is not the point at infinity (the identity element). Similarly, as not even the sign of the y-coordinate is encoded, compact representation trivially avoids so called "benign malleability" attacks where an attacker changes the sign, see [SECG].¶
This Appendix is intended to simplify for implementors not familiar with CBOR [RFC8949], CDDL [RFC8610], COSE [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct], and HKDF [RFC5869].¶
The Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC8949] is a data format designed for small code size and small message size. CBOR builds on the JSON data model but extends it by e.g. encoding binary data directly without base64 conversion. In addition to the binary CBOR encoding, CBOR also has a diagnostic notation that is readable and editable by humans. The Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL) [RFC8610] provides a way to express structures for protocol messages and APIs that use CBOR. [RFC8610] also extends the diagnostic notation.¶
CBOR data items are encoded to or decoded from byte strings using a type-length-value encoding scheme, where the three highest order bits of the initial byte contain information about the major type. CBOR supports several different types of data items, in addition to integers (int, uint), simple values (e.g. null), byte strings (bstr), and text strings (tstr), CBOR also supports arrays [] of data items, maps {} of pairs of data items, and sequences [RFC8742] of data items. Some examples are given below. For a complete specification and more examples, see [RFC8949] and [RFC8610]. We recommend implementors to get used to CBOR by using the CBOR playground [CborMe].¶
Diagnostic Encoded Type
------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0x01 unsigned integer
24 0x1818 unsigned integer
-24 0x37 negative integer
-25 0x3818 negative integer
null 0xf6 simple value
h'12cd' 0x4212cd byte string
'12cd' 0x4431326364 byte string
"12cd" 0x6431326364 text string
{ 4 : h'cd' } 0xa10441cd map
<< 1, 2, null >> 0x430102f6 byte string
[ 1, 2, null ] 0x830102f6 array
( 1, 2, null ) 0x0102f6 sequence
1, 2, null 0x0102f6 sequence
------------------------------------------------------------------
¶
This sections compiles the CDDL definitions for ease of reference.¶
bstr_identifier = bstr / int suite = int SUITES_R : [ supported : 2* suite ] / suite message_1 = ( ? C_1 : null, METHOD_CORR : int, SUITES_I : [ selected : suite, supported : 2* suite ] / suite, G_X : bstr, C_I : bstr_identifier, ? EAD ; EAD_1 ) message_2 = ( data_2, CIPHERTEXT_2 : bstr, ) data_2 = ( ? C_I : bstr_identifier, G_Y : bstr, C_R : bstr_identifier, ) message_3 = ( data_3, CIPHERTEXT_3 : bstr, ) data_3 = ( ? C_R : bstr_identifier, ) message_4 = ( data_4, CIPHERTEXT_4 : bstr, ) data_4 = ( ? C_I : bstr_identifier, ) error = ( ? C_x : bstr_identifier, ERR_CODE : int, ERR_INFO : any ) info = [ edhoc_aead_id : int / tstr, transcript_hash : bstr, label : tstr, length : uint ]¶
CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct] describes how to create and process signatures, message authentication codes, and encryption using CBOR. COSE builds on JOSE, but is adapted to allow more efficient processing in constrained devices. EDHOC makes use of COSE_Key, COSE_Encrypt0, and COSE_Sign1 objects.¶
Note: The test vectors are not updated to version -07 of the draft. More changes affecting the test vectors are anticipated for -08.¶
This appendix provides detailed test vectors to ease implementation and ensure interoperability. The test vectors in this version are compatible with versions -05 and -06 of the specification. In addition to hexadecimal, all CBOR data items and sequences are given in CBOR diagnostic notation. The test vectors use the default mapping to CoAP where the Initiator acts as CoAP client (this means that corr = 1).¶
A more extensive test vector suite covering more combinations of authentication method used between Initiator and Responder and related code to generate them can be found at https://github.com/lake-wg/edhoc/tree/master/test-vectors-05.¶
NOTE 1. In the previous and current test vectors the same name is used for certain byte strings and their CBOR bstr encodings. For example the transcript hash TH_2 is used to denote both the output of the hash function and the input into the key derivation function, whereas the latter is a CBOR bstr encoding of the former. Some attempts are made to clarify that in this Appendix (e.g. using "CBOR encoded"/"CBOR unencoded").¶
NOTE 2. If not clear from the context, remember that CBOR sequences and CBOR arrays assume CBOR encoded data items as elements.¶
EDHOC with signature authentication and X.509 certificates is used. In this test vector, the hash value 'x5t' is used to identify the certificate. The optional C_1 in message_1 is omitted. No external authorization data is sent in the message exchange.¶
method (Signature Authentication) 0¶
CoAP is used as transport and the Initiator acts as CoAP client:¶
corr (the Initiator can correlate message_1 and message_2) 1¶
From there, METHOD_CORR has the following value:¶
METHOD_CORR (4 * method + corr) (int) 1¶
The Initiator indicates only one cipher suite in the (potentially truncated) list of cipher suites.¶
Supported Cipher Suites (1 byte) 00¶
The Initiator selected the indicated cipher suite.¶
Selected Cipher Suite (int) 0¶
Cipher suite 0 is supported by both the Initiator and the Responder, see Section 3.4.¶
The Initiator generates its ephemeral key pair.¶
X (Initiator's ephemeral private key) (32 bytes) 8f 78 1a 09 53 72 f8 5b 6d 9f 61 09 ae 42 26 11 73 4d 7d bf a0 06 9a 2d f2 93 5b b2 e0 53 bf 35¶
G_X (Initiator's ephemeral public key, CBOR unencoded) (32 bytes) 89 8f f7 9a 02 06 7a 16 ea 1e cc b9 0f a5 22 46 f5 aa 4d d6 ec 07 6b ba 02 59 d9 04 b7 ec 8b 0c¶
The Initiator chooses a connection identifier C_I:¶
Connection identifier chosen by Initiator (1 byte) 09¶
Note that since C_I is a byte string in the interval h'00' to h'2f', it is encoded as the corresponding integer subtracted by 24 (see bstr_identifier in Section 5.1). Thus 0x09 = 09, 9 - 24 = -15, and -15 in CBOR encoding is equal to 0x2e.¶
C_I (1 byte) 2e¶
Since no external authorization data is sent:¶
EAD_1 (0 bytes)¶
The list of supported cipher suites needs to contain the selected cipher suite. The initiator truncates the list of supported cipher suites to one cipher suite only. In this case there is only one supported cipher suite indicated, 00.¶
Because one single selected cipher suite is conveyed, it is encoded as an int instead of an array:¶
SUITES_I (int) 0¶
message_1 is constructed as the CBOR Sequence of the data items above encoded as CBOR. In CBOR diagnostic notation:¶
message_1 = ( 1, 0, h'898FF79A02067A16EA1ECCB90FA52246F5AA4DD6EC076BBA0259D904B7EC8B0C', -15 )¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
message_1 (CBOR Sequence) (37 bytes) 01 00 58 20 89 8f f7 9a 02 06 7a 16 ea 1e cc b9 0f a5 22 46 f5 aa 4d d6 ec 07 6b ba 02 59 d9 04 b7 ec 8b 0c 2e¶
Since METHOD_CORR mod 4 equals 1, C_I is omitted from data_2.¶
The Responder generates the following ephemeral key pair.¶
Y (Responder's ephemeral private key) (32 bytes) fd 8c d8 77 c9 ea 38 6e 6a f3 4f f7 e6 06 c4 b6 4c a8 31 c8 ba 33 13 4f d4 cd 71 67 ca ba ec da¶
G_Y (Responder's ephemeral public key, CBOR unencoded) (32 bytes) 71 a3 d5 99 c2 1d a1 89 02 a1 ae a8 10 b2 b6 38 2c cd 8d 5f 9b f0 19 52 81 75 4c 5e bc af 30 1e¶
From G_X and Y or from G_Y and X the ECDH shared secret is computed:¶
G_XY (ECDH shared secret) (32 bytes) 2b b7 fa 6e 13 5b c3 35 d0 22 d6 34 cb fb 14 b3 f5 82 f3 e2 e3 af b2 b3 15 04 91 49 5c 61 78 2b¶
The key and nonce for calculating the 'ciphertext' are calculated as follows, as specified in Section 4.¶
HKDF SHA-256 is the HKDF used (as defined by cipher suite 0).¶
PRK_2e = HMAC-SHA-256(salt, G_XY)¶
Salt is the empty byte string.¶
salt (0 bytes)¶
From there, PRK_2e is computed:¶
PRK_2e (32 bytes) ec 62 92 a0 67 f1 37 fc 7f 59 62 9d 22 6f bf c4 e0 68 89 49 f6 62 a9 7f d8 2f be b7 99 71 39 4a¶
The Responder's sign/verify key pair is the following:¶
SK_R (Responder's private authentication key) (32 bytes) df 69 27 4d 71 32 96 e2 46 30 63 65 37 2b 46 83 ce d5 38 1b fc ad cd 44 0a 24 c3 91 d2 fe db 94¶
PK_R (Responder's public authentication key) (32 bytes) db d9 dc 8c d0 3f b7 c3 91 35 11 46 2b b2 38 16 47 7c 6b d8 d6 6e f5 a1 a0 70 ac 85 4e d7 3f d2¶
Since neither the Initiator nor the Responder authenticates with a static Diffie-Hellman key, PRK_3e2m = PRK_2e¶
PRK_3e2m (32 bytes) ec 62 92 a0 67 f1 37 fc 7f 59 62 9d 22 6f bf c4 e0 68 89 49 f6 62 a9 7f d8 2f be b7 99 71 39 4a¶
The Responder chooses a connection identifier C_R.¶
Connection identifier chosen by Responder (1 byte) 00¶
Note that since C_R is a byte string in the interval h'00' to h'2f', it is encoded as the corresponding integer subtracted by 24 (see bstr_identifier in Section 5.1). Thus 0x00 = 0, 0 - 24 = -24, and -24 in CBOR encoding is equal to 0x37.¶
C_R (1 byte) 37¶
Data_2 is constructed as the CBOR Sequence of G_Y and C_R, encoded as CBOR byte strings. The CBOR diagnostic notation is:¶
data_2 = ( h'71a3d599c21da18902a1aea810b2b6382ccd8d5f9bf0195281754c5ebcaf301e', -24 )¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
data_2 (CBOR Sequence) (35 bytes) 58 20 71 a3 d5 99 c2 1d a1 89 02 a1 ae a8 10 b2 b6 38 2c cd 8d 5f 9b f0 19 52 81 75 4c 5e bc af 30 1e 37¶
From data_2 and message_1, compute the input to the transcript hash TH_2 = H( H(message_1), data_2 ), as a CBOR Sequence of these 2 data items.¶
Input to calculate TH_2 (CBOR Sequence) (72 bytes) 01 00 58 20 89 8f f7 9a 02 06 7a 16 ea 1e cc b9 0f a5 22 46 f5 aa 4d d6 ec 07 6b ba 02 59 d9 04 b7 ec 8b 0c 2e 58 20 71 a3 d5 99 c2 1d a1 89 02 a1 ae a8 10 b2 b6 38 2c cd 8d 5f 9b f0 19 52 81 75 4c 5e bc af 30 1e 37¶
And from there, compute the transcript hash TH_2 = SHA-256( H(message_1), data_2 )¶
TH_2 (CBOR unencoded) (32 bytes) 86 4e 32 b3 6a 7b 5f 21 f1 9e 99 f0 c6 6d 91 1e 0a ce 99 72 d3 76 d2 c2 c1 53 c1 7f 8e 96 29 ff¶
The Responder's subject name is the empty string:¶
Responder's subject name (text string) ""¶
In this version of the test vectors CRED_R is not a DER encoded X.509 certificate, but a string of random bytes.¶
CRED_R (CBOR unencoded) (100 bytes) c7 88 37 00 16 b8 96 5b db 20 74 bf f8 2e 5a 20 e0 9b ec 21 f8 40 6e 86 44 2b 87 ec 3f f2 45 b7 0a 47 62 4d c9 cd c6 82 4b 2a 4c 52 e9 5e c9 d6 b0 53 4b 71 c2 b4 9e 4b f9 03 15 00 ce e6 86 99 79 c2 97 bb 5a 8b 38 1e 98 db 71 41 08 41 5e 5c 50 db 78 97 4c 27 15 79 b0 16 33 a3 ef 62 71 be 5c 22 5e b2¶
CRED_R is defined to be the CBOR bstr containing the credential of the Responder.¶
CRED_R (102 bytes) 58 64 c7 88 37 00 16 b8 96 5b db 20 74 bf f8 2e 5a 20 e0 9b ec 21 f8 40 6e 86 44 2b 87 ec 3f f2 45 b7 0a 47 62 4d c9 cd c6 82 4b 2a 4c 52 e9 5e c9 d6 b0 53 4b 71 c2 b4 9e 4b f9 03 15 00 ce e6 86 99 79 c2 97 bb 5a 8b 38 1e 98 db 71 41 08 41 5e 5c 50 db 78 97 4c 27 15 79 b0 16 33 a3 ef 62 71 be 5c 22 5e b2¶
And because certificates are identified by a hash value with the 'x5t' parameter, ID_CRED_R is the following:¶
ID_CRED_R = { 34 : COSE_CertHash }. In this example, the hash algorithm used is SHA-2 256-bit with hash truncated to 64-bits (value -15). The hash value is calculated over the CBOR unencoded CRED_R. The CBOR diagnostic notation is:¶
ID_CRED_R =
{
34: [-15, h'6844078A53F312F5']
}
¶
which when encoded as a CBOR map becomes:¶
ID_CRED_R (14 bytes) a1 18 22 82 2e 48 68 44 07 8a 53 f3 12 f5¶
Since no external authorization data is sent:¶
EAD_2 (0 bytes)¶
The plaintext is defined as the empty string:¶
P_2m (0 bytes)¶
The Enc_structure is defined as follows: [ "Encrypt0", << ID_CRED_R >>, << TH_2, CRED_R >> ], indicating that ID_CRED_R is encoded as a CBOR byte string, and that the concatenation of the CBOR byte strings TH_2 and CRED_R is wrapped as a CBOR bstr. The CBOR diagnostic notation is the following:¶
A_2m = [ "Encrypt0", h'A11822822E486844078A53F312F5', h'5820864E32B36A7B5F21F19E99F0C66D911E0ACE9972D376D2C2C153C17F8E9629FF 5864C788370016B8965BDB2074BFF82E5A20E09BEC21F8406E86442B87EC3FF245B70A 47624DC9CDC6824B2A4C52E95EC9D6B0534B71C2B49E4BF9031500CEE6869979C297BB 5A8B381E98DB714108415E5C50DB78974C271579B01633A3EF6271BE5C225EB2' ]¶
Which encodes to the following byte string to be used as Additional Authenticated Data:¶
A_2m (CBOR-encoded) (163 bytes) 83 68 45 6e 63 72 79 70 74 30 4e a1 18 22 82 2e 48 68 44 07 8a 53 f3 12 f5 58 88 58 20 86 4e 32 b3 6a 7b 5f 21 f1 9e 99 f0 c6 6d 91 1e 0a ce 99 72 d3 76 d2 c2 c1 53 c1 7f 8e 96 29 ff 58 64 c7 88 37 00 16 b8 96 5b db 20 74 bf f8 2e 5a 20 e0 9b ec 21 f8 40 6e 86 44 2b 87 ec 3f f2 45 b7 0a 47 62 4d c9 cd c6 82 4b 2a 4c 52 e9 5e c9 d6 b0 53 4b 71 c2 b4 9e 4b f9 03 15 00 ce e6 86 99 79 c2 97 bb 5a 8b 38 1e 98 db 71 41 08 41 5e 5c 50 db 78 97 4c 27 15 79 b0 16 33 a3 ef 62 71 be 5c 22 5e b2¶
info for K_2m is defined as follows in CBOR diagnostic notation:¶
info for K_2m = [ 10, h'864E32B36A7B5F21F19E99F0C66D911E0ACE9972D376D2C2C153C17F8E9629FF', "K_2m", 16 ]¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
info for K_2m (CBOR-encoded) (42 bytes) 84 0a 58 20 86 4e 32 b3 6a 7b 5f 21 f1 9e 99 f0 c6 6d 91 1e 0a ce 99 72 d3 76 d2 c2 c1 53 c1 7f 8e 96 29 ff 64 4b 5f 32 6d 10¶
From these parameters, K_2m is computed. Key K_2m is the output of HKDF-Expand(PRK_3e2m, info, L), where L is the length of K_2m, so 16 bytes.¶
K_2m (16 bytes) 80 cc a7 49 ab 58 f5 69 ca 35 da ee 05 be d1 94¶
info for IV_2m is defined as follows, in CBOR diagnostic notation (10 is the COSE algorithm no. of the AEAD algorithm in the selected cipher suite 0):¶
info for IV_2m = [ 10, h'864E32B36A7B5F21F19E99F0C66D911E0ACE9972D376D2C2C153C17F8E9629FF', "IV_2m", 13 ]¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
info for IV_2m (CBOR-encoded) (43 bytes) 84 0a 58 20 86 4e 32 b3 6a 7b 5f 21 f1 9e 99 f0 c6 6d 91 1e 0a ce 99 72 d3 76 d2 c2 c1 53 c1 7f 8e 96 29 ff 65 49 56 5f 32 6d 0d¶
From these parameters, IV_2m is computed. IV_2m is the output of HKDF-Expand(PRK_3e2m, info, L), where L is the length of IV_2m, so 13 bytes.¶
IV_2m (13 bytes) c8 1e 1a 95 cc 93 b3 36 69 6e d5 02 55¶
Finally, COSE_Encrypt0 is computed from the parameters above.¶
MAC_2 (CBOR unencoded) (8 bytes) fa bb a4 7e 56 71 a1 82¶
To compute the Signature_or_MAC_2, the key is the private authentication key of the Responder and the message M_2 to be signed = [ "Signature1", << ID_CRED_R >>, << TH_2, CRED_R, ? EAD_2 >>, MAC_2 ]. ID_CRED_R is encoded as a CBOR byte string, the concatenation of the CBOR byte strings TH_2 and CRED_R is wrapped as a CBOR bstr, and MAC_2 is encoded as a CBOR bstr.¶
M_2 = [ "Signature1", h'A11822822E486844078A53F312F5', h'5820864E32B36A7B5F21F19E99F0C66D911E0ACE9972D376D2C2C153C17F8E9629F F5864C788370016B8965BDB2074BFF82E5A20E09BEC21F8406E86442B87EC3FF245B7 0A47624DC9CDC6824B2A4C52E95EC9D6B0534B71C2B49E4BF9031500CEE6869979C29 7BB5A8B381E98DB714108415E5C50DB78974C271579B01633A3EF6271BE5C225EB2', h'FABBA47E5671A182' ]¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
M_2 (174 bytes) 84 6a 53 69 67 6e 61 74 75 72 65 31 4e a1 18 22 82 2e 48 68 44 07 8a 53 f3 12 f5 58 88 58 20 86 4e 32 b3 6a 7b 5f 21 f1 9e 99 f0 c6 6d 91 1e 0a ce 99 72 d3 76 d2 c2 c1 53 c1 7f 8e 96 29 ff 58 64 c7 88 37 00 16 b8 96 5b db 20 74 bf f8 2e 5a 20 e0 9b ec 21 f8 40 6e 86 44 2b 87 ec 3f f2 45 b7 0a 47 62 4d c9 cd c6 82 4b 2a 4c 52 e9 5e c9 d6 b0 53 4b 71 c2 b4 9e 4b f9 03 15 00 ce e6 86 99 79 c2 97 bb 5a 8b 38 1e 98 db 71 41 08 41 5e 5c 50 db 78 97 4c 27 15 79 b0 16 33 a3 ef 62 71 be 5c 22 5e b2 48 fa bb a4 7e 56 71 a1 82¶
Since the method = 0, Signature_or_MAC_2 is a signature. The algorithm with selected cipher suite 0 is Ed25519 and the output is 64 bytes.¶
Signature_or_MAC_2 (CBOR unencoded) (64 bytes) 1f 17 00 6a 98 48 c9 77 cb bd ca a7 57 b6 fd 46 82 c8 17 39 e1 5c 99 37 c2 1c f5 e9 a0 e6 03 9f 54 fd 2a 6c 3a 11 18 f2 b9 d8 eb cd 48 23 48 b9 9c 3e d7 ed 1b d9 80 6c 93 c8 90 68 e8 36 b4 0f¶
CIPHERTEXT_2 is the ciphertext resulting from XOR between plaintext and KEYSTREAM_2 which is derived from TH_2 and the pseudorandom key PRK_2e.¶
The plaintext is the following:¶
P_2e (CBOR Sequence) (80 bytes) a1 18 22 82 2e 48 68 44 07 8a 53 f3 12 f5 58 40 1f 17 00 6a 98 48 c9 77 cb bd ca a7 57 b6 fd 46 82 c8 17 39 e1 5c 99 37 c2 1c f5 e9 a0 e6 03 9f 54 fd 2a 6c 3a 11 18 f2 b9 d8 eb cd 48 23 48 b9 9c 3e d7 ed 1b d9 80 6c 93 c8 90 68 e8 36 b4 0f¶
KEYSTREAM_2 = HKDF-Expand( PRK_2e, info, length ), where length is the length of the plaintext, so 80.¶
info for KEYSTREAM_2 = [ 10, h'864E32B36A7B5F21F19E99F0C66D911E0ACE9972D376D2C2C153C17F8E9629FF', "KEYSTREAM_2", 80 ]¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
info for KEYSTREAM_2 (CBOR-encoded) (50 bytes) 84 0a 58 20 86 4e 32 b3 6a 7b 5f 21 f1 9e 99 f0 c6 6d 91 1e 0a ce 99 72 d3 76 d2 c2 c1 53 c1 7f 8e 96 29 ff 6b 4b 45 59 53 54 52 45 41 4d 5f 32 18 50¶
From there, KEYSTREAM_2 is computed:¶
KEYSTREAM_2 (80 bytes) ae ea 8e af 50 cf c6 70 09 da e8 2d 8d 85 b0 e7 60 91 bf 0f 07 0b 79 53 6c 83 23 dc 3d 9d 61 13 10 35 94 63 f4 4b 12 4b ea b3 a1 9d 09 93 82 d7 30 80 17 f4 92 62 06 e4 f5 44 9b 9f c9 24 bc b6 bd 78 ec 45 0a 66 83 fb 8a 2f 5f 92 4f c4 40 4f¶
Using the parameters above, the ciphertext CIPHERTEXT_2 can be computed:¶
CIPHERTEXT_2 (CBOR unencoded) (80 bytes) 0f f2 ac 2d 7e 87 ae 34 0e 50 bb de 9f 70 e8 a7 7f 86 bf 65 9f 43 b0 24 a7 3e e9 7b 6a 2b 9c 55 92 fd 83 5a 15 17 8b 7c 28 af 54 74 a9 75 81 48 64 7d 3d 98 a8 73 1e 16 4c 9c 70 52 81 07 f4 0f 21 46 3b a8 11 bf 03 97 19 e7 cf fa a7 f2 f4 40¶
message_2 is the CBOR Sequence of data_2 and CIPHERTEXT_2, in this order:¶
message_2 = ( data_2, h'0FF2AC2D7E87AE340E50BBDE9F70E8A77F86BF659F43B024A73EE97B6A2B9C5592FD 835A15178B7C28AF5474A9758148647D3D98A8731E164C9C70528107F40F21463BA811 BF039719E7CFFAA7F2F440' )¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
message_2 (CBOR Sequence) (117 bytes) 58 20 71 a3 d5 99 c2 1d a1 89 02 a1 ae a8 10 b2 b6 38 2c cd 8d 5f 9b f0 19 52 81 75 4c 5e bc af 30 1e 37 58 50 0f f2 ac 2d 7e 87 ae 34 0e 50 bb de 9f 70 e8 a7 7f 86 bf 65 9f 43 b0 24 a7 3e e9 7b 6a 2b 9c 55 92 fd 83 5a 15 17 8b 7c 28 af 54 74 a9 75 81 48 64 7d 3d 98 a8 73 1e 16 4c 9c 70 52 81 07 f4 0f 21 46 3b a8 11 bf 03 97 19 e7 cf fa a7 f2 f4 40¶
Since corr equals 1, C_R is not omitted from data_3.¶
The Initiator's sign/verify key pair is the following:¶
SK_I (Initiator's private authentication key) (32 bytes) 2f fc e7 a0 b2 b8 25 d3 97 d0 cb 54 f7 46 e3 da 3f 27 59 6e e0 6b 53 71 48 1d c0 e0 12 bc 34 d7¶
PK_I (Responder's public authentication key) (32 bytes) 38 e5 d5 45 63 c2 b6 a4 ba 26 f3 01 5f 61 bb 70 6e 5c 2e fd b5 56 d2 e1 69 0b 97 fc 3c 6d e1 49¶
HKDF SHA-256 is the HKDF used (as defined by cipher suite 0).¶
PRK_4x3m = HMAC-SHA-256 (PRK_3e2m, G_IY)¶
PRK_4x3m (32 bytes) ec 62 92 a0 67 f1 37 fc 7f 59 62 9d 22 6f bf c4 e0 68 89 49 f6 62 a9 7f d8 2f be b7 99 71 39 4a¶
data 3 is equal to C_R.¶
data_3 (CBOR Sequence) (1 byte) 37¶
From data_3, CIPHERTEXT_2, and TH_2, compute the input to the transcript hash TH_3 = H( H(TH_2 , CIPHERTEXT_2), data_3), as a CBOR Sequence of 2 data items.¶
Input to calculate TH_3 (CBOR Sequence) (117 bytes) 58 20 86 4e 32 b3 6a 7b 5f 21 f1 9e 99 f0 c6 6d 91 1e 0a ce 99 72 d3 76 d2 c2 c1 53 c1 7f 8e 96 29 ff 58 50 0f f2 ac 2d 7e 87 ae 34 0e 50 bb de 9f 70 e8 a7 7f 86 bf 65 9f 43 b0 24 a7 3e e9 7b 6a 2b 9c 55 92 fd 83 5a 15 17 8b 7c 28 af 54 74 a9 75 81 48 64 7d 3d 98 a8 73 1e 16 4c 9c 70 52 81 07 f4 0f 21 46 3b a8 11 bf 03 97 19 e7 cf fa a7 f2 f4 40 37¶
And from there, compute the transcript hash TH_3 = SHA-256( H(TH_2 , CIPHERTEXT_2), data_3)¶
TH_3 (CBOR unencoded) (32 bytes) f2 4d 18 ca fc e3 74 d4 e3 73 63 29 c1 52 ab 3a ea 9c 7c 0f 65 0c 30 70 b6 f5 1e 68 e2 ae bb 60¶
The Initiator's subject name is the empty string:¶
Initiator's subject name (text string) ""¶
In this version of the test vectors CRED_I is not a DER encoded X.509 certificate, but a string of random bytes.¶
CRED_I (CBOR unencoded) (101 bytes) 54 13 20 4c 3e bc 34 28 a6 cf 57 e2 4c 9d ef 59 65 17 70 44 9b ce 7e c6 56 1e 52 43 3a a5 5e 71 f1 fa 34 b2 2a 9c a4 a1 e1 29 24 ea e1 d1 76 60 88 09 84 49 cb 84 8f fc 79 5f 88 af c4 9c be 8a fd d1 ba 00 9f 21 67 5e 8f 6c 77 a4 a2 c3 01 95 60 1f 6f 0a 08 52 97 8b d4 3d 28 20 7d 44 48 65 02 ff 7b dd a6¶
CRED_I is defined to be the CBOR bstr containing the credential of the Initiator.¶
CRED_I (103 bytes) 58 65 54 13 20 4c 3e bc 34 28 a6 cf 57 e2 4c 9d ef 59 65 17 70 44 9b ce 7e c6 56 1e 52 43 3a a5 5e 71 f1 fa 34 b2 2a 9c a4 a1 e1 29 24 ea e1 d1 76 60 88 09 84 49 cb 84 8f fc 79 5f 88 af c4 9c be 8a fd d1 ba 00 9f 21 67 5e 8f 6c 77 a4 a2 c3 01 95 60 1f 6f 0a 08 52 97 8b d4 3d 28 20 7d 44 48 65 02 ff 7b dd a6¶
And because certificates are identified by a hash value with the 'x5t' parameter, ID_CRED_I is the following:¶
ID_CRED_I = { 34 : COSE_CertHash }. In this example, the hash algorithm used is SHA-2 256-bit with hash truncated to 64-bits (value -15). The hash value is calculated over the CBOR unencoded CRED_I.¶
ID_CRED_I =
{
34: [-15, h'705D5845F36FC6A6']
}
¶
which when encoded as a CBOR map becomes:¶
ID_CRED_I (14 bytes) a1 18 22 82 2e 48 70 5d 58 45 f3 6f c6 a6¶
Since no external authorization data is exchanged:¶
EAD_3 (0 bytes)¶
The plaintext of the COSE_Encrypt is the empty string:¶
P_3m (0 bytes)¶
The associated data is the following: [ "Encrypt0", << ID_CRED_I >>, << TH_3, CRED_I, ? EAD_3 >> ].¶
A_3m (CBOR-encoded) (164 bytes) 83 68 45 6e 63 72 79 70 74 30 4e a1 18 22 82 2e 48 70 5d 58 45 f3 6f c6 a6 58 89 58 20 f2 4d 18 ca fc e3 74 d4 e3 73 63 29 c1 52 ab 3a ea 9c 7c 0f 65 0c 30 70 b6 f5 1e 68 e2 ae bb 60 58 65 54 13 20 4c 3e bc 34 28 a6 cf 57 e2 4c 9d ef 59 65 17 70 44 9b ce 7e c6 56 1e 52 43 3a a5 5e 71 f1 fa 34 b2 2a 9c a4 a1 e1 29 24 ea e1 d1 76 60 88 09 84 49 cb 84 8f fc 79 5f 88 af c4 9c be 8a fd d1 ba 00 9f 21 67 5e 8f 6c 77 a4 a2 c3 01 95 60 1f 6f 0a 08 52 97 8b d4 3d 28 20 7d 44 48 65 02 ff 7b dd a6¶
Info for K_3m is computed as follows:¶
info for K_3m = [ 10, h'F24D18CAFCE374D4E3736329C152AB3AEA9C7C0F650C3070B6F51E68E2AEBB60', "K_3m", 16 ]¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
info for K_3m (CBOR-encoded) (42 bytes) 84 0a 58 20 f2 4d 18 ca fc e3 74 d4 e3 73 63 29 c1 52 ab 3a ea 9c 7c 0f 65 0c 30 70 b6 f5 1e 68 e2 ae bb 60 64 4b 5f 33 6d 10¶
From these parameters, K_3m is computed. Key K_3m is the output of HKDF-Expand(PRK_4x3m, info, L), where L is the length of K_2m, so 16 bytes.¶
K_3m (16 bytes) 83 a9 c3 88 02 91 2e 7f 8f 0d 2b 84 14 d1 e5 2c¶
Nonce IV_3m is the output of HKDF-Expand(PRK_4x3m, info, L), where L = 13 bytes.¶
Info for IV_3m is defined as follows:¶
info for IV_3m = [ 10, h'F24D18CAFCE374D4E3736329C152AB3AEA9C7C0F650C3070B6F51E68E2AEBB60', "IV_3m", 13 ]¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
info for IV_3m (CBOR-encoded) (43 bytes) 84 0a 58 20 f2 4d 18 ca fc e3 74 d4 e3 73 63 29 c1 52 ab 3a ea 9c 7c 0f 65 0c 30 70 b6 f5 1e 68 e2 ae bb 60 65 49 56 5f 33 6d 0d¶
From these parameters, IV_3m is computed:¶
IV_3m (13 bytes) 9c 83 9c 0e e8 36 42 50 5a 8e 1c 9f b2¶
MAC_3 is the 'ciphertext' of the COSE_Encrypt0:¶
MAC_3 (CBOR unencoded) (8 bytes) 2f a1 e3 9e ae 7d 5f 8d¶
Since the method = 0, Signature_or_MAC_3 is a signature. The algorithm with selected cipher suite 0 is Ed25519.¶
M_3 = [ "Signature1", h'A11822822E48705D5845F36FC6A6', h'5820F24D18CAFCE374D4E3736329C152AB3AEA9C7C0F650C3070B6F51E68E2AEBB6 058655413204C3EBC3428A6CF57E24C9DEF59651770449BCE7EC6561E52433AA55E71 F1FA34B22A9CA4A1E12924EAE1D1766088098449CB848FFC795F88AFC49CBE8AFDD1B A009F21675E8F6C77A4A2C30195601F6F0A0852978BD43D28207D44486502FF7BDD A6', h'2FA1E39EAE7D5F8D']¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
M_3 (175 bytes) 84 6a 53 69 67 6e 61 74 75 72 65 31 4e a1 18 22 82 2e 48 70 5d 58 45 f3 6f c6 a6 58 89 58 20 f2 4d 18 ca fc e3 74 d4 e3 73 63 29 c1 52 ab 3a ea 9c 7c 0f 65 0c 30 70 b6 f5 1e 68 e2 ae bb 60 58 65 54 13 20 4c 3e bc 34 28 a6 cf 57 e2 4c 9d ef 59 65 17 70 44 9b ce 7e c6 56 1e 52 43 3a a5 5e 71 f1 fa 34 b2 2a 9c a4 a1 e1 29 24 ea e1 d1 76 60 88 09 84 49 cb 84 8f fc 79 5f 88 af c4 9c be 8a fd d1 ba 00 9f 21 67 5e 8f 6c 77 a4 a2 c3 01 95 60 1f 6f 0a 08 52 97 8b d4 3d 28 20 7d 44 48 65 02 ff 7b dd a6 48 2f a1 e3 9e ae 7d 5f 8d¶
From there, the 64 byte signature can be computed:¶
Signature_or_MAC_3 (CBOR unencoded) (64 bytes) ab 9f 7b bd eb c4 eb f8 a3 d3 04 17 9b cc a3 9d 9c 8a 76 73 65 76 fb 3c 32 d2 fa c7 e2 59 34 e5 33 dc c7 02 2e 4d 68 61 c8 f5 fe cb e9 2d 17 4e b2 be af 0a 59 a4 15 84 37 2f 43 2e 6b f4 7b 04¶
Finally, the outer COSE_Encrypt0 is computed.¶
The plaintext is the CBOR Sequence of the items ID_CRED_I and the CBOR encoded Signature_or_MAC_3, in this order (EAD_3 is empty).¶
P_3ae (CBOR Sequence) (80 bytes) a1 18 22 82 2e 48 70 5d 58 45 f3 6f c6 a6 58 40 ab 9f 7b bd eb c4 eb f8 a3 d3 04 17 9b cc a3 9d 9c 8a 76 73 65 76 fb 3c 32 d2 fa c7 e2 59 34 e5 33 dc c7 02 2e 4d 68 61 c8 f5 fe cb e9 2d 17 4e b2 be af 0a 59 a4 15 84 37 2f 43 2e 6b f4 7b 04¶
The Associated data A is the following: Associated data A = [ "Encrypt0", h'', TH_3 ]¶
A_3ae (CBOR-encoded) (45 bytes) 83 68 45 6e 63 72 79 70 74 30 40 58 20 f2 4d 18 ca fc e3 74 d4 e3 73 63 29 c1 52 ab 3a ea 9c 7c 0f 65 0c 30 70 b6 f5 1e 68 e2 ae bb 60¶
Key K_3ae is the output of HKDF-Expand(PRK_3e2m, info, L).¶
info is defined as follows:¶
info for K_3ae = [ 10, h'F24D18CAFCE374D4E3736329C152AB3AEA9C7C0F650C3070B6F51E68E2AEBB60', "K_3ae", 16 ]¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
info for K_3ae (CBOR-encoded) (43 bytes) 84 0a 58 20 f2 4d 18 ca fc e3 74 d4 e3 73 63 29 c1 52 ab 3a ea 9c 7c 0f 65 0c 30 70 b6 f5 1e 68 e2 ae bb 60 65 4b 5f 33 61 65 10¶
L is the length of K_3ae, so 16 bytes.¶
From these parameters, K_3ae is computed:¶
K_3ae (16 bytes) b8 79 9f e3 d1 50 4f d8 eb 22 c4 72 62 cd bb 05¶
Nonce IV_3ae is the output of HKDF-Expand(PRK_3e2m, info, L).¶
info is defined as follows:¶
info for IV_3ae = [ 10, h'F24D18CAFCE374D4E3736329C152AB3AEA9C7C0F650C3070B6F51E68E2AEBB60', "IV_3ae", 13 ]¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
info for IV_3ae (CBOR-encoded) (44 bytes) 84 0a 58 20 f2 4d 18 ca fc e3 74 d4 e3 73 63 29 c1 52 ab 3a ea 9c 7c 0f 65 0c 30 70 b6 f5 1e 68 e2 ae bb 60 66 49 56 5f 33 61 65 0d¶
L is the length of IV_3ae, so 13 bytes.¶
From these parameters, IV_3ae is computed:¶
IV_3ae (13 bytes) 74 c7 de 41 b8 4a 5b b7 19 0a 85 98 dc¶
Using the parameters above, the 'ciphertext' CIPHERTEXT_3 can be computed:¶
CIPHERTEXT_3 (CBOR unencoded) (88 bytes) f5 f6 de bd 82 14 05 1c d5 83 c8 40 96 c4 80 1d eb f3 5b 15 36 3d d1 6e bd 85 30 df dc fb 34 fc d2 eb 6c ad 1d ac 66 a4 79 fb 38 de aa f1 d3 0a 7e 68 17 a2 2a b0 4f 3d 5b 1e 97 2a 0d 13 ea 86 c6 6b 60 51 4c 96 57 ea 89 c5 7b 04 01 ed c5 aa 8b bc ab 81 3c c5 d6 e7¶
From the parameter above, message_3 is computed, as the CBOR Sequence of the following CBOR encoded data items: (C_R, CIPHERTEXT_3).¶
message_3 = ( -24, h'F5F6DEBD8214051CD583C84096C4801DEBF35B15363DD16EBD8530DFDCFB34FCD2EB 6CAD1DAC66A479FB38DEAAF1D30A7E6817A22AB04F3D5B1E972A0D13EA86C66B60514C 9657EA89C57B0401EDC5AA8BBCAB813CC5D6E7' )¶
Which encodes to the following byte string:¶
message_3 (CBOR Sequence) (91 bytes) 37 58 58 f5 f6 de bd 82 14 05 1c d5 83 c8 40 96 c4 80 1d eb f3 5b 15 36 3d d1 6e bd 85 30 df dc fb 34 fc d2 eb 6c ad 1d ac 66 a4 79 fb 38 de aa f1 d3 0a 7e 68 17 a2 2a b0 4f 3d 5b 1e 97 2a 0d 13 ea 86 c6 6b 60 51 4c 96 57 ea 89 c5 7b 04 01 ed c5 aa 8b bc ab 81 3c c5 d6 e7¶
From here, the Initiator and the Responder can derive an OSCORE Security Context, using the EDHOC-Exporter interface.¶
From TH_3 and CIPHERTEXT_3, compute the input to the transcript hash TH_4 = H( TH_3, CIPHERTEXT_3 ), as a CBOR Sequence of these 2 data items.¶
Input to calculate TH_4 (CBOR Sequence) (124 bytes) 58 20 f2 4d 18 ca fc e3 74 d4 e3 73 63 29 c1 52 ab 3a ea 9c 7c 0f 65 0c 30 70 b6 f5 1e 68 e2 ae bb 60 58 58 f5 f6 de bd 82 14 05 1c d5 83 c8 40 96 c4 80 1d eb f3 5b 15 36 3d d1 6e bd 85 30 df dc fb 34 fc d2 eb 6c ad 1d ac 66 a4 79 fb 38 de aa f1 d3 0a 7e 68 17 a2 2a b0 4f 3d 5b 1e 97 2a 0d 13 ea 86 c6 6b 60 51 4c 96 57 ea 89 c5 7b 04 01 ed c5 aa 8b bc ab 81 3c c5 d6 e7¶
And from there, compute the transcript hash TH_4 = SHA-256(TH_3 , CIPHERTEXT_4)¶
TH_4 (CBOR unencoded) (32 bytes) 3b 69 a6 7f ec 7e 73 6c c1 a9 52 6c da 00 02 d4 09 f5 b9 ea 0a 2b e9 60 51 a6 e3 0d 93 05 fd 51¶
The Master Secret and Master Salt are derived as follows:¶
Master Secret = EDHOC-Exporter( "OSCORE Master Secret", 16 ) = EDHOC-KDF(PRK_4x3m, TH_4, "OSCORE Master Secret", 16) = HKDF-Expand( PRK_4x3m, info_ms, 16 )¶
Master Salt = EDHOC-Exporter( "OSCORE Master Salt", 8 ) = EDHOC-KDF(PRK_4x3m, TH_4, "OSCORE Master Salt", 8) = HKDF-Expand( PRK_4x3m, info_salt, 8 )¶
info_ms for OSCORE Master Secret is defined as follows:¶
info_ms = [ 10, h'3B69A67FEC7E736CC1A9526CDA0002D409F5B9EA0A2BE96051A6E30D9305FD51', "OSCORE Master Secret", 16 ]¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
info_ms for OSCORE Master Secret (CBOR-encoded) (58 bytes) 84 0a 58 20 3b 69 a6 7f ec 7e 73 6c c1 a9 52 6c da 00 02 d4 09 f5 b9 ea 0a 2b e9 60 51 a6 e3 0d 93 05 fd 51 74 4f 53 43 4f 52 45 20 4d 61 73 74 65 72 20 53 65 63 72 65 74 10¶
info_salt for OSCORE Master Salt is defined as follows:¶
info_salt = [ 10, h'3B69A67FEC7E736CC1A9526CDA0002D409F5B9EA0A2BE96051A6E30D9305FD51', "OSCORE Master Salt", 8 ]¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
info for OSCORE Master Salt (CBOR-encoded) (56 Bytes) 84 0a 58 20 3b 69 a6 7f ec 7e 73 6c c1 a9 52 6c da 00 02 d4 09 f5 b9 ea 0a 2b e9 60 51 a6 e3 0d 93 05 fd 51 72 4f 53 43 4f 52 45 20 4d 61 73 74 65 72 20 53 61 6c 74 08¶
From these parameters, OSCORE Master Secret and OSCORE Master Salt are computed:¶
OSCORE Master Secret (16 bytes) 96 aa 88 ce 86 5e ba 1f fa f3 89 64 13 2c c4 42¶
OSCORE Master Salt (8 bytes) 5e c3 ee 41 7c fb ba e9¶
The client's OSCORE Sender ID is C_R and the server's OSCORE Sender ID is C_I.¶
Client's OSCORE Sender ID (1 byte) 00¶
Server's OSCORE Sender ID (1 byte) 09¶
The AEAD Algorithm and the hash algorithm are the application AEAD and hash algorithms in the selected cipher suite.¶
OSCORE AEAD Algorithm (int) 10¶
OSCORE Hash Algorithm (int) -16¶
EDHOC with static Diffie-Hellman keys and raw public keys is used. In this test vector, a key identifier is used to identify the raw public key. The optional C_1 in message_1 is omitted. No external authorization data is sent in the message exchange.¶
method (Static DH Based Authentication) 3¶
CoAP is used as transport and the Initiator acts as CoAP client:¶
corr (the Initiator can correlate message_1 and message_2) 1¶
From there, METHOD_CORR has the following value:¶
METHOD_CORR (4 * method + corr) (int) 13¶
The Initiator indicates only one cipher suite in the (potentially truncated) list of cipher suites.¶
Supported Cipher Suites (1 byte) 00¶
The Initiator selected the indicated cipher suite.¶
Selected Cipher Suite (int) 0¶
Cipher suite 0 is supported by both the Initiator and the Responder, see Section 3.4.¶
The Initiator generates its ephemeral key pair.¶
X (Initiator's ephemeral private key) (32 bytes) ae 11 a0 db 86 3c 02 27 e5 39 92 fe b8 f5 92 4c 50 d0 a7 ba 6e ea b4 ad 1f f2 45 72 f4 f5 7c fa¶
G_X (Initiator's ephemeral public key, CBOR unencoded) (32 bytes) 8d 3e f5 6d 1b 75 0a 43 51 d6 8a c2 50 a0 e8 83 79 0e fc 80 a5 38 a4 44 ee 9e 2b 57 e2 44 1a 7c¶
The Initiator chooses a connection identifier C_I:¶
Connection identifier chosen by Initiator (1 byte) 16¶
Note that since C_I is a byte string in the interval h'00' to h'2f', it is encoded as the corresponding integer - 24 (see bstr_identifier in Section 5.1), i.e. 0x16 = 22, 22 - 24 = -2, and -2 in CBOR encoding is equal to 0x21.¶
C_I (1 byte) 21¶
Since no external authorization data is sent:¶
EAD_1 (0 bytes)¶
Since the list of supported cipher suites needs to contain the selected cipher suite, the initiator truncates the list of supported cipher suites to one cipher suite only, 00.¶
Because one single selected cipher suite is conveyed, it is encoded as an int instead of an array:¶
SUITES_I (int) 0¶
message_1 is constructed as the CBOR Sequence of the data items above encoded as CBOR. In CBOR diagnostic notation:¶
message_1 = ( 13, 0, h'8D3EF56D1B750A4351D68AC250A0E883790EFC80A538A444EE9E2B57E2441A7C', -2 )¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
message_1 (CBOR Sequence) (37 bytes) 0d 00 58 20 8d 3e f5 6d 1b 75 0a 43 51 d6 8a c2 50 a0 e8 83 79 0e fc 80 a5 38 a4 44 ee 9e 2b 57 e2 44 1a 7c 21¶
Since METHOD_CORR mod 4 equals 1, C_I is omitted from data_2.¶
The Responder generates the following ephemeral key pair.¶
Y (Responder's ephemeral private key) (32 bytes) c6 46 cd dc 58 12 6e 18 10 5f 01 ce 35 05 6e 5e bc 35 f4 d4 cc 51 07 49 a3 a5 e0 69 c1 16 16 9a¶
G_Y (Responder's ephemeral public key, CBOR unencoded) (32 bytes) 52 fb a0 bd c8 d9 53 dd 86 ce 1a b2 fd 7c 05 a4 65 8c 7c 30 af db fc 33 01 04 70 69 45 1b af 35¶
From G_X and Y or from G_Y and X the ECDH shared secret is computed:¶
G_XY (ECDH shared secret) (32 bytes) de fc 2f 35 69 10 9b 3d 1f a4 a7 3d c5 e2 fe b9 e1 15 0d 90 c2 5e e2 f0 66 c2 d8 85 f4 f8 ac 4e¶
The key and nonce for calculating the 'ciphertext' are calculated as follows, as specified in Section 4.¶
HKDF SHA-256 is the HKDF used (as defined by cipher suite 0).¶
PRK_2e = HMAC-SHA-256(salt, G_XY)¶
Salt is the empty byte string.¶
salt (0 bytes)¶
From there, PRK_2e is computed:¶
PRK_2e (32 bytes) 93 9f cb 05 6d 2e 41 4f 1b ec 61 04 61 99 c2 c7 63 d2 7f 0c 3d 15 fa 16 71 fa 13 4e 0d c5 a0 4d¶
The Responder's static Diffie-Hellman key pair is the following:¶
R (Responder's private authentication key) (32 bytes) bb 50 1a ac 67 b9 a9 5f 97 e0 ed ed 6b 82 a6 62 93 4f bb fc 7a d1 b7 4c 1f ca d6 6a 07 94 22 d0¶
G_R (Responder's public authentication key) (32 bytes) a3 ff 26 35 95 be b3 77 d1 a0 ce 1d 04 da d2 d4 09 66 ac 6b cb 62 20 51 b8 46 59 18 4d 5d 9a 32¶
Since the Responder authenticates with a static Diffie-Hellman key, PRK_3e2m = HKDF-Extract( PRK_2e, G_RX ), where G_RX is the ECDH shared secret calculated from G_R and X, or G_X and R.¶
From the Responder's authentication key and the Initiator's ephemeral key (see Appendix C.2.1), the ECDH shared secret G_RX is calculated.¶
G_RX (ECDH shared secret) (32 bytes) 21 c7 ef f4 fb 69 fa 4b 67 97 d0 58 84 31 5d 84 11 a3 fd a5 4f 6d ad a6 1d 4f cd 85 e7 90 66 68¶
PRK_3e2m (32 bytes) 75 07 7c 69 1e 35 01 2d 48 bc 24 c8 4f 2b ab 89 f5 2f ac 03 fe dd 81 3e 43 8c 93 b1 0b 39 93 07¶
The Responder chooses a connection identifier C_R.¶
Connection identifier chosen by Responder (1 byte) 00¶
Note that since C_R is a byte string in the interval h'00' to h'2f', it is encoded as the corresponding integer - 24 (see bstr_identifier in Section 5.1), i.e. 0x00 = 0, 0 - 24 = -24, and -24 in CBOR encoding is equal to 0x37.¶
C_R (1 byte) 37¶
Data_2 is constructed as the CBOR Sequence of G_Y and C_R.¶
data_2 = ( h'52FBA0BDC8D953DD86CE1AB2FD7C05A4658C7C30AFDBFC3301047069451BAF35', -24 )¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
data_2 (CBOR Sequence) (35 bytes) 58 20 52 fb a0 bd c8 d9 53 dd 86 ce 1a b2 fd 7c 05 a4 65 8c 7c 30 af db fc 33 01 04 70 69 45 1b af 35 37¶
From data_2 and message_1, compute the input to the transcript hash TH_2 = H( H(message_1), data_2 ), as a CBOR Sequence of these 2 data items.¶
Input to calculate TH_2 (CBOR Sequence) (72 bytes) 0d 00 58 20 8d 3e f5 6d 1b 75 0a 43 51 d6 8a c2 50 a0 e8 83 79 0e fc 80 a5 38 a4 44 ee 9e 2b 57 e2 44 1a 7c 21 58 20 52 fb a0 bd c8 d9 53 dd 86 ce 1a b2 fd 7c 05 a4 65 8c 7c 30 af db fc 33 01 04 70 69 45 1b af 35 37¶
And from there, compute the transcript hash TH_2 = SHA-256( H(message_1), data_2 )¶
TH_2 (CBOR unencoded) (32 bytes) de cf d6 4a 36 67 64 0a 02 33 b0 4a a8 aa 91 f6 89 56 b8 a5 36 d0 cf 8c 73 a6 e8 a7 c3 62 1e 26¶
The Responder's subject name is the empty string:¶
Responder's subject name (text string) ""¶
ID_CRED_R is the following:¶
ID_CRED_R =
{
4: h'05'
}
¶
ID_CRED_R (4 bytes) a1 04 41 05¶
CRED_R is the following COSE_Key:¶
{
1: 1,
-1: 4,
-2: h'A3FF263595BEB377D1A0CE1D04DAD2D40966AC6BCB622051B84659184D5D9A32,
"subject name": ""
}
¶
Which encodes to the following byte string:¶
CRED_R (54 bytes) a4 01 01 20 04 21 58 20 a3 ff 26 35 95 be b3 77 d1 a0 ce 1d 04 da d2 d4 09 66 ac 6b cb 62 20 51 b8 46 59 18 4d 5d 9a 32 6c 73 75 62 6a 65 63 74 20 6e 61 6d 65 60¶
Since no external authorization data is sent:¶
EAD_2 (0 bytes)¶
The plaintext is defined as the empty string:¶
P_2m (0 bytes)¶
The Enc_structure is defined as follows: [ "Encrypt0", << ID_CRED_R >>, << TH_2, CRED_R >> ], so ID_CRED_R is encoded as a CBOR bstr, and the concatenation of the CBOR byte strings TH_2 and CRED_R is wrapped in a CBOR bstr.¶
A_2m = [ "Encrypt0", h'A1044105', h'5820DECFD64A3667640A0233B04AA8AA91F68956B8A536D0CF8C73A6E8A7C3621E2 6A401012004215820A3FF263595BEB377D1A0CE1D04DAD2D40966AC6BCB622051B846 59184D5D9A326C7375626A656374206E616D6560' ]¶
Which encodes to the following byte string to be used as Additional Authenticated Data:¶
A_2m (CBOR-encoded) (105 bytes) 83 68 45 6e 63 72 79 70 74 30 44 a1 04 41 05 58 58 58 20 de cf d6 4a 36 67 64 0a 02 33 b0 4a a8 aa 91 f6 89 56 b8 a5 36 d0 cf 8c 73 a6 e8 a7 c3 62 1e 26 a4 01 01 20 04 21 58 20 a3 ff 26 35 95 be b3 77 d1 a0 ce 1d 04 da d2 d4 09 66 ac 6b cb 62 20 51 b8 46 59 18 4d 5d 9a 32 6c 73 75 62 6a 65 63 74 20 6e 61 6d 65 60¶
info for K_2m is defined as follows:¶
info for K_2m = [ 10, h'DECFD64A3667640A0233B04AA8AA91F68956B8A536D0CF8C73A6E8A7C3621E26', "K_2m", 16 ]¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
info for K_2m (CBOR-encoded) (42 bytes) 84 0a 58 20 de cf d6 4a 36 67 64 0a 02 33 b0 4a a8 aa 91 f6 89 56 b8 a5 36 d0 cf 8c 73 a6 e8 a7 c3 62 1e 26 64 4b 5f 32 6d 10¶
From these parameters, K_2m is computed. Key K_2m is the output of HKDF-Expand(PRK_3e2m, info, L), where L is the length of K_2m, so 16 bytes.¶
K_2m (16 bytes) 4e cd ef ba d8 06 81 8b 62 51 b9 d7 86 78 bc 76¶
info for IV_2m is defined as follows:¶
info for IV_2m = [ 10, h'A51C76463E8AE58FD3B8DC5EDE1E27143CC92D223EACD9E5FF6E3FAC876658A5', "IV_2m", 13 ]¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
info for IV_2m (CBOR-encoded) (43 bytes) 84 0a 58 20 de cf d6 4a 36 67 64 0a 02 33 b0 4a a8 aa 91 f6 89 56 b8 a5 36 d0 cf 8c 73 a6 e8 a7 c3 62 1e 26 65 49 56 5f 32 6d 0d¶
From these parameters, IV_2m is computed. IV_2m is the output of HKDF-Expand(PRK_3e2m, info, L), where L is the length of IV_2m, so 13 bytes.¶
IV_2m (13 bytes) e9 b8 e4 b1 bd 02 f4 9a 82 0d d3 53 4f¶
Finally, COSE_Encrypt0 is computed from the parameters above.¶
MAC_2 is the 'ciphertext' of the COSE_Encrypt0 with empty plaintext. In case of cipher suite 0 the AEAD is AES-CCM truncated to 8 bytes:¶
MAC_2 (CBOR unencoded) (8 bytes) 42 e7 99 78 43 1e 6b 8f¶
Since method = 2, Signature_or_MAC_2 is MAC_2:¶
Signature_or_MAC_2 (CBOR unencoded) (8 bytes) 42 e7 99 78 43 1e 6b 8f¶
CIPHERTEXT_2 is the ciphertext resulting from XOR between plaintext and KEYSTREAM_2 which is derived from TH_2 and the pseudorandom key PRK_2e.¶
The plaintext is the CBOR Sequence of the items ID_CRED_R and the CBOR encoded Signature_or_MAC_2, in this order (EAD_2 is empty).¶
Note that since ID_CRED_R contains a single 'kid' parameter, i.e., ID_CRED_R = { 4 : kid_R }, only the byte string kid_R is conveyed in the plaintext encoded as a bstr_identifier. kid_R is encoded as the corresponding integer - 24 (see bstr_identifier in Section 5.1), i.e. 0x05 = 5, 5 - 24 = -19, and -19 in CBOR encoding is equal to 0x32.¶
The plaintext is the following:¶
P_2e (CBOR Sequence) (10 bytes) 32 48 42 e7 99 78 43 1e 6b 8f¶
KEYSTREAM_2 = HKDF-Expand( PRK_2e, info, length ), where length is the length of the plaintext, so 10.¶
info for KEYSTREAM_2 = [ 10, h'DECFD64A3667640A0233B04AA8AA91F68956B8A536D0CF8C73A6E8A7C3621E26', "KEYSTREAM_2", 10 ]¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
info for KEYSTREAM_2 (CBOR-encoded) (49 bytes) 84 0a 58 20 de cf d6 4a 36 67 64 0a 02 33 b0 4a a8 aa 91 f6 89 56 b8 a5 36 d0 cf 8c 73 a6 e8 a7 c3 62 1e 26 6b 4b 45 59 53 54 52 45 41 4d 5f 32 0a¶
From there, KEYSTREAM_2 is computed:¶
KEYSTREAM_2 (10 bytes) 91 b9 ff ba 9b f5 5a d1 57 16¶
Using the parameters above, the ciphertext CIPHERTEXT_2 can be computed:¶
CIPHERTEXT_2 (CBOR unencoded) (10 bytes) a3 f1 bd 5d 02 8d 19 cf 3c 99¶
message_2 is the CBOR Sequence of data_2 and CIPHERTEXT_2, in this order:¶
message_2 = ( data_2, h'A3F1BD5D028D19CF3C99' )¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
message_2 (CBOR Sequence) (46 bytes) 58 20 52 fb a0 bd c8 d9 53 dd 86 ce 1a b2 fd 7c 05 a4 65 8c 7c 30 af db fc 33 01 04 70 69 45 1b af 35 37 4a a3 f1 bd 5d 02 8d 19 cf 3c 99¶
Since corr equals 1, C_R is not omitted from data_3.¶
The Initiator's static Diffie-Hellman key pair is the following:¶
I (Initiator's private authentication key) (32 bytes) 2b be a6 55 c2 33 71 c3 29 cf bd 3b 1f 02 c6 c0 62 03 38 37 b8 b5 90 99 a4 43 6f 66 60 81 b0 8e¶
G_I (Initiator's public authentication key, CBOR unencoded) (32 bytes) 2c 44 0c c1 21 f8 d7 f2 4c 3b 0e 41 ae da fe 9c aa 4f 4e 7a bb 83 5e c3 0f 1d e8 8a db 96 ff 71¶
HKDF SHA-256 is the HKDF used (as defined by cipher suite 0).¶
From the Initiator's authentication key and the Responder's ephemeral key (see Appendix C.2.2), the ECDH shared secret G_IY is calculated.¶
G_IY (ECDH shared secret) (32 bytes) cb ff 8c d3 4a 81 df ec 4c b6 5d 9a 57 2e bd 09 64 45 0c 78 56 3d a4 98 1d 80 d3 6c 8b 1a 75 2a¶
PRK_4x3m = HMAC-SHA-256 (PRK_3e2m, G_IY).¶
PRK_4x3m (32 bytes) 02 56 2f 1f 01 78 5c 0a a5 f5 94 64 0c 49 cb f6 9f 72 2e 9e 6c 57 83 7d 8e 15 79 ec 45 fe 64 7a¶
data 3 is equal to C_R.¶
data_3 (CBOR Sequence) (1 byte) 37¶
From data_3, CIPHERTEXT_2, and TH_2, compute the input to the transcript hash TH_3 = H( H(TH_2 , CIPHERTEXT_2), data_3), as a CBOR Sequence of these 2 data items.¶
Input to calculate TH_3 (CBOR Sequence) (46 bytes) 58 20 de cf d6 4a 36 67 64 0a 02 33 b0 4a a8 aa 91 f6 89 56 b8 a5 36 d0 cf 8c 73 a6 e8 a7 c3 62 1e 26 4a a3 f1 bd 5d 02 8d 19 cf 3c 99 37¶
And from there, compute the transcript hash TH_3 = SHA-256( H(TH_2 , CIPHERTEXT_2), data_3)¶
TH_3 (CBOR unencoded) (32 bytes) b6 cd 80 4f c4 b9 d7 ca c5 02 ab d7 7c da 74 e4 1c b0 11 82 d7 cb 8b 84 db 03 ff a5 83 a3 5f cb¶
The initiator's subject name is the empty string:¶
Initiator's subject name (text string) ""¶
And its credential is:¶
ID_CRED_I =
{
4: h'23'
}
¶
ID_CRED_I (4 bytes) a1 04 41 23¶
CRED_I is the following COSE_Key:¶
{
1: 1,
-1: 4,
-2: h'2C440CC121F8D7F24C3B0E41AEDAFE9CAA4F4E7ABB835EC30F1DE88ADB96FF71',
"subject name": ""
}
¶
Which encodes to the following byte string:¶
CRED_I (54 bytes) a4 01 01 20 04 21 58 20 2c 44 0c c1 21 f8 d7 f2 4c 3b 0e 41 ae da fe 9c aa 4f 4e 7a bb 83 5e c3 0f 1d e8 8a db 96 ff 71 6c 73 75 62 6a 65 63 74 20 6e 61 6d 65 60¶
Since no external authorization data is exchanged:¶
EAD_3 (0 bytes)¶
The plaintext of the COSE_Encrypt is the empty string:¶
P_3m (0 bytes)¶
The associated data is the following: [ "Encrypt0", << ID_CRED_I >>, << TH_3, CRED_I, ? EAD_3 >> ].¶
A_3m (CBOR-encoded) (105 bytes) 83 68 45 6e 63 72 79 70 74 30 44 a1 04 41 23 58 58 58 20 b6 cd 80 4f c4 b9 d7 ca c5 02 ab d7 7c da 74 e4 1c b0 11 82 d7 cb 8b 84 db 03 ff a5 83 a3 5f cb a4 01 01 20 04 21 58 20 2c 44 0c c1 21 f8 d7 f2 4c 3b 0e 41 ae da fe 9c aa 4f 4e 7a bb 83 5e c3 0f 1d e8 8a db 96 ff 71 6c 73 75 62 6a 65 63 74 20 6e 61 6d 65 60¶
Info for K_3m is computed as follows:¶
info for K_3m = [ 10, h'B6CD804FC4B9D7CAC502ABD77CDA74E41CB01182D7CB8B84DB03FFA583A35FCB', "K_3m", 16 ]¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
info for K_3m (CBOR-encoded) (42 bytes) 84 0a 58 20 b6 cd 80 4f c4 b9 d7 ca c5 02 ab d7 7c da 74 e4 1c b0 11 82 d7 cb 8b 84 db 03 ff a5 83 a3 5f cb 64 4b 5f 33 6d 10¶
From these parameters, K_3m is computed. Key K_3m is the output of HKDF-Expand(PRK_4x3m, info, L), where L is the length of K_2m, so 16 bytes.¶
K_3m (16 bytes) 02 c7 e7 93 89 9d 90 d1 28 28 10 26 96 94 c9 58¶
Nonce IV_3m is the output of HKDF-Expand(PRK_4x3m, info, L), where L = 13 bytes.¶
Info for IV_3m is defined as follows:¶
info for IV_3m = [ 10, h'B6CD804FC4B9D7CAC502ABD77CDA74E41CB01182D7CB8B84DB03FFA583A35FCB', "IV_3m", 13 ]¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
info for IV_3m (CBOR-encoded) (43 bytes) 84 0a 58 20 b6 cd 80 4f c4 b9 d7 ca c5 02 ab d7 7c da 74 e4 1c b0 11 82 d7 cb 8b 84 db 03 ff a5 83 a3 5f cb 65 49 56 5f 33 6d 0d¶
From these parameters, IV_3m is computed:¶
IV_3m (13 bytes) 0d a7 cc 3a 6f 9a b2 48 52 ce 8b 37 a6¶
MAC_3 is the 'ciphertext' of the COSE_Encrypt0 with empty plaintext. In case of cipher suite 0 the AEAD is AES-CCM truncated to 8 bytes:¶
MAC_3 (CBOR unencoded) (8 bytes) ee 59 8e a6 61 17 dc c3¶
Since method = 3, Signature_or_MAC_3 is MAC_3:¶
Signature_or_MAC_3 (CBOR unencoded) (8 bytes) ee 59 8e a6 61 17 dc c3¶
Finally, the outer COSE_Encrypt0 is computed.¶
The plaintext is the CBOR Sequence of the items ID_CRED_I and the CBOR encoded Signature_or_MAC_3, in this order (EAD_3 is empty).¶
Note that since ID_CRED_I contains a single 'kid' parameter, i.e., ID_CRED_I = { 4 : kid_I }, only the byte string kid_I is conveyed in the plaintext encoded as a bstr_identifier. kid_I is encoded as the corresponding integer - 24 (see bstr_identifier in Section 5.1), i.e. 0x23 = 35, 35 - 24 = 11, and 11 in CBOR encoding is equal to 0x0b.¶
P_3ae (CBOR Sequence) (10 bytes) 0b 48 ee 59 8e a6 61 17 dc c3¶
The Associated data A is the following: Associated data A = [ "Encrypt0", h'', TH_3 ]¶
A_3ae (CBOR-encoded) (45 bytes) 83 68 45 6e 63 72 79 70 74 30 40 58 20 b6 cd 80 4f c4 b9 d7 ca c5 02 ab d7 7c da 74 e4 1c b0 11 82 d7 cb 8b 84 db 03 ff a5 83 a3 5f cb¶
Key K_3ae is the output of HKDF-Expand(PRK_3e2m, info, L).¶
info is defined as follows:¶
info for K_3ae = [ 10, h'B6CD804FC4B9D7CAC502ABD77CDA74E41CB01182D7CB8B84DB03FFA583A35FCB', "K_3ae", 16 ]¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
info for K_3ae (CBOR-encoded) (43 bytes) 84 0a 58 20 b6 cd 80 4f c4 b9 d7 ca c5 02 ab d7 7c da 74 e4 1c b0 11 82 d7 cb 8b 84 db 03 ff a5 83 a3 5f cb 65 4b 5f 33 61 65 10¶
L is the length of K_3ae, so 16 bytes.¶
From these parameters, K_3ae is computed:¶
K_3ae (16 bytes) 6b a4 c8 83 1d e3 ae 23 e9 8e f7 35 08 d0 95 86¶
Nonce IV_3ae is the output of HKDF-Expand(PRK_3e2m, info, L).¶
info is defined as follows:¶
info for IV_3ae = [ 10, h'97D8AD42334833EB25B960A5EB0704505F89671A0168AA1115FAF92D9E67EF04', "IV_3ae", 13 ]¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
info for IV_3ae (CBOR-encoded) (44 bytes) 84 0a 58 20 b6 cd 80 4f c4 b9 d7 ca c5 02 ab d7 7c da 74 e4 1c b0 11 82 d7 cb 8b 84 db 03 ff a5 83 a3 5f cb 66 49 56 5f 33 61 65 0d¶
L is the length of IV_3ae, so 13 bytes.¶
From these parameters, IV_3ae is computed:¶
IV_3ae (13 bytes) 6c 6d 0f e1 1e 9a 1a f3 7b 87 84 55 10¶
Using the parameters above, the 'ciphertext' CIPHERTEXT_3 can be computed:¶
CIPHERTEXT_3 (CBOR unencoded) (18 bytes) d5 53 5f 31 47 e8 5f 1c fa cd 9e 78 ab f9 e0 a8 1b bf¶
From the parameter above, message_3 is computed, as the CBOR Sequence of the following items: (C_R, CIPHERTEXT_3).¶
message_3 = ( -24, h'D5535F3147E85F1CFACD9E78ABF9E0A81BBF' )¶
Which encodes to the following byte string:¶
message_3 (CBOR Sequence) (20 bytes) 37 52 d5 53 5f 31 47 e8 5f 1c fa cd 9e 78 ab f9 e0 a8 1b bf¶
From here, the Initiator and the Responder can derive an OSCORE Security Context, using the EDHOC-Exporter interface.¶
From TH_3 and CIPHERTEXT_3, compute the input to the transcript hash TH_4 = H( TH_3, CIPHERTEXT_3 ), as a CBOR Sequence of these 2 data items.¶
Input to calculate TH_4 (CBOR Sequence) (53 bytes) 58 20 b6 cd 80 4f c4 b9 d7 ca c5 02 ab d7 7c da 74 e4 1c b0 11 82 d7 cb 8b 84 db 03 ff a5 83 a3 5f cb 52 d5 53 5f 31 47 e8 5f 1c fa cd 9e 78 ab f9 e0 a8 1b bf¶
And from there, compute the transcript hash TH_4 = SHA-256(TH_3 , CIPHERTEXT_4)¶
TH_4 (CBOR unencoded) (32 bytes) 7c cf de dc 2c 10 ca 03 56 e9 57 b9 f6 a5 92 e0 fa 74 db 2a b5 4f 59 24 40 96 f9 a2 ac 56 d2 07¶
The Master Secret and Master Salt are derived as follows:¶
Master Secret = EDHOC-Exporter( "OSCORE Master Secret", 16 ) = EDHOC-KDF(PRK_4x3m, TH_4, "OSCORE Master Secret", 16) = HKDF-Expand( PRK_4x3m, info_ms, 16 )¶
Master Salt = EDHOC-Exporter( "OSCORE Master Salt", 8 ) = EDHOC-KDF(PRK_4x3m, TH_4, "OSCORE Master Salt", 8) = HKDF-Expand( PRK_4x3m, info_salt, 8 )¶
info_ms for OSCORE Master Secret is defined as follows:¶
info_ms = [ 10, h'7CCFDEDC2C10CA0356E957B9F6A592E0FA74DB2AB54F59244096F9A2AC56D207', "OSCORE Master Secret", 16 ]¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
info_ms for OSCORE Master Secret (CBOR-encoded) (58 bytes) 84 0a 58 20 7c cf de dc 2c 10 ca 03 56 e9 57 b9 f6 a5 92 e0 fa 74 db 2a b5 4f 59 24 40 96 f9 a2 ac 56 d2 07 74 4f 53 43 4f 52 45 20 4d 61 73 74 65 72 20 53 65 63 72 65 74 10¶
info_salt for OSCORE Master Salt is defined as follows:¶
info_salt = [ 10, h'7CCFDEDC2C10CA0356E957B9F6A592E0FA74DB2AB54F59244096F9A2AC56D207', "OSCORE Master Salt", 8 ]¶
Which as a CBOR encoded data item is:¶
info for OSCORE Master Salt (CBOR-encoded) (56 Bytes) 84 0a 58 20 7c cf de dc 2c 10 ca 03 56 e9 57 b9 f6 a5 92 e0 fa 74 db 2a b5 4f 59 24 40 96 f9 a2 ac 56 d2 07 72 4f 53 43 4f 52 45 20 4d 61 73 74 65 72 20 53 61 6c 74 08¶
From these parameters, OSCORE Master Secret and OSCORE Master Salt are computed:¶
OSCORE Master Secret (16 bytes) c3 4a 50 6d 0e bf bd 17 03 04 86 13 5f 9c b3 50¶
OSCORE Master Salt (8 bytes) c2 24 34 9d 9b 34 ca 8c¶
The client's OSCORE Sender ID is C_R and the server's OSCORE Sender ID is C_I.¶
Client's OSCORE Sender ID (1 byte) 00¶
Server's OSCORE Sender ID (1 byte) 16¶
The AEAD Algorithm and the hash algorithm are the application AEAD and hash algorithms in the selected cipher suite.¶
OSCORE AEAD Algorithm (int) 10¶
OSCORE Hash Algorithm (int) -16¶
This appendix contains an example of an applicability statement, see Section 3.7.¶
For use of EDHOC in the XX protocol, the following assumptions are made on the parameters:¶
METHOD_CORR = 5¶
null is present to identify message_1¶
CRED_I is an 802.1AR IDevID encoded as a C509 Certificate of type 0 [I-D.ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert].¶
CRED_R is a COSE_Key of type OKP as specified in Section 3.3.4.¶
EDHOC by default assumes that message duplication is handled by the transport, in this section exemplified with CoAP.¶
Deduplication of CoAP messages is described in Section 4.5 of [RFC7252]. This handles the case when the same Confirmable (CON) message is received multiple times due to missing acknowledgement on CoAP messaging layer. The recommended processing in [RFC7252] is that the duplicate message is acknowledged (ACK), but the received message is only processed once by the CoAP stack.¶
Message deduplication is resource demanding and therefore not supported in all CoAP implementations. Since EDHOC is targeting constrained environments, it is desirable that EDHOC can optionally support transport layers which does not handle message duplication. Special care is needed to avoid issues with duplicate messages, see Section 5.2.¶
The guiding principle here is similar to the deduplication processing on CoAP messaging layer: a received duplicate EDHOC message SHALL NOT result in a response consisting of another instance of the next EDHOC message. The result MAY be that a duplicate EDHOC response is sent, provided it is still relevant with respect the current protocol state. In any case, the received message MUST NOT be processed more than once in the same EDHOC session. This is called "EDHOC message deduplication".¶
An EDHOC implementation MAY store the previously sent EDHOC message to be able to resend it. An EDHOC implementation MAY keep the protocol state to be able to recreate the previously sent EDHOC message and resend it. The previous message or protocol state MUST NOT be kept longer than what is required for retransmission, for example, in the case of CoAP transport, no longer than the EXCHANGE_LIFETIME (see Section 4.8.2 of [RFC7252]).¶
Note that the requirements in Section 5.2 still apply because duplicate messages are not processed by the EDHOC state machine:¶
Main changes:¶
From -06 to -07:¶
From -05 to -06:¶
From -04 to -05:¶
From -03 to -04:¶
From -02 to -03:¶
From -01 to -02:¶
From -00 to -01:¶
The authors want to thank Alessandro Bruni, Karthikeyan Bhargavan, Timothy Claeys, Martin Disch, Theis Groenbech Petersen, Dan Harkins, Klaus Hartke, Russ Housley, Stefan Hristozov, Alexandros Krontiris, Ilari Liusvaara, Karl Norrman, Salvador Perez, Eric Rescorla, Michael Richardson, Thorvald Sahl Joergensen, Jim Schaad, Carsten Schuermann, Ludwig Seitz, Stanislav Smyshlyaev, Valery Smyslov, Peter van der Stok, Rene Struik, Vaishnavi Sundararajan, Erik Thormarker, Marco Tiloca, Michel Veillette, and Malisa Vucinic for reviewing and commenting on intermediate versions of the draft. We are especially indebted to Jim Schaad for his continuous reviewing and implementation of different versions of the draft.¶
Work on this document has in part been supported by the H2020 project SIFIS-Home (grant agreement 952652).¶