Internet-Draft | Hybrid KEM in the IKEv2 | May 2024 |
Wang | Expires 9 November 2024 | [Page] |
RFC 9370 specifies a framework that supports mulitple key encapsulation mechanisms (KEMs) in the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) by allowing up to 7 layers of additiona KEMs employed with the oringal ECDH to derive the final shared secret keys for IPsec protocols. The primitive goal is to mitigate the security threat against quantum computers by hybriding additional post-quantum (PQ) KEMs with the orinigal ECDH key exchange. This draft describes concretely how two specific QP KEMs, namely, ML-KEM and FrodoKEM, can be instantiated in the IKEv2 as the additional KEMs with the main ECDH to achieve hybrid key agreement.¶
[EDNOTE: IANA KE code points for FrodoKEM may need to be assigned, when considering the code points for ML-KEM has been considered in [I-D.D24]. ]¶
Discussion of this draft takes place on the rfc-interest mailing list (rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org), which has its home page at https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest.¶
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 9 November 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.¶
To mitigate the security threats on key exchanges again quantum computers, especialy the harvest-now-and-decrypt-later (HNDL) attack, the approach of hybrid key encapsulation mechanisms (KEMs) has been proposed to achieve secure key exchange if at least one of KEMs is still secure. In particular, hybrid KEMs is supposed to be used in the scenarios where one or multiple traditional KEMs are used together with one or multiple post-quantum KEMs [I-D.D24]. The Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2), which sepecifies the key exchange procedures of IPSec, has to be updated for quantum resistant security. For this purpose, RFC 9370 [RFC9370] describes a framework to hybrid mulitple key encapsulation mechanisms (KEMs), which extends the IKEv2 by allowing multiple key exchanges to take place for deriving shared secret keys during a Security Association (SA) setup. Essentially, this speficiation employs the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange, which is a new IKE message introduced in [RFC9242] so that multiple key exchanges can be run to establish an IKE SA via exchanging additional PQ public keys and ciphertexts between a client and a server. RFC 9370 also introduces IKE_FOLLOWUP_KE, a new IKEv2 exchange for realizing the same purpose when the IKE SA is being rekeyed or is creating additional Child SAs.¶
However, RFC 9370 just specifies the framework of hybrid KEMS but it has not been instantiated for concrete multiple KEMS. [I-D.KR24] desribes how the framework given by RFC 9370 can be run with the post-quantum (PQ) ML-KEM, also called Kyber, whose formal specification is expected to be published by NIST in 2024. However, on the one hand, FRC 9350 allows up to 7 layers of additiona KEMs employed with the oringal ECDH to derive final shared secret keys for the IKEv2. On the other hand, for some applications (e.g. financial services) demanding high security level, additional PQ KEMs may be desired for completing the hybrid KEMs for the IKEv2. Currently, ML-KEM is the only PQ KEM in the NIST standardization process, while ISO is now standardizing three PQ KEM aglorithms: Kyber, FrodoKEM, and classic McElliece. Note that Frodo [Frodo] is unstructured lattice based KEM, whose security is more conservative compared to ML-KEM, which is based on structured lattice. Therefore, this draft is motivated to describe concretely how the frame of hybrid KEMs for the IKEv2 specified in RFC 9370 can be run via hybriding the ogirinal ECDH and two PQ KEMs, i.e, ML-KEM and FrodoKEM.¶
The following gives several reasons why such diversity of KEMs is important for the IKEv2 (and also other security protocols).¶
However, the perfomace of Frodo is not as good as ML-KEM. In particular, the sizes of pulic key and ciphtertext of FrodoKEM are roughtly 10 times larger than those of ML-KEM. Consequtently, this will almost unavoidably triger the issue of IKE fragmentation.¶
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.¶
Key encapsulation mechanism(KEM) is a kind of key exchange, which allows one entity to encapsulate a secret key under a (longterm or ephemeral) public key of another entity. By following the definiton given in [I-D.KR24], a KEM consists of three algorithms:¶
ML-KEM and FrodoKEM are two well-known post-quantum KEMs from lattice. More specifically, ML-KEM [ML-KEM23], orignially called Kyber, has been selected as the only one KEM scheme in its first patch of PQ standardizatio by NIST. It is a Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism, so called ML-KEM, which will be published as FIPS 203 standard (ML-KEM) by NIST. ML-KEM is also specified as an Internet Draft in IETF [I-D.Kyber24].¶
FrodoKEM [Frodo] is one of three KEMS in the process of ISO stardandization, which is based on unstructured lattice problem. However, the perfomace of Frodo is not as good as ML-KEM. Specifically, as showen in Table 1, the sizes of pulic key and ciphtertext of FrodoKEM are roughtly 10 times larger than those of ML-KEM. Consequtently, this will almost unavoidably triger the issue of IKE fragmentation [RFC7383] [RFC9242].¶
+===============+============+============+============+===============+ | Algorithms | secret key | public key | ciphterext | shared secret | | | sk | pk | ct | ss | +===============+============+============+============+===============+ | ML-KEM-512 | 800 | 1,632 | 768 | 32 | +---------------+------------+------------+------------+---------------+ | ML-KEM-768 | 1,184 | 2,400 | 1,088 | 32 | +---------------+------------+------------+------------+---------------+ | ML-KEM-1024 | 1,568 | 3,168 | 1,568 | 32 | +---------------+------------+------------+------------+---------------+ | FrodoKEM-640 | 19,888 | 9,616 | 9,752 | 16 | +---------------+------------+------------+------------+---------------+ | FrodoKEM-976 | 31,296 | 15,632 | 15,792 | 24 | +---------------+------------+------------+------------+---------------+ | FrodoKEM-1344 | 43,088 | 21,520 | 21,696 | 32 | +---------------+------------+------------+---------------+------------+ Table 1: Size (in bytes) of keys and ciphertexts of ML-KEM and FrodoKEM¶
Following general exmaples given in Appendix A of [RFC9370], here is an example to show that the initiator proposes the use of additional key exchanges to establish an IKE SA. Here, the initiator proposes three sets of additional key exchanges. Namely, the first set is TBD36 (ml-kem-768), TBD37 (ml-kem-1024) [I-D.KR24] or NONE; the second set is TBD43 (eFrodoKEM-976-<AES>), TBD45 (eFrodoKEM-976-<SHAKE>) or NONE; and the third set is TBD49 (eFrodoKEM-1344-<SHAKE>) or NONE (refer to Section 6). As all of the three additional key exchanes are optional, the responder can choose NONE for some or all of the additional exchanges if the proposed key exchange methods are not supported or for whatever reasons the responder decides not to perform the additional key exchange.¶
Initiator Responder --------------------------------------------------------------------- HDR(IKE_SA_INIT), SAi1(.. ADDKE*...), ---> KEi(Curve25519), Ni, N(IKEV2_FRAG_SUPPORTED), N(INTERMEDIATE_EXCHANGE_SUPPORTED) Proposal #1 Transform ECR (ID = ENCR_AES_GCM_16, 256-bit key) Transform PRF (ID = PRF_HMAC_SHA2_512) Transform KE (ID = Curve25519) Transform ADDKE1 (ID = TBD36) Transform ADDKE1 (ID = TBD37) Transform ADDKE1 (ID = NONE) Transform ADDKE2 (ID = TBD43) Transform ADDKE2 (ID = TBD45) Transform ADDKE2 (ID = NONE) Transform ADDKE3 (ID = TBD49) Transform ADDKE3 (ID = NONE) <--- HDR(IKE_SA_INIT), SAr1(.. ADDKE*...), KEr(Curve25519), Nr, N(IKEV2_FRAG_SUPPORTED), N(INTERMEDIATE_EXCHANGE_SUPPORTED) Proposal #1 Transform ECR (ID = ENCR_AES_GCM_16, 256-bit key) Transform PRF (ID = PRF_HMAC_SHA2_512) Transform KE (ID = Curve25519) Transform ADDKE1 (ID = TBD36) Transform ADDKE2 (ID = TBD43) Transform ADDKE3 (ID = NONE) HDR(IKE_INTERMEDIATE), SK {KEi(1)(TBD36)} --> <--- HDR(IKE_INTERMEDIATE), SK {KEr(1)(TBD36)} HDR(IKE_INTERMEDIATE), SK {KEi(2)(TBD43)} --> <--- HDR(IKE_INTERMEDIATE), SK {KEr(2)(TBD43)} HDR(IKE_AUTH), SK{ IDi, AUTH, SAi2, TSi, TSr } ---> <--- HDR(IKE_AUTH), SK{IDr, AUTH, SAr2,TSi, TSr} Fig. 1 Hybrid KEMs of ECDH, TBD36 (ml-kem-768), and TBD43 (eFrodoKEM-976-<AES>)¶
In the above specific example, the responder chooses to run two additional key exchanges. Namely, it selects TBD36 (ml-kem-768), TBD43 (eFrodoKEM-976-<AES>), and NONE, respectively for the first, second, and third additional key exchanges. According to [RFC7296], a set of keying materials can be derived, in particular SK_d, SK_a[i/r], and SK_e[i/r]. After that, both peers will perform an IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange, carrying TBD36 payload, which is protected with SK_e[i/r] and SK_a[i/r] keys. After the completion of this IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange, the SKEYSEED is updated using SK(1), which is the TBD36 shared secret. Next, an IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange for TBD43 payload will be performed so that the SKEYSEED will be updated again.¶
After the completion of both IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchanges, the initiator and the responder continue to the IKE_AUTH exchange phase.¶
More details and and further examples will be provided later¶
Basically, security considerations from [RFC7383], [RFC9242] and [RFC9370] apply to hybrid KEM exchange of ECDH, ML-KEM, and FrodoKEM described in this draft.¶
In additon, due to the fragmentation of public key and cipthertext of IKE message when FrodoKEM is hybrided, the performance of IKEv2 may be affected and the chance of re-transmision of IKE packet could become higher in some networking secnarios.¶
Further security analysis will be updated later.¶
In total, FrodoKEM has 12 variants. Namely, 3 security levels for NIST Levels 1, 3, and 5; the pseudorandom generate (PRG) using AES128 or SHAKE 128; and the KEM public can be used as a long-term key (standard mode) or a short-term key (ephemeral mode). So, by following the new values has been requested for "ml-kem-768" and "ml-kem-768" by [I-D.KR24], it is planning to request IANA 12 values for the names in the IKEv2 "Transform Type 4 - Key Exchange Method Transform IDs", which are: "FrodoKEM-640-<AES>", , "eFrodoKEM-640-lt;AES>", "FrodoKEM-640-<SHAKE>", "eFrodoKEM-640-<SHAKE>", "FrodoKEM-976-lt;AES>", "eFrodoKEM-976-lt;AES>", "FrodoKEM-976-<SHAKE>", "eFrodoKEM-976-<SHAKE>", "FrodoKEM-1344-lt;AES>", "eFrodoKEM-1344-lt;AES>", "FrodoKEM-1344-<SHAKE>", and "eFrodoKEM-1344-<SHAKE>".. The below gives the list of 12 IANA values for the 12 versions of FrodoKEM. The Recipient Tests field should point to this document as well.¶
+========+===============+========+===============+============+ | Number | Name | Status | Recipient | Reference | | | | | Tests | | +=========+==============+========+===============+============+ | TBD38 | FrodoKEM-640 | | [TBD, this | [TBD, this | | | -<AES> | | draft] | draft] | +---------+--------------+--------+---------------+------------+ | TBD39 |eFrodoKEM-640 | | [TBD, this | [TBD, this | | |-<AES> | | draft] | draft] | +---------+--------------+--------+---------------+------------+ | TBD40 | FrodoKEM-640 | | [TBD, this | [TBD, this | | | -<SHAKE> | | draft] | draft] | +---------+--------------+--------+---------------+------------+ | TBD41 |eFrodoKEM-640 | | [TBD, this | [TBD, this | | |-<SHAKE> | | draft] | draft] | +---------+--------------+--------+---------------+------------+ | TBD42 | FrodoKEM-976 | | [TBD, this | [TBD, this | | | -<AES> | | draft] | draft] | +---------+--------------+--------+---------------+------------+ | TBD43 |eFrodoKEM-976 | | [TBD, this | [TBD, this | | |-<AES> | | draft] | draft] | +---------+--------------+--------+---------------+------------+ | TBD44 | FrodoKEM-976 | | [TBD, this | [TBD, this | | | -<SHAKE> | | draft] | draft] | +---------+--------------+--------+---------------+------------+ | TBD45 |eFrodoKEM-976 | | [TBD, this | [TBD, this | | |-<SHAKE> | | draft] | draft] | +---------+--------------+--------+---------------+------------+ | TBD46 | FrodoKEM-1344| | [TBD, this | [TBD, this | | | -<AES> | | draft] | draft] | +---------+--------------+--------+---------------+------------+ | TBD47 |eFrodoKEM-1344| | [TBD, this | [TBD, this | | |-<AES> | | draft] | draft] | +---------+--------------+--------+---------------+------------+ | TBD48 | FrodoKEM-1344| | [TBD, this | [TBD, this | | | -<SHAKE> | | draft] | draft] | +---------+------------- +--------+---------------+------------+ | TBD49 |eFrodoKEM-1344| | [TBD, this | [TBD, this | | |-<SHAKE> | | draft] | draft] | +---------+--------------+--------+---------------+------------+ Table 2: Updates to the IANA "Transform Type 4 - Key Exchange¶
To be added later.¶