| Internet-Draft | Dilithium for Certificates | February 2024 |
| Massimo, et al. | Expires 8 August 2024 | [Page] |
Digital signatures are used within X.509 certificates, Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs), and to sign messages. This document describes the conventions for using the Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signatures (ML-DSA) in Internet X.509 certificates and certificate revocation lists. The conventions for the associated signatures, subject public keys, and private key are also described.¶
[EDNOTE: This draft is not expected to be finalized before the NIST PQC Project has standardized FIPS 204 Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Standard. The current FIPS draft was published August 24, 2023 for public review. Final versions are expected by April 2024. This specification will use object identifiers for the new algorithms that are assigned by NIST, and will use placeholders until these are released.]¶
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 8 August 2024.¶
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signatures (ML-DSA) is a quantum-resistant digital signature scheme standardized by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) PQC project [NIST-PQC]. This document specifies the use of the ML-DSA algorithm in Public Key Infrastructure X.509 (PKIX) certificates and Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs) at three security levels: ML-DSA-44, ML-DSA-65, and ML-DSA-87, using object identifiers assigned by NIST.¶
This specification includes conventions for the signatureAlgorithm, signatureValue, signature, and subjectPublicKeyInfo fields within Internet X.509 certificates and CRLs [RFC5280], like [RFC3279] did for classic cryptography and [RFC5480] did for elliptic curve cryptography. It describes the encoding of digital signatures and public keys generated with quantum-resistant signature algorithm ML-DSA.¶
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.¶
This specification uses placeholders for object identifiers until the identifiers for the new algorithms are assigned by NIST.¶
The AlgorithmIdentifier type, which is included herein for convenience, is defined as follows:¶
AlgorithmIdentifier ::= SEQUENCE {
algorithm OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
parameters ANY DEFINED BY algorithm OPTIONAL
}
¶
The fields in AlgorithmIdentifier have the following meanings:¶
The OIDs are:¶
id-ML-DSA-44 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { joint-iso-itu-t(2)
country(16) us(840) organization(1) gov(101) csor(3)
nistAlgorithm(4) sigAlgs(3) TBD }
¶
id-ML-DSA-65 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { joint-iso-itu-t(2)
country(16) us(840) organization(1) gov(101) csor(3)
nistAlgorithm(4) sigAlgs(3) TBD }
¶
id-ML-DSA-87 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { joint-iso-itu-t(2)
country(16) us(840) organization(1) gov(101) csor(3)
nistAlgorithm(4) sigAlgs(3) TBD }
¶
The contents of the parameters component for each algorithm are absent.¶
ML-DSA is a digital signature scheme built upon the Fiat-Shamir-with-aborts framework [Fiat-Shamir]. The security is based upon the hardness of lattice problems over module lattices [Dilithium]. ML-DSA provides three parameter sets for the security categories 2, 3 and 5.¶
Signatures are used in a number of different ASN.1 structures. As shown in the ASN.1 representation from [RFC5280] below, in an X.509 certificate, a signature is encoded with an algorithm identifier in the signatureAlgorithm attribute and a signatureValue attribute that contains the actual signature.¶
Certificate ::= SEQUENCE {
tbsCertificate TBSCertificate,
signatureAlgorithm AlgorithmIdentifier,
signatureValue BIT STRING }
¶
Signatures are also used in the CRL list ASN.1 representation from [RFC5280] below. In a X.509 CRL, a signature is encoded with an algorithm identifier in the signatureAlgorithm attribute and a signatureValue attribute that contains the actual signature.¶
CertificateList ::= SEQUENCE {
tbsCertificate TBSCertList,
signatureAlgorithm AlgorithmIdentifier,
signatureValue BIT STRING }
¶
The identifiers defined in Section 2 can be used as the AlgorithmIdentifier in the signatureAlgorithm field in the sequence Certificate/CertificateList and the signature field in the sequence TBSCertificate/TBSCertList in certificates CRLs, respectively, [RFC5280]. The parameters of these signature algorithms are absent, as explained in Section 2.¶
The signatureValue field contains the corresponding ML-DSA signature computed upon the ASN.1 DER encoded tbsCertificate [RFC5280].¶
Conforming Certification Authority (CA) implementations MUST specify the algorithms explicitly by using the OIDs specified in Section 2 when encoding ML-DSA signatures in certificates and CRLs. Conforming client implementations that process certificates and CRLs using ML-DSA MUST recognize the corresponding OIDs. Encoding rules for ML-DSA signature values are specified Section 2.¶
When the id-ML-DSA identifier appears in the algorithm field as an AlgorithmIdentifier, the encoding MUST omit the parameters field. That is, the AlgorithmIdentifier SHALL be a SEQUENCE of one component, the OID id-ML-DSA.¶
In the X.509 certificate, the subjectPublicKeyInfo field has the SubjectPublicKeyInfo type, which has the following ASN.1 syntax:¶
SubjectPublicKeyInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
algorithm AlgorithmIdentifier,
subjectPublicKey BIT STRING
}
¶
The fields in SubjectPublicKeyInfo have the following meanings:¶
The public parameters for ML-DSA are based upon a polynomial ring R_q for prime q. A (k*l) public matrix A is produced, consisting of polynomials whose coefficients are sampled uniformly at random from the integers modulo q. This sampling is performed by expanding a nonce (rho) using an XOF.¶
The ML-DSA public key MUST be encoded using the ASN.1 type MLDSAPublicKey:¶
MLDSAPublicKey ::= OCTET STRING¶
where MLDSAPublicKey is a concatenation of rho and t1. Here, rho is the nonce used to seed the XOF to produce the matrix A, and t1 is a vector encoded in 320*k bytes where k is the rank of the vector over the polynomial ring R_q. These parameters MUST be encoded as a single OCTET STRING. The size required to hold a MLDSAPublicKey public key element is therefore 32+320*k bytes.¶
The id-ML-DSA identifier defined in Section 2 MUST be used as the algorithm field in the SubjectPublicKeyInfo sequence [RFC5280] to identify a ML-DSA public key.¶
The ML-DSA public key (a concatenation of rho and t1 that is an OCTET STRING) is mapped to a subjectPublicKey (a value of type BIT STRING) as follows: the most significant bit of the OCTET STRING value becomes the most significant bit of the BIT STRING value, and so on; the least significant bit of the OCTET STRING becomes the least significant bit of the BIT STRING.¶
The following is an example of a ML-DSA-44 public key encoded using the textual encoding defined in [RFC7468].¶
-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY----- MIIHtDANBgsrBgEEAQKCCwcGBQOCB6EAFyP2dnbMELz5lkTFG7YvOdqVF5km835e UHXNaynmIrWHeKMla2gHZTCAwgLWIr9RAh1K11KRvFf+HYMs3ykOrd4xQ2vgLsjP jU0bup+rgRK5gvm3Z37rm2jAXDzJNxeM5lEDTklz9BQwOdQGm1rI/MXeMGssnOG4 a9QvNPERdcG7VpTAEEevuTWmOeiKK3+kNCpoMRZr4WkgeInRyVUZXUvbYKkbm1Yj 2Mn2ZhgqFW4M1IJwq3LPDCAXZU9R0dTQCt9Ns04HQHNylARZya6TdW+F2k+pfZ3U BRGbdI0MbVkOxqgRTfdWLlcXCfPn9/qdbz2K18QKdEuBBtPdZxiwTePDS6XvXjEp KZg9bukd7Yxqhg+DPGQp+yQLW4H3lkOkq6mCNW2z86OVnja7xHYL8vAU8xDZ9IeL oAIJm37X+qLOMIrT7qJE6zx2k+cJBnxBMSErEmOGOHb+dMvZyn8O77EyOSJS5pyn 70quzO8k+VieM8jc7ZJan3NUeC7F3Os45uAJzEa1ssKwMx+f4Dtz8GkSjjwCIdFA fp6MNzek90lPKqJuxL37NGDB9scH6nLQOKpikaYkBYxD/huNtAe/e9MEHFlD1/Uz bSWTN2qQ4UmdV7iJKtIvesDrzx7D6v5EUh9QGdt4D3dNI7NvdyOGrQXwMz8M1EOB RX7QbAySLAkpGtpjcqkyiW0nOmslMtgI1JPM0bSzx1DuIaWjG/jf6HKpu2Ev2UlN pYs8cMoFeHmJpzGUkGlFwE+nGysZOx708p98yDRrQyY/Fw6Qg1xzFle14CTqW86h sD4K0scryDnETg3ZXpwhfQncYfxBbnIIyvxn2AnyGjy6h2r0b1SC8xzxWP7tGaSX 0H4sdGPvv1AIc6id4VhtrKZgau7JK24c4lqun3WgmZH3+/wyDeyf+Zrb8/DPK3N3 ZI4R+xkZDzSkuFWLh5om8MykaFT6TNmc5Hc1kO039tgz0vqXpsQHir+EiFPbugEp JLoxmoCgdxy9RLvDkSjnDwyI4Hg1djp9nRhpTVjvMdoIw6dSyO11ilEwppm+dNIn Gxd6iO7yaE2tJ6UjIc+7tuKoZkzmsO6p4hN8VKhzXcVjnRr6xox4sD5u3esqtJly 9lsMU0qZnqJU4jbBS3SQloj3m8pl4cdf/j6ZHNiAAnfX6hhUGZDetTEv7MICeSW0 b77XO5i4udTcYQtLvdo7mmyzG/N8NNR1T9pw89GYJ1maJhC2JyYx3Qwedppk0xac BwWednYgQMMNEUKmAGoZxytTHtFfPhGQ4s7gZ6zw2CTiqAEGLfGj6lrwuBgXXAn+ S8B7UwF4b4ReCpwdYO1N5AyWXAax5T67H5a/5VkiX8zT5lX6+/bAqT8waLIImE3Q bEK74kOgQvULbzLzVjqJYPiAF8RwPIWRxH8ocOAM+NG0pREiEgDlO0xrcW26PeIo pGEsxOfiZRq1CLIRFn2FyczJQ8xFwC7fWio3q91+RGr+hzgBE69HuT8C/Z/pBT/x Im+D4lM1l++Xyn1RAoHyfnZy+nQK9i4hZ3eGyvpYfjfNGN5S+cBHY7/pKcr/EFaE WgN97C4eTLD/SDxCoS9K25XEVFECHNfgY5NS3sfizlVrQqRIecoSLUhyqswlXYF8 xgi58ZRh0oCGv6/4oyNROhwBi/aJYL0RRSYd5ZuARcs/aZ+QhdMOkprdzZSh4wDX n3Vw1Rm1GAJEDVEojLoFtpWroe4YdsFHDmkJodZl3PHZIOuwHRr8YsqcHwuXM5nW iGZRw+PoJP6gri+ev62U0jW5k7t7v35aF4ccBhwg4AVT2odFnj72hwD6df29LMIa Zebj4iagOADfdVJhNUis9YseJwJtmlCJqUAB/6BQsCqeleD9LldTMutN/mq67DSe z33nzBeLs0PnhtYiX2z3yjw4s+6/c4Q0o+fikm4t23A1Px8sDi72yplLRl67L6L8 I4zXOW4eA9PFQFndAhDblmceVOoCmRuncXte56/8trdyGepF7+tm+79zKXeDkVkf XmyHbcipFPHg00EUDgt2Wovq63obQXHP9f1KWon8YGOmW5MJbBNWiu83RZvwX7YW 6Z+STzC7aMzmQECmKEuiW1Zx6kcZnXFYDrlEiyit+lCiUyjqVbEJb3GJnOJM7Lmj WEhutG6MSdJFuP/LHc0xxjxrQeG776skEujPcIt+kWqYXpdKTthWbfiuqCKbs+Qa cGz3tRhyH2urDZC0LuZHF15AyQmSmRP4FcC9aMn6q4alx/+LUZwGvrjb4xJNAtqC aapC8vTyNxKBJhawlkSewVoI3c7ra0WKYJ7YGaHct1VeH9u47a7pu/hYC1dAPWd8 kajqEv2JJyWk0rrCi5OzrIfxE9Bl9C4nFWCPsd61qGLmi7u+1MrdN3k6dk6TG/y5 Qkn9iw7wFyoaq6p6RFtFFPnAJJDiHEMp/ZFfY9Rxquvb4EK6FjAHAtKejzEMte4x zXK4C4pBZTy+RTMvu7j0CGVlKRgSyj05LX2c22NY6YB1ZSoe9r8NFeRSOQ0ojHBf afbiN3jcuOA/nB1MHq6ll/VpLR9NIAJyC4Xh+isdDK4JIXesSD9iNA5CIVXMUlE4 x5AXF2HOm4o= -----END PUBLIC KEY-----¶
Conforming CA implementations MUST specify the X.509 public key algorithm explicitly by using the OIDs specified in Section 2 when using ML-DSA public keys in certificates and CRLs. Conforming client implementations that process ML-DSA public keys when processing certificates and CRLs MUST recognize the corresponding OIDs.¶
The intended application for the key is indicated in the keyUsage certificate extension; see Section 4.2.1.3 of [RFC5280]. If the keyUsage extension is present in a certificate that indicates id-ML-DSA in the SubjectPublicKeyInfo, then the at least one of following MUST be present:¶
digitalSignature; or nonRepudiation; or keyCertSign; or cRLSign.¶
Requirements about the keyUsage extension bits defined in [RFC5280] still apply.¶
EDNOTE: this section is still under construction as we discuss the best way to formulate the private key with the wider working group.¶
A ML-DSA private key is encoded as MLDSAPrivateKey in the privateKey field as an OCTET STRING. ML-DSA public keys are optionally distributed in the publicKey field of the MLDSAPrivateKey structure. This follows the OneAsymmetricKey syntax.¶
The ASN.1 encoding for a ML-DSA private key is as follows:¶
MLDSAPrivateKey ::= SEQUENCE {
version Version,
privateKeyAlgorithm PrivateKeyAlgorithmIdentifier,
privateKey OCTET STRING,
publicKey [1] MLDSAPublicKey OPTIONAL
}
¶
A fully populated ML-DSA private key consists of 6 parameters. The size necessary to hold all private key elements is 32+32+32+32*[(k+l)*ceiling(log(2*eta+1))+13*k] bytes. The description of k, l, and eta as well as public key and secret key sizes for security levels 2, 3, and 5 can be found in Figure 1 of the Appendix.¶
This section includes the ASN.1 module for the ML-DSA signature algorithm. This module does not come from any previously existing RFC. This module references [RFC5912].¶
[ EDNOTE: Add ASN.1 here ]
PKIX1-PQ-Algorithms { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
id-mod-pkix1-PQ-algorithms(X) }
DEFINITIONS EXPLICIT TAGS ::=
BEGIN
-- EXPORTS ALL;
IMPORTS
-- FROM RFC 5912
PUBLIC-KEY, SIGNATURE-ALGORITHM, DIGEST-ALGORITHM, SMIME-CAPS
FROM AlgorithmInformation-2009
{ iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
id-mod-algorithmInformation-02(58) }
--
-- Public Key (pk-) Algorithms
--
PublicKeys PUBLIC-KEY ::= {
-- This expands PublicKeys from RFC 5912
pk-MLDSATBD |
pk-TBD-TBD,
...
}
-- The hashAlgorithm is mda-shake256
-- The XOF seed rho is 32 bytes
-- The vector t1 is 320*k bytes
-- These are encoded as a single string
pk-MLDSA PUBLIC-KEY ::= {
IDENTIFIER id-MLDSA
-- KEY no ASN.1 wrapping --
PARAMS ARE absent
CERT-KEY-USAGE { nonRepudiation, digitalSignature,
keyCertSign, cRLSign }
--- PRIVATE-KEY no ASN.1 wrapping --
}
END
¶
Extensions in certificates and CRLs are identified using object Identifiers (OIDs). The creation and delegation of these arcs is to be determined.¶
IANA is requested to register the id-mod-pkix1-PQ-algorithms OID for the ASN.1 module identifier found in Section 5 in the "SMI Security for PKIX Module Identifier" registry.¶
The Security Considerations section of [RFC5280] applies to this specification as well.¶
The digital signature scheme defined within this document are modeled under existentially unforgeable digital signatures with respect to an adaptive chosen message attack (EUF-CMA). For the purpose of estimating security strength, it has been assumed that the attacker has access to signatures for no more than 2^{64} chosen messages.¶
EDNOTE: Discuss implications of not hash-then-sign. Implications in performance too.¶
Within the hash-then-sign paradigm, hash functions are used as a domain restrictor over the message to be signed. By pre-hashing, the onus of resistance to existential forgeries becomes heavily reliant on the collision-resistance of the hash function in use. As well as this security goal, the hash-then-sign paradigm also has the ability to improve performance by reducing the size of signed messages. As a corollary, hashing remains mandatory even for short messages and assigns a further computational requirement onto the verifier. This makes the performance of hash-then-sign schemes more consistent, but not necessarily more efficient. ML-DSA diverges from the hash-then-sign paradigm by hashing the message during the signing procedure (at the point in which the challenge polynomial). However, due to the fact that ML-DSA signatures may require the signing procedure to be repeated several times for a signature to be produced, ML-DSA implementations can make use of pre-hashing the message to prevent rehashing with each attempt.¶
EDNOTE: Discuss deterministic vs randomized signing and the impact on security.¶
ML-DSA offers both deterministic and randomized signing. By default ML-DSA signatures are non-deterministic, the private random seed rho' is pseudorandomly derived from the signer’s private key, the message, and a 256-bit string, rnd - where rnd should be generated by an approved RBG. In the deterministic version, rng is instead a 256-bit constant string. The source of randomness in the randomized mode has been "hedged" against sources of poor entropy, by including the signers private key and message into the derivation. The primary purpose of rnd is to facilitate countermeasures to side-channel attacks and fault attacks on deterministic signatures.¶
EDNOTE: Discuss side-channels for ML-DSA.¶
ML-DSA has been designed to provide side-channel resilience by eliminating a reliance on Gaussian sampling. While deliberate design decisions such as these can help to deliver a greater ease of secure implementation - particularly against side-channel attacks - it does not necessarily provide resistance to more powerful attacks such as differential power analysis. Some amount of side-channel leakage has been demonstrated in parts of the signing algorithm (specifically the bit-unpacking function), from which a demonstration of key recovery has been made over a large sample of signatures. Masking countermeasures exist for ML-DSA, but come with a performance overhead.¶
A fundamental security property also associated with digital signatures is non-repudiation. Non-repudiation refers to the assurance that the owner of a signature key pair that was capable of generating an existing signature corresponding to certain data cannot convincingly deny having signed the data. The digital signature scheme ML-DSA possess three security properties beyond unforgeability, that are associated with non-repudiation. These are exclusive ownership, message-bound signatures, and non-resignability. These properties are based tightly on the assumed collision resistance of the hash function used (in this case SHAKE-256). Exclusive ownership is a property in which a signature sigma uniquely determines the public key and message for which it is valid. Message-bound signatures is the property that a valid signature uniquely determines the message for which it is valid, but not necessarily the public key. Non-resignability is the property in which one cannot produce a valid signature under another key given a signature sigma for some unknown message m. These properties are not provided by classical signature schemes such as DSA or ECDSA, and have led to a variety of attacks such as Duplicate-Signature Key Selection (DSKS) attacks , and attacks on the protocols for secure routing. A full discussion of these properties in ML-DSA can be found at [CDFFJ21]. These properties are dependent, in part, on unambiguous public key serialization. It for this reason the public key structure defined in Section 4 is intentionally encoded as a single OCTET STRING.¶
We would like to thank ... for their insightful comments.¶
Instead of defining the strength of a quantum algorithm in a traditional manner using precise estimates of the number of bits of security, NIST has instead elected to define a collection of broad security strength categories. Each category is defined by a comparatively easy-to-analyze reference primitive that cover a range of security strengths offered by existing NIST standards in symmetric cryptography, which NIST expects to offer significant resistance to quantum cryptanalysis. These categories describe any attack that breaks the relevant security definition that must require computational resources comparable to or greater than those required for: Level 1 - key search on a block cipher with a 128-bit key (e.g., AES128), Level 2 - collision search on a 256-bit hash function (e.g., SHA256/ SHA3-256), Level 3 - key search on a block cipher with a 192-bit key (e.g., AES192), Level 4 - collision search on a 384-bit hash function (e.g. SHA384/ SHA3-384), Level 5 - key search on a block cipher with a 256-bit key (e.g., AES 256).¶
The parameter sets defined for NIST security levels 2, 3 and 5 are listed in the Figure 1, along with the resulting signature size, public key, and private key sizes in bytes.¶
|=======+=======+=====+========+========+========| | Level | (k,l) | eta | Sig. | Public | Private| | | | | (B) | Key(B) | Key(B) | |=======+=======+=====+========+========+========| | 2 | (4,4) | 2 | 2420 | 1312 | 2528 | | 3 | (6,5) | 4 | 3293 | 1952 | 4000 | | 5 | (8,7) | 2 | 4595 | 2592 | 4864 | |=======+=======+=====+========+========+========|