<- RFC Index (9101..9200)
RFC 9173
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) E. Birrane, III
Request for Comments: 9173 A. White
Category: Standards Track S. Heiner
ISSN: 2070-1721 JHU/APL
January 2022
Default Security Contexts for Bundle Protocol Security (BPSec)
Abstract
This document defines default integrity and confidentiality security
contexts that can be used with Bundle Protocol Security (BPSec)
implementations. These security contexts are intended to be used
both for testing the interoperability of BPSec implementations and
for providing basic security operations when no other security
contexts are defined or otherwise required for a network.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9173.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Requirements Language
3. Integrity Security Context BIB-HMAC-SHA2
3.1. Overview
3.2. Scope
3.3. Parameters
3.3.1. SHA Variant
3.3.2. Wrapped Key
3.3.3. Integrity Scope Flags
3.3.4. Enumerations
3.4. Results
3.5. Key Considerations
3.6. Security Processing Considerations
3.7. Canonicalization Algorithms
3.8. Processing
3.8.1. Keyed Hash Generation
3.8.2. Keyed Hash Verification
4. Security Context BCB-AES-GCM
4.1. Overview
4.2. Scope
4.3. Parameters
4.3.1. Initialization Vector (IV)
4.3.2. AES Variant
4.3.3. Wrapped Key
4.3.4. AAD Scope Flags
4.3.5. Enumerations
4.4. Results
4.4.1. Authentication Tag
4.4.2. Enumerations
4.5. Key Considerations
4.6. GCM Considerations
4.7. Canonicalization Algorithms
4.7.1. Calculations Related to Ciphertext
4.7.2. Additional Authenticated Data
4.8. Processing
4.8.1. Encryption
4.8.2. Decryption
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. Security Context Identifiers
5.2. Integrity Scope Flags
5.3. AAD Scope Flags
5.4. Guidance for Designated Experts
6. Security Considerations
6.1. Key Management
6.2. Key Handling
6.3. AES GCM
6.4. AES Key Wrap
6.5. Bundle Fragmentation
7. Normative References
Appendix A. Examples
A.1. Example 1 - Simple Integrity
A.1.1. Original Bundle
A.1.2. Security Operation Overview
A.1.3. Block Integrity Block
A.1.4. Final Bundle
A.2. Example 2 - Simple Confidentiality with Key Wrap
A.2.1. Original Bundle
A.2.2. Security Operation Overview
A.2.3. Block Confidentiality Block
A.2.4. Final Bundle
A.3. Example 3 - Security Blocks from Multiple Sources
A.3.1. Original Bundle
A.3.2. Security Operation Overview
A.3.3. Block Integrity Block
A.3.4. Block Confidentiality Block
A.3.5. Final Bundle
A.4. Example 4 - Security Blocks with Full Scope
A.4.1. Original Bundle
A.4.2. Security Operation Overview
A.4.3. Block Integrity Block
A.4.4. Block Confidentiality Block
A.4.5. Final Bundle
Appendix B. CDDL Expression
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
The Bundle Protocol Security (BPSec) specification [RFC9172] provides
inter-bundle integrity and confidentiality operations for networks
deploying the Bundle Protocol (BP) [RFC9171]. BPSec defines BP
extension blocks to carry security information produced under the
auspices of some security context.
This document defines two security contexts (one for an integrity
service and one for a confidentiality service) for populating BPSec
Block Integrity Blocks (BIBs) and Block Confidentiality Blocks
(BCBs). This document assumes familiarity with the concepts and
terminology associated with BP and BPSec, as these security contexts
are used with BPSec security blocks and other BP blocks carried
within BP bundles.
These contexts generate information that MUST be encoded using the
Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) specification documented
in [RFC8949].
2. Requirements Language
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.
3. Integrity Security Context BIB-HMAC-SHA2
3.1. Overview
The BIB-HMAC-SHA2 security context provides a keyed-hash Message
Authentication Code (MAC) over a set of plaintext information. This
context uses the Secure Hash Algorithm 2 (SHA-2) discussed in [SHS]
combined with the Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC) keyed
hash discussed in [RFC2104]. The combination of HMAC and SHA-2 as
the integrity mechanism for this security context was selected for
two reasons:
1. The use of symmetric keys allows this security context to be used
in places where an asymmetric-key infrastructure (such as a
public key infrastructure) might be impractical.
2. The combination HMAC-SHA2 represents a well-supported and well-
understood integrity mechanism with multiple implementations
available.
BIB-HMAC-SHA2 supports three variants of HMAC-SHA, based on the
supported length of the SHA-2 hash value. These variants correspond
to HMAC 256/256, HMAC 384/384, and HMAC 512/512 as defined in Table 7
("HMAC Algorithm Values") of [RFC8152]. The selection of which
variant is used by this context is provided as a security context
parameter.
The output of the HMAC MUST be equal to the size of the SHA2 hashing
function: 256 bits for SHA-256, 384 bits for SHA-384, and 512 bits
for SHA-512.
The BIB-HMAC-SHA2 security context MUST have the security context
identifier specified in Section 5.1.
3.2. Scope
The scope of BIB-HMAC-SHA2 is the set of information used to produce
the plaintext over which a keyed hash is calculated. This plaintext
is termed the "Integrity-Protected Plaintext (IPPT)". The content of
the IPPT is constructed as the concatenation of information whose
integrity is being preserved from the BIB-HMAC-SHA2 security source
to its security acceptor. There are five types of information that
can be used in the generation of the IPPT, based on how broadly the
concept of integrity is being applied. These five types of
information, whether they are required, and why they are important
for integrity are discussed as follows.
Security target contents
The contents of the block-type-specific data field of the security
target MUST be included in the IPPT. Including this information
protects the security target data and is considered the minimal,
required set of information for an integrity service on the
security target.
IPPT scope
The determination of which optional types of information were used
when constructing the IPPT MUST always be included in the IPPT.
Including this information ensures that the scope of the IPPT
construction at a security source matches the scope of the IPPT
construction at security verifiers and security acceptors.
Primary block
The primary block identifies a bundle, and once created, the
contents of this block are immutable. Changes to the primary
block associated with the security target indicate that the
security target (and BIB) might no longer be in the correct
bundle.
For example, if a security target and associated BIB are copied
from one bundle to another bundle, the BIB might still contain a
verifiable signature for the security target unless information
associated with the bundle primary block is included in the keyed
hash carried by the BIB.
Including this information in the IPPT protects the integrity of
the association of the security target with a specific bundle.
Other fields of the security target
The other fields of the security target include block
identification and processing information. Changing this
information changes how the security target is treated by nodes in
the network even when the "user data" of the security target are
otherwise unchanged.
For example, if the block processing control flags of a security
target are different at a security verifier than they were
originally set at the security source, then the policy for
handling the security target has been modified.
Including this information in the IPPT protects the integrity of
the policy and identification of the security target data.
Other fields of the BIB
The other fields of the BIB include block identification and
processing information. Changing this information changes how the
BIB is treated by nodes in the network, even when other aspects of
the BIB are unchanged.
For example, if the block processing control flags of the BIB are
different at a security verifier than they were originally set at
the security source, then the policy for handling the BIB has been
modified.
Including this information in the IPPT protects the integrity of
the policy and identification of the security service in the
bundle.
| NOTE: The security context identifier and security context
| parameters of the security block are not included in the
| IPPT because these parameters, by definition, are required
| to verify or accept the security service. Successful
| verification at security verifiers and security acceptors
| implies that these parameters were unchanged since being
| specified at the security source. This is the case because
| keys cannot be reused across security contexts and because
| the integrity scope flags used to define the IPPT are
| included in the IPPT itself.
The scope of the BIB-HMAC-SHA2 security context is configured using
an optional security context parameter.
3.3. Parameters
BIB-HMAC-SHA2 can be parameterized to select SHA-2 variants,
communicate key information, and define the scope of the IPPT.
3.3.1. SHA Variant
This optional parameter identifies which variant of the SHA-2
algorithm is to be used in the generation of the authentication code.
This value MUST be encoded as a CBOR unsigned integer.
Valid values for this parameter are as follows.
+=======+========================================+
| Value | Description |
+=======+========================================+
| 5 | HMAC 256/256 as defined in Table 7 |
| | ("HMAC Algorithm Values") of [RFC8152] |
+-------+----------------------------------------+
| 6 | HMAC 384/384 as defined in Table 7 |
| | ("HMAC Algorithm Values") of [RFC8152] |
+-------+----------------------------------------+
| 7 | HMAC 512/512 as defined in Table 7 |
| | ("HMAC Algorithm Values") of [RFC8152] |
+-------+----------------------------------------+
Table 1: SHA Variant Parameter Values
When not provided, implementations SHOULD assume a value of 6
(indicating use of HMAC 384/384), unless an alternate default is
established by local security policy at the security source,
verifiers, or acceptor of this integrity service.
3.3.2. Wrapped Key
This optional parameter contains the output of the AES key wrap
function as defined in [RFC3394]. Specifically, this parameter holds
the ciphertext produced when running this key wrap algorithm with the
input string being the symmetric HMAC key used to generate the
security results present in the security block. The value of this
parameter is used as input to the AES key wrap authenticated
decryption function at security verifiers and security acceptors to
determine the symmetric HMAC key needed for the proper validation of
the security results in the security block.
This value MUST be encoded as a CBOR byte string.
If this parameter is not present, then security verifiers and
acceptors MUST determine the proper key as a function of their local
BPSec policy and configuration.
3.3.3. Integrity Scope Flags
This optional parameter contains a series of flags that describe what
information is to be included with the block-type-specific data when
constructing the IPPT value.
This value MUST be represented as a CBOR unsigned integer, the value
of which MUST be processed as a 16-bit field. The maximum value of
this field, as a CBOR unsigned integer, MUST be 65535.
When not provided, implementations SHOULD assume a value of 7
(indicating all assigned fields), unless an alternate default is
established by local security policy at the security source,
verifier, or acceptor of this integrity service.
Implementations MUST set reserved and unassigned bits in this field
to 0 when constructing these flags at a security source. Once set,
the value of this field MUST NOT be altered until the security
service is completed at the security acceptor in the network and
removed from the bundle.
Bits in this field represent additional information to be included
when generating an integrity signature over the security target.
These bits are defined as follows.
Bit 0 (the low-order bit, 0x0001): Include primary block flag
Bit 1 (0x0002): Include target header flag
Bit 2 (0x0004): Include security header flag
Bits 3-7: Reserved
Bits 8-15: Unassigned
3.3.4. Enumerations
The BIB-HMAC-SHA2 security context parameters are listed in Table 2.
In this table, the "Parm Id" column refers to the expected parameter
identifier described in Section 3.10 ("Parameter and Result
Identification") of [RFC9172].
An empty "Default Value" column indicates that the security context
parameter does not have a default value.
+=========+=============+====================+===============+
| Parm Id | Parm Name | CBOR Encoding Type | Default Value |
+=========+=============+====================+===============+
| 1 | SHA Variant | unsigned integer | 6 |
+---------+-------------+--------------------+---------------+
| 2 | Wrapped Key | byte string | |
+---------+-------------+--------------------+---------------+
| 3 | Integrity | unsigned integer | 7 |
| | Scope Flags | | |
+---------+-------------+--------------------+---------------+
Table 2: BIB-HMAC-SHA2 Security Context Parameters
3.4. Results
The BIB-HMAC-SHA2 security context results are listed in Table 3. In
this table, the "Result Id" column refers to the expected result
identifier described in Section 3.10 ("Parameter and Result
Identification") of [RFC9172].
+========+==========+===============+======================+
| Result | Result | CBOR Encoding | Description |
| Id | Name | Type | |
+========+==========+===============+======================+
| 1 | Expected | byte string | The output of the |
| | HMAC | | HMAC calculation at |
| | | | the security source. |
+--------+----------+---------------+----------------------+
Table 3: BIB-HMAC-SHA2 Security Results
3.5. Key Considerations
HMAC keys used with this context MUST be symmetric and MUST have a
key length equal to the output of the HMAC. For this reason, HMAC
key lengths will be integers divisible by 8 bytes, and special
padding-aware AES key wrap algorithms are not needed.
It is assumed that any security verifier or security acceptor
performing an integrity verification can determine the proper HMAC
key to be used. Potential sources of the HMAC key include (but are
not limited to) the following:
* Pre-placed keys selected based on local policy.
* Keys extracted from material carried in the BIB.
* Session keys negotiated via a mechanism external to the BIB.
When an AES Key Wrap (AES-KW) [RFC3394] wrapped key is present in a
security block, it is assumed that security verifiers and security
acceptors can independently determine the key encryption key (KEK)
used in the wrapping of the symmetric HMAC key.
As discussed in Section 6 and emphasized here, it is strongly
recommended that keys be protected once generated, both when they are
stored and when they are transmitted.
3.6. Security Processing Considerations
An HMAC calculated over the same IPPT with the same key will always
have the same value. This regularity can lead to practical side-
channel attacks whereby an attacker could produce known plaintext,
guess at an HMAC tag, and observe the behavior of a verifier. With a
modest number of trials, a side-channel attack could produce an HMAC
tag for attacker-provided plaintext without the attacker ever knowing
the HMAC key.
A common method of observing the behavior of a verifier is precise
analysis of the timing associated with comparisons. Therefore, one
way to prevent behavior analysis of this type is to ensure that any
comparisons of the supplied and expected authentication tag occur in
constant time.
A constant-time comparison function SHOULD be used for the comparison
of authentication tags by any implementation of this security
context. In cases where such a function is difficult or impossible
to use, the impact of side-channel attacks (in general) and timing
attacks (specifically) need to be considered as part of the
implementation.
3.7. Canonicalization Algorithms
This section defines the canonicalization algorithm used to prepare
the IPPT input to the BIB-HMAC-SHA2 integrity mechanism. The
construction of the IPPT depends on the settings of the integrity
scope flags that can be provided as part of customizing the behavior
of this security context.
In all cases, the canonical form of any portion of an extension block
MUST be created as described in [RFC9172]. The canonicalization
algorithms defined in [RFC9172] adhere to the canonical forms for
extension blocks defined in [RFC9171] but resolve ambiguities related
to how values are represented in CBOR.
The IPPT is constructed using the following process. While integrity
scope flags might not be included in the BIB representing the
security operation, they MUST be included in the IPPT value itself.
1. The canonical form of the IPPT starts as the CBOR encoding of the
integrity scope flags in which all unset flags, reserved bits,
and unassigned bits have been set to 0. For example, if the
primary block flag, target header flag, and security header flag
are each set, then the initial value of the canonical form of the
IPPT will be 0x07.
2. If the primary block flag of the integrity scope flags is set to
1 and the security target is not the bundle's primary block, then
a canonical form of the bundle's primary block MUST be calculated
and the result appended to the IPPT.
3. If the target header flag of the integrity scope flags is set to
1 and the security target is not the bundle's primary block, then
the canonical form of the block type code, block number, and
block processing control flags associated with the security
target MUST be calculated and, in that order, appended to the
IPPT.
4. If the security header flag of the integrity scope flags is set
to 1, then the canonical form of the block type code, block
number, and block processing control flags associated with the
BIB MUST be calculated and, in that order, appended to the IPPT.
5. The canonical form of the security target MUST be calculated and
appended to the IPPT. If the security target is the primary
block, this is the canonical form of the primary block.
Otherwise, this is the canonical form of the block-type-specific
data of the security target.
| NOTE: When the security target is the bundle's primary block,
| the canonicalization steps associated with the primary block
| flag and the target header flag are skipped. Skipping primary
| block flag processing, in this case, avoids adding the bundle's
| primary block twice in the IPPT calculation. Skipping target
| header flag processing, in this case, is necessary because the
| primary block of a bundle does not have the expected elements
| of a block header such as block number and block processing
| control flags.
3.8. Processing
3.8.1. Keyed Hash Generation
During keyed hash generation, two inputs are prepared for the
appropriate HMAC/SHA2 algorithm: the HMAC key and the IPPT. These
data items MUST be generated as follows.
* The HMAC key MUST have the appropriate length as required by local
security policy. The key can be generated specifically for this
integrity service, given as part of local security policy, or
obtained through some other key management mechanism as discussed
in Section 3.5.
* Prior to the generation of the IPPT, if a Cyclic Redundancy Check
(CRC) value is present for the target block of the BIB, then that
CRC value MUST be removed from the target block. This involves
both removing the CRC value from the target block and setting the
CRC type field of the target block to "no CRC is present."
* Once CRC information is removed, the IPPT MUST be generated as
discussed in Section 3.7.
Upon successful hash generation, the following action MUST occur.
* The keyed hash produced by the HMAC/SHA2 variant MUST be added as
a security result for the BIB representing the security operation
on this security target, as discussed in Section 3.4.
Finally, the BIB containing information about this security operation
MUST be updated as follows. These operations can occur in any order.
* The security context identifier for the BIB MUST be set to the
context identifier for BIB-HMAC-SHA2.
* Any local flags used to generate the IPPT MUST be placed in the
integrity scope flags security context parameter for the BIB
unless these flags are expected to be correctly configured at
security verifiers and acceptors in the network.
* The HMAC key MAY be included as a security context parameter, in
which case it MUST be wrapped using the AES key wrap function as
defined in [RFC3394] and the results of the wrapping added as the
wrapped key security context parameter for the BIB.
* The SHA variant used by this security context SHOULD be added as
the SHA variant security context parameter for the BIB if it
differs from the default key length. Otherwise, this parameter
MAY be omitted if doing so provides a useful reduction in message
sizes.
Problems encountered in the keyed hash generation MUST be processed
in accordance with local BPSec security policy.
3.8.2. Keyed Hash Verification
During keyed hash verification, the input of the security target and
an HMAC key are provided to the appropriate HMAC/SHA2 algorithm.
During keyed hash verification, two inputs are prepared for the
appropriate HMAC/SHA2 algorithm: the HMAC key and the IPPT. These
data items MUST be generated as follows.
* The HMAC key MUST be derived using the wrapped key security
context parameter if such a parameter is included in the security
context parameters of the BIB. Otherwise, this key MUST be
derived in accordance with security policy at the verifying node
as discussed in Section 3.5.
* The IPPT MUST be generated as discussed in Section 3.7 with the
value of integrity scope flags being taken from the integrity
scope flags security context parameter. If the integrity scope
flags parameter is not included in the security context
parameters, then these flags MAY be derived from local security
policy.
The calculated HMAC output MUST be compared to the expected HMAC
output encoded in the security results of the BIB for the security
target. If the calculated HMAC and expected HMAC are identical, the
verification MUST be considered a success. Otherwise, the
verification MUST be considered a failure.
If the verification fails or otherwise experiences an error or if any
needed parameters are missing, then the verification MUST be treated
as failed and processed in accordance with local security policy.
This security service is removed from the bundle at the security
acceptor as required by the BPSec specification [RFC9172]. If the
security acceptor is not the bundle destination and if no other
integrity service is being applied to the target block, then a CRC
MUST be included for the target block. The CRC type, as determined
by policy, is set in the target block's CRC type field, and the
corresponding CRC value is added as the CRC field for that block.
4. Security Context BCB-AES-GCM
4.1. Overview
The BCB-AES-GCM security context replaces the block-type-specific
data field of its security target with ciphertext generated using the
Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) cipher operating in Galois/Counter
Mode (GCM) [AES-GCM]. The use of AES-GCM was selected as the cipher
suite for this confidentiality mechanism for several reasons:
1. The selection of a symmetric-key cipher suite allows for
relatively smaller keys than asymmetric-key cipher suites.
2. The selection of a symmetric-key cipher suite allows this
security context to be used in places where an asymmetric-key
infrastructure (such as a public key infrastructure) might be
impractical.
3. The use of the Galois/Counter Mode produces ciphertext with the
same size as the plaintext making the replacement of target block
information easier as length fields do not need to be changed.
4. The AES-GCM cipher suite provides authenticated encryption, as
required by the BPSec protocol.
Additionally, the BCB-AES-GCM security context generates an
authentication tag based on the plaintext value of the block-type-
specific data and other additional authenticated data (AAD) that
might be specified via parameters to this security context.
This security context supports two variants of AES-GCM, based on the
supported length of the symmetric key. These variants correspond to
A128GCM and A256GCM as defined in Table 9 ("Algorithm Value for AES-
GCM") of [RFC8152].
The BCB-AES-GCM security context MUST have the security context
identifier specified in Section 5.1.
4.2. Scope
There are two scopes associated with BCB-AES-GCM: the scope of the
confidentiality service and the scope of the authentication service.
The first defines the set of information provided to the AES-GCM
cipher for the purpose of producing ciphertext. The second defines
the set of information used to generate an authentication tag.
The scope of the confidentiality service defines the set of
information provided to the AES-GCM cipher for the purpose of
producing ciphertext. This MUST be the full set of plaintext
contained in the block-type-specific data field of the security
target.
The scope of the authentication service defines the set of
information used to generate an authentication tag carried with the
security block. This information contains all data protected by the
confidentiality service and the scope flags used to identify other
optional information; it MAY include other information (additional
authenticated data), as follows.
Primary block
The primary block identifies a bundle, and once created, the
contents of this block are immutable. Changes to the primary
block associated with the security target indicate that the
security target (and BCB) might no longer be in the correct
bundle.
For example, if a security target and associated BCB are copied
from one bundle to another bundle, the BCB might still be able to
decrypt the security target even though these blocks were never
intended to exist in the copied-to bundle.
Including this information as part of additional authenticated
data ensures that the security target (and security block) appear
in the same bundle at the time of decryption as at the time of
encryption.
Other fields of the security target
The other fields of the security target include block
identification and processing information. Changing this
information changes how the security target is treated by nodes in
the network even when the "user data" of the security target are
otherwise unchanged.
For example, if the block processing control flags of a security
target are different at a security verifier than they were
originally set at the security source, then the policy for
handling the security target has been modified.
Including this information as part of additional authenticated
data ensures that the ciphertext in the security target will not
be used with a different set of block policy than originally set
at the time of encryption.
Other fields of the BCB
The other fields of the BCB include block identification and
processing information. Changing this information changes how the
BCB is treated by nodes in the network, even when other aspects of
the BCB are unchanged.
For example, if the block processing control flags of the BCB are
different at a security acceptor than they were originally set at
the security source, then the policy for handling the BCB has been
modified.
Including this information as part of additional authenticated
data ensures that the policy and identification of the security
service in the bundle has not changed.
| NOTE: The security context identifier and security context
| parameters of the security block are not included as
| additional authenticated data because these parameters, by
| definition, are those needed to verify or accept the
| security service. Therefore, it is expected that changes to
| these values would result in failures at security verifiers
| and security acceptors. This is the case because keys
| cannot be reused across security contexts and because the
| AAD scope flags used to identify the AAD are included in the
| AAD.
The scope of the BCB-AES-GCM security context is configured using an
optional security context parameter.
4.3. Parameters
BCB-AES-GCM can be parameterized to specify the AES variant,
initialization vector, key information, and identify additional
authenticated data.
4.3.1. Initialization Vector (IV)
This optional parameter identifies the initialization vector (IV)
used to initialize the AES-GCM cipher.
The length of the initialization vector, prior to any CBOR encoding,
MUST be between 8-16 bytes. A value of 12 bytes SHOULD be used
unless local security policy requires a different length.
This value MUST be encoded as a CBOR byte string.
The initialization vector can have any value, with the caveat that a
value MUST NOT be reused for multiple encryptions using the same
encryption key. This value MAY be reused when encrypting with
different keys. For example, if each encryption operation using BCB-
AES-GCM uses a newly generated key, then the same IV can be reused.
4.3.2. AES Variant
This optional parameter identifies the AES variant being used for the
AES-GCM encryption, where the variant is identified by the length of
key used.
This value MUST be encoded as a CBOR unsigned integer.
Valid values for this parameter are as follows.
+=======+===========================================+
| Value | Description |
+=======+===========================================+
| 1 | A128GCM as defined in Table 9 ("Algorithm |
| | Value for AES-GCM") of [RFC8152] |
+-------+-------------------------------------------+
| 3 | A256GCM as defined in Table 9 ("Algorithm |
| | Value for AES-GCM") of [RFC8152] |
+-------+-------------------------------------------+
Table 4: AES Variant Parameter Values
When not provided, implementations SHOULD assume a value of 3
(indicating use of A256GCM), unless an alternate default is
established by local security policy at the security source,
verifier, or acceptor of this integrity service.
Regardless of the variant, the generated authentication tag MUST
always be 128 bits.
4.3.3. Wrapped Key
This optional parameter contains the output of the AES key wrap
function as defined in [RFC3394]. Specifically, this parameter holds
the ciphertext produced when running this key wrap algorithm with the
input string being the symmetric AES key used to generate the
security results present in the security block. The value of this
parameter is used as input to the AES key wrap authenticated
decryption function at security verifiers and security acceptors to
determine the symmetric AES key needed for the proper decryption of
the security results in the security block.
This value MUST be encoded as a CBOR byte string.
If this parameter is not present, then security verifiers and
acceptors MUST determine the proper key as a function of their local
BPSec policy and configuration.
4.3.4. AAD Scope Flags
This optional parameter contains a series of flags that describe what
information is to be included with the block-type-specific data of
the security target as part of additional authenticated data (AAD).
This value MUST be represented as a CBOR unsigned integer, the value
of which MUST be processed as a 16-bit field. The maximum value of
this field, as a CBOR unsigned integer, MUST be 65535.
When not provided, implementations SHOULD assume a value of 7
(indicating all assigned fields), unless an alternate default is
established by local security policy at the security source,
verifier, or acceptor of this integrity service.
Implementations MUST set reserved and unassigned bits in this field
to 0 when constructing these flags at a security source. Once set,
the value of this field MUST NOT be altered until the security
service is completed at the security acceptor in the network and
removed from the bundle.
Bits in this field represent additional information to be included
when generating an integrity signature over the security target.
These bits are defined as follows.
Bit 0 (the low-order bit, 0x0001): Include primary block flag
Bit 1 (0x0002): Include target header flag
Bit 2 (0x0004): Include security header flag
Bits 3-7: Reserved
Bits 8-15: Unassigned
4.3.5. Enumerations
The BCB-AES-GCM security context parameters are listed in Table 5.
In this table, the "Parm Id" column refers to the expected parameter
identifier described in Section 3.10 ("Parameter and Result
Identification") of [RFC9172].
An empty "Default Value" column indicates that the security context
parameter does not have a default value.
+=========+================+====================+===============+
| Parm Id | Parm Name | CBOR Encoding Type | Default Value |
+=========+================+====================+===============+
| 1 | Initialization | byte string | |
| | Vector | | |
+---------+----------------+--------------------+---------------+
| 2 | AES Variant | unsigned integer | 3 |
+---------+----------------+--------------------+---------------+
| 3 | Wrapped Key | byte string | |
+---------+----------------+--------------------+---------------+
| 4 | AAD Scope | unsigned integer | 7 |
| | Flags | | |
+---------+----------------+--------------------+---------------+
Table 5: BCB-AES-GCM Security Context Parameters
4.4. Results
The BCB-AES-GCM security context produces a single security result
carried in the security block: the authentication tag.
NOTES:
* The ciphertext generated by the cipher suite is not considered a
security result as it is stored in the block-type-specific data
field of the security target block. When operating in GCM mode,
AES produces ciphertext of the same size as its plaintext;
therefore, no additional logic is required to handle padding or
overflow caused by the encryption in most cases.
* If the authentication tag can be separated from the ciphertext,
then the tag MAY be separated and stored in the authentication tag
security result field. Otherwise, the security target block MUST
be resized to accommodate the additional 128 bits of
authentication tag included with the generated ciphertext
replacing the block-type-specific data field of the security
target block.
4.4.1. Authentication Tag
The authentication tag is generated by the cipher suite over the
security target plaintext input to the cipher suite as combined with
any optional additional authenticated data. This tag is used to
ensure that the plaintext (and important information associated with
the plaintext) is authenticated prior to decryption.
If the authentication tag is included in the ciphertext placed in the
security target block-type-specific data field, then this security
result MUST NOT be included in the BCB for that security target.
The length of the authentication tag, prior to any CBOR encoding,
MUST be 128 bits.
This value MUST be encoded as a CBOR byte string.
4.4.2. Enumerations
The BCB-AES-GCM security context results are listed in Table 6. In
this table, the "Result Id" column refers to the expected result
identifier described in Section 3.10 ("Parameter and Result
Identification") of [RFC9172].
+===========+====================+====================+
| Result Id | Result Name | CBOR Encoding Type |
+===========+====================+====================+
| 1 | Authentication Tag | byte string |
+-----------+--------------------+--------------------+
Table 6: BCB-AES-GCM Security Results
4.5. Key Considerations
Keys used with this context MUST be symmetric and MUST have a key
length equal to the key length defined in the security context
parameters or as defined by local security policy at security
verifiers and acceptors. For this reason, content-encrypting key
lengths will be integers divisible by 8 bytes, and special padding-
aware AES key wrap algorithms are not needed.
It is assumed that any security verifier or security acceptor can
determine the proper key to be used. Potential sources of the key
include (but are not limited to) the following.
* Pre-placed keys selected based on local policy.
* Keys extracted from material carried in the BCB.
* Session keys negotiated via a mechanism external to the BCB.
When an AES-KW wrapped key is present in a security block, it is
assumed that security verifiers and security acceptors can
independently determine the KEK used in the wrapping of the symmetric
AES content-encrypting key.
The security provided by block ciphers is reduced as more data is
processed with the same key. The total number of AES blocks
processed with a single key for AES-GCM is recommended to be less
than 2^64, as described in Appendix B of [AES-GCM].
Additionally, there exist limits on the number of encryptions that
can be performed with the same key. The total number of invocations
of the authenticated encryption function with a single key for AES-
GCM is required to not exceed 2^32, as described in Section 8.3 of
[AES-GCM].
As discussed in Section 6 and emphasized here, it is strongly
recommended that keys be protected once generated, both when they are
stored and when they are transmitted.
4.6. GCM Considerations
The GCM cryptographic mode of AES has specific requirements that MUST
be followed by implementers for the secure function of the BCB-AES-
GCM security context. While these requirements are well documented
in [AES-GCM], some of them are repeated here for emphasis.
* With the exception of the AES-KW function, the IVs used by the
BCB-AES-GCM security context are considered to be per-invocation
IVs. The pairing of a per-invocation IV and a security key MUST
be unique. A per-invocation IV MUST NOT be used with a security
key more than one time. If a per-invocation IV and key pair are
repeated, then the GCM implementation is vulnerable to forgery
attacks. Because the loss of integrity protection occurs with
even a single reuse, this situation is often considered to have
catastrophic security consequences. More information regarding
the importance of the uniqueness of the IV value can be found in
Appendix A of [AES-GCM].
Methods of generating unique IV values are provided in Section 8
of [AES-GCM]. For example, one method decomposes the IV value
into a fixed field and an invocation field. The fixed field is a
constant value associated with a device, and the invocation field
changes on each invocation (such as by incrementing an integer
counter). Implementers SHOULD carefully read all relevant
sections of [AES-GCM] when generating any mechanism to create
unique IVs.
* The AES-KW function used to wrap keys for the security contexts in
this document uses a single, globally constant IV input to the AES
cipher operation and thus is distinct from the aforementioned
requirement related to per-invocation IVs.
* While any tag-based authentication mechanism has some likelihood
of being forged, this probability is increased when using AES-GCM.
In particular, short tag lengths combined with very long messages
SHOULD be avoided when using this mode. The BCB-AES-GCM security
context requires the use of 128-bit authentication tags at all
times. Concerns relating to the size of authentication tags is
discussed in Appendices B and C of [AES-GCM].
* As discussed in Appendix B of [AES-GCM], implementations SHOULD
limit the number of unsuccessful verification attempts for each
key to reduce the likelihood of guessing tag values. This type of
check has potential state-keeping issues when AES-KW is used,
since an attacker could cause a large number of keys to be used at
least once.
* As discussed in Section 8 ("Security Considerations") of
[RFC9172], delay-tolerant networks have a higher occurrence of
replay attacks due to the store-and-forward nature of the network.
Because GCM has no inherent replay attack protection, implementors
SHOULD attempt to detect replay attacks by using mechanisms such
as those described in Appendix D of [AES-GCM].
4.7. Canonicalization Algorithms
This section defines the canonicalization algorithms used to prepare
the inputs used to generate both the ciphertext and the
authentication tag.
In all cases, the canonical form of any portion of an extension block
MUST be created as described in [RFC9172]. The canonicalization
algorithms defined in [RFC9172] adhere to the canonical forms for
extension blocks defined in [RFC9171] but resolve ambiguities related
to how values are represented in CBOR.
4.7.1. Calculations Related to Ciphertext
The BCB operates over the block-type-specific data of a block, but
the BP always encodes these data within a single, definite-length
CBOR byte string. Therefore, the plaintext used during encryption
MUST be calculated as the value of the block-type-specific data field
of the security target excluding the BP CBOR encoding.
Table 7 shows two CBOR-encoded examples and the plaintext that would
be extracted from them. The first example is an unsigned integer,
while the second is a byte string.
+==============================+=======+==========================+
| CBOR Encoding (Hex) | CBOR | Plaintext Part (Hex) |
| | Part | |
| | (Hex) | |
+==============================+=======+==========================+
| 18ED | 18 | ED |
+------------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
| C24CDEADBEEFDEADBEEFDEADBEEF | C24C | DEADBEEFDEADBEEFDEADBEEF |
+------------------------------+-------+--------------------------+
Table 7: CBOR Plaintext Extraction Examples
The ciphertext used during decryption MUST be calculated as the
single, definite-length CBOR byte string representing the block-type-
specific data field excluding the CBOR byte string identifying byte
and optional CBOR byte string length field.
All other fields of the security target (such as the block type code,
block number, block processing control flags, or any CRC information)
MUST NOT be considered as part of encryption or decryption.
4.7.2. Additional Authenticated Data
The construction of additional authenticated data depends on the AAD
scope flags that can be provided as part of customizing the behavior
of this security context.
The canonical form of the AAD input to the BCB-AES-GCM mechanism is
constructed using the following process. While the AAD scope flags
might not be included in the BCB representing the security operation,
they MUST be included in the AAD value itself. This process MUST be
followed when generating AAD for either encryption or decryption.
1. The canonical form of the AAD starts as the CBOR encoding of the
AAD scope flags in which all unset flags, reserved bits, and
unassigned bits have been set to 0. For example, if the primary
block flag, target header flag, and security header flag are each
set, then the initial value of the canonical form of the AAD will
be 0x07.
2. If the primary block flag of the AAD scope flags is set to 1,
then a canonical form of the bundle's primary block MUST be
calculated and the result appended to the AAD.
3. If the target header flag of the AAD scope flags is set to 1,
then the canonical form of the block type code, block number, and
block processing control flags associated with the security
target MUST be calculated and, in that order, appended to the
AAD.
4. If the security header flag of the AAD scope flags is set to 1,
then the canonical form of the block type code, block number, and
block processing control flags associated with the BIB MUST be
calculated and, in that order, appended to the AAD.
4.8. Processing
4.8.1. Encryption
During encryption, four data elements are prepared for input to the
AES-GCM cipher: the encryption key, the IV, the security target
plaintext to be encrypted, and any additional authenticated data.
These data items MUST be generated as follows.
Prior to encryption, if a CRC value is present for the target block,
then that CRC value MUST be removed. This requires removing the CRC
field from the target block and setting the CRC type field of the
target block to "no CRC is present."
* The encryption key MUST have the appropriate length as required by
local security policy. The key might be generated specifically
for this encryption, given as part of local security policy, or
obtained through some other key management mechanism as discussed
in Section 4.5.
* The IV selected MUST be of the appropriate length. Because
replaying an IV in counter mode voids the confidentiality of all
messages encrypted with said IV, this context also requires a
unique IV for every encryption performed with the same key. This
means the same key and IV combination MUST NOT be used more than
once.
* The security target plaintext for encryption MUST be generated as
discussed in Section 4.7.1.
* Additional authenticated data MUST be generated as discussed in
Section 4.7.2, with the value of AAD scope flags being taken from
local security policy.
Upon successful encryption, the following actions MUST occur.
* The ciphertext produced by AES-GCM MUST replace the bytes used to
define the plaintext in the security target block's block-type-
specific data field. The block length of the security target MUST
be updated if the generated ciphertext is larger than the
plaintext (which can occur when the authentication tag is included
in the ciphertext calculation, as discussed in Section 4.4).
* The authentication tag calculated by the AES-GCM cipher MAY be
added as a security result for the security target in the BCB
holding results for this security operation, in which case it MUST
be processed as described in Section 4.4.
* The authentication tag MUST be included either as a security
result in the BCB representing the security operation or (with the
ciphertext) in the security target block-type-specific data field.
Finally, the BCB containing information about this security operation
MUST be updated as follows. These operations can occur in any order.
* The security context identifier for the BCB MUST be set to the
context identifier for BCB-AES-GCM.
* The IV input to the cipher MUST be added as the IV security
context parameter for the BCB.
* Any local flags used to generate AAD for this cipher MUST be
placed in the AAD scope flags security context parameter for the
BCB unless these flags are expected to be correctly configured at
security verifiers and security acceptors in the network.
* The encryption key MAY be included as a security context
parameter, in which case it MUST be wrapped using the AES key wrap
function as defined in [RFC3394] and the results of the wrapping
added as the wrapped key security context parameter for the BCB.
* The AES variant used by this security context SHOULD be added as
the AES variant security context parameter for the BCB if it
differs from the default key length. Otherwise, this parameter
MAY be omitted if doing so provides a useful reduction in message
sizes.
Problems encountered in the encryption MUST be processed in
accordance with local security policy. This MAY include restoring a
CRC value removed from the target block prior to encryption, if the
target block is allowed to be transmitted after an encryption error.
4.8.2. Decryption
During decryption, five data elements are prepared for input to the
AES-GCM cipher: the decryption key, the IV, the security target
ciphertext to be decrypted, any additional authenticated data, and
the authentication tag generated from the original encryption. These
data items MUST be generated as follows.
* The decryption key MUST be derived using the wrapped key security
context parameter if such a parameter is included in the security
context parameters of the BCB. Otherwise, this key MUST be
derived in accordance with local security policy at the decrypting
node as discussed in Section 4.5.
* The IV MUST be set to the value of the IV security context
parameter included in the BCB. If the IV parameter is not
included as a security context parameter, an IV MAY be derived as
a function of local security policy and other BCB contents, or a
lack of an IV security context parameter in the BCB MAY be treated
as an error by the decrypting node.
* The security target ciphertext for decryption MUST be generated as
discussed in Section 4.7.1.
* Additional authenticated data MUST be generated as discussed in
Section 4.7.2 with the value of AAD scope flags being taken from
the AAD scope flags security context parameter. If the AAD scope
flags parameter is not included in the security context
parameters, then these flags MAY be derived from local security
policy in cases where the set of such flags is determinable in the
network.
* The authentication tag MUST be present either as a security result
in the BCB representing the security operation or (with the
ciphertext) in the security target block-type-specific data field.
Upon successful decryption, the following action MUST occur.
* The plaintext produced by AES-GCM MUST replace the bytes used to
define the ciphertext in the security target block's block-type-
specific data field. Any changes to the security target block
length field MUST be corrected in cases where the plaintext has a
different length than the replaced ciphertext.
If the security acceptor is not the bundle destination and if no
other integrity or confidentiality service is being applied to the
target block, then a CRC MUST be included for the target block. The
CRC type, as determined by policy, is set in the target block's CRC
type field and the corresponding CRC value is added as the CRC field
for that block.
If the ciphertext fails to authenticate, if any needed parameters are
missing, or if there are other problems in the decryption, then the
decryption MUST be treated as failed and processed in accordance with
local security policy.
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. Security Context Identifiers
This specification allocates two security context identifiers from
the "BPSec Security Context Identifiers" registry defined in
[RFC9172].
+=======+===============+===========+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+===============+===========+
| 1 | BIB-HMAC-SHA2 | RFC 9173 |
+-------+---------------+-----------+
| 2 | BCB-AES-GCM | RFC 9173 |
+-------+---------------+-----------+
Table 8: Additional Entries for
the BPSec Security Context
Identifiers Registry
5.2. Integrity Scope Flags
The BIB-HMAC-SHA2 security context has an Integrity Scope Flags field
for which IANA has created and now maintains a new registry named
"BPSec BIB-HMAC-SHA2 Integrity Scope Flags" on the "Bundle Protocol"
registry page. Table 9 shows the initial values for this registry.
The registration policy for this registry is Specification Required
[RFC8126].
The value range is unsigned 16-bit integer.
+==============================+==================+===========+
| Bit Position (right to left) | Description | Reference |
+==============================+==================+===========+
| 0 | Include primary | RFC 9173 |
| | block flag | |
+------------------------------+------------------+-----------+
| 1 | Include target | RFC 9173 |
| | header flag | |
+------------------------------+------------------+-----------+
| 2 | Include security | RFC 9173 |
| | header flag | |
+------------------------------+------------------+-----------+
| 3-7 | Reserved | RFC 9173 |
+------------------------------+------------------+-----------+
| 8-15 | Unassigned | |
+------------------------------+------------------+-----------+
Table 9: BPSec BIB-HMAC-SHA2 Integrity Scope Flags Registry
5.3. AAD Scope Flags
The BCB-AES-GCM security context has an AAD Scope Flags field for
which IANA has created and now maintains a new registry named "BPSec
BCB-AES-GCM AAD Scope Flags" on the "Bundle Protocol" registry page.
Table 10 shows the initial values for this registry.
The registration policy for this registry is Specification Required.
The value range is unsigned 16-bit integer.
+==============================+==================+===========+
| Bit Position (right to left) | Description | Reference |
+==============================+==================+===========+
| 0 | Include primary | RFC 9173 |
| | block flag | |
+------------------------------+------------------+-----------+
| 1 | Include target | RFC 9173 |
| | header flag | |
+------------------------------+------------------+-----------+
| 2 | Include security | RFC 9173 |
| | header flag | |
+------------------------------+------------------+-----------+
| 3-7 | Reserved | RFC 9173 |
+------------------------------+------------------+-----------+
| 8-15 | Unassigned | |
+------------------------------+------------------+-----------+
Table 10: BPSec BCB-AES-GCM AAD Scope Flags Registry
5.4. Guidance for Designated Experts
New assignments within the "BPSec BIB-HMAC-SHA2 Integrity Scope
Flags" and "BPSec BCB-AES-GCM AAD Scope Flags" registries require
review by a Designated Expert (DE). This section provides guidance
to the DE when performing their reviews. Specifically, a DE is
expected to perform the following activities.
* Ascertain the existence of suitable documentation (a
specification) as described in [RFC8126] and verify that the
document is permanently and publicly available.
* Ensure that any changes to the "BPSec BIB-HMAC-SHA2 Integrity
Scope Flags" registry clearly state how new assignments interact
with existing flags and how the inclusion of new assignments
affects the construction of the IPPT value.
* Ensure that any changes to the "BPSec BCB-AES-GCM AAD Scope Flags"
registry clearly state how new assignments interact with existing
flags and how the inclusion of new assignments affects the
construction of the AAD input to the BCB-AES-GCM mechanism.
* Ensure that any processing changes proposed with new assignments
do not alter any required behavior in this specification.
6. Security Considerations
Security considerations specific to a single security context are
provided in the description of that context (see Sections 3 and 4).
This section discusses security considerations that should be
evaluated by implementers of any security context described in this
document. Considerations can also be found in documents listed as
normative references and should also be reviewed by security context
implementors.
6.1. Key Management
The delayed and disrupted nature of Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN)
complicates the process of key management because there might not be
reliable, timely, round-trip exchange between security sources,
security verifiers, and security acceptors in the network. This is
true when there is a substantial signal propagation delay between
nodes, when nodes are in a highly challenged communications
environment, and when nodes do not support bidirectional
communication.
In these environments, key establishment protocols that rely on
round-trip information exchange might not converge on a shared secret
in a timely manner (or at all). Also, key revocation or key
verification mechanisms that rely on access to a centralized
authority (such as a certificate authority) might similarly fail in
the stressing conditions of DTN.
For these reasons, the default security contexts described in this
document rely on symmetric-key cryptographic mechanisms because
asymmetric-key infrastructure (such as a public key infrastructure)
might be impractical in this environment.
BPSec assumes that "key management is handled as a separate part of
network management" [RFC9172]. This assumption is also made by the
security contexts defined in this document, which do not define new
protocols for key derivation, exchange of KEKs, revocation of
existing keys, or the security configuration or policy used to select
certain keys for certain security operations.
Nodes using these security contexts need to perform the following
kinds of activities, independent of the construction, transmission,
and processing of BPSec security blocks.
* Establish shared KEKs with other nodes in the network using an
out-of-band mechanism. This might include pre-sharing of KEKs or
the use of older key establishment mechanisms prior to the
exchange of BPSec security blocks.
* Determine when a key is considered exhausted and no longer to be
used in the generation, verification, or acceptance of a security
block.
* Determine when a key is considered invalid and no longer to be
used in the generation, verification, or acceptance of a security
block. Such revocations can be based on a variety of mechanisms,
including local security policy, time relative to the generation
or use of the key, or other mechanisms specified through network
management.
* Determine, through an out-of-band mechanism such as local security
policy, what keys are to be used for what security blocks. This
includes the selection of which key should be used in the
evaluation of a security block received by a security verifier or
a security acceptor.
The failure to provide effective key management techniques
appropriate for the operational networking environment can result in
the compromise of those unmanaged keys and the loss of security
services in the network.
6.2. Key Handling
Once generated, keys should be handled as follows.
* It is strongly RECOMMENDED that implementations protect keys both
when they are stored and when they are transmitted.
* In the event that a key is compromised, any security operations
using a security context associated with that key SHOULD also be
considered compromised. This means that the BIB-HMAC-SHA2
security context SHOULD NOT be treated as providing integrity when
used with a compromised key, and BCB-AES-GCM SHOULD NOT be treated
as providing confidentiality when used with a compromised key.
* The same key, whether a KEK or a wrapped key, MUST NOT be used for
different algorithms as doing so might leak information about the
key.
* A KEK MUST NOT be used to encrypt keys for different security
contexts. Any KEK used by a security context defined in this
document MUST only be used to wrap keys associated with security
operations using that security context. This means that a
compliant security source would not use the same KEK to wrap keys
for both the BIB-HMAC-SHA2 and BCB-AES-GCM security contexts.
Similarly, any compliant security verifier or security acceptor
would not use the same KEK to unwrap keys for different security
contexts.
6.3. AES GCM
There are a significant number of considerations related to the use
of the GCM mode of AES to provide a confidentiality service. These
considerations are provided in Section 4.6 as part of the
documentation of the BCB-AES-GCM security context.
The length of the ciphertext produced by the GCM mode of AES will be
equal to the length of the plaintext input to the cipher suite. The
authentication tag also produced by this cipher suite is separate
from the ciphertext. However, it should be noted that
implementations of the AES-GCM cipher suite might not separate the
concept of ciphertext and authentication tag in their Application
Programming Interface (API).
Implementations of the BCB-AES-GCM security context can either keep
the length of the target block unchanged by holding the
authentication tag in a BCB security result or alter the length of
the target block by including the authentication tag with the
ciphertext replacing the block-type-specific data field of the target
block. Implementations MAY use the authentication tag security
result in cases where keeping target block length unchanged is an
important processing concern. In all cases, the ciphertext and
authentication tag MUST be processed in accordance with the API of
the AES-GCM cipher suites at the security source and security
acceptor.
6.4. AES Key Wrap
The AES-KW algorithm used by the security contexts in this document
does not use a per-invocation initialization vector and does not
require any key padding. Key padding is not needed because wrapped
keys used by these security contexts will always be multiples of 8
bytes. The length of the wrapped key can be determined by inspecting
the security context parameters. Therefore, a key can be unwrapped
using only the information present in the security block and the KEK
provided by local security policy at the security verifier or
security acceptor.
6.5. Bundle Fragmentation
Bundle fragmentation might prevent security services in a bundle from
being verified after a bundle is fragmented and before the bundle is
re-assembled. Examples of potential issues include the following.
* If a security block and its security target do not exist in the
same fragment, then the security block cannot be processed until
the bundle is re-assembled. If a fragment includes an encrypted
target block, but not its BCB, then a receiving Bundle Protocol
Agent (BPA) will not know that the target block has been
encrypted.
* A security block can be cryptographically bound to a bundle by
setting the integrity scope flags (for BIB-HMAC-SHA2) or the AAD
scope flags (for BCB-AES-GCM) to include the bundle primary block.
When a security block is cryptographically bound to a bundle, it
cannot be processed even if the security block and target both
coexist in the fragment. This is because fragments have different
primary blocks than the original bundle.
* If security blocks and their target blocks are repeated in
multiple fragments, policy needs to determine how to deal with
issues where a security operation verifies in one fragment but
fails in another fragment. This might happen, for example, if a
BIB block becomes corrupted in one fragment but not in another
fragment.
Implementors should consider how security blocks are processed when a
BPA fragments a received bundle. For example, security blocks and
their targets could be placed in the same fragment if the security
block is not otherwise cryptographically bound to the bundle being
fragmented. Alternatively, if security blocks are cryptographically
bound to a bundle, then a fragmenting BPA should consider
encapsulating the bundle first and then fragmenting the encapsulating
bundle.
7. Normative References
[AES-GCM] Dworkin, M., "Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of
Operation: Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) and GMAC", NIST
Special Publication 800-38D, DOI 10.6028/NIST.SP.800-38D,
November 2007, <https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-38D>.
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3394] Schaad, J. and R. Housley, "Advanced Encryption Standard
(AES) Key Wrap Algorithm", RFC 3394, DOI 10.17487/RFC3394,
September 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3394>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8152] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",
RFC 8152, DOI 10.17487/RFC8152, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8152>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8742] Bormann, C., "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
Sequences", RFC 8742, DOI 10.17487/RFC8742, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8742>.
[RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.
[RFC9171] Burleigh, S., Fall, K., and E. Birrane, III, "Bundle
Protocol Version 7", RFC 9171, DOI 10.17487/RFC9171,
January 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9171>.
[RFC9172] Birrane, III, E. and K. McKeever, "Bundle Protocol
Security (BPSec)", RFC 9172, DOI 10.17487/RFC9172, January
2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9172>.
[SHS] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Secure
Hash Standard (SHS)", FIPS PUB 180-4,
DOI 10.6028/NIST.FIPS.180-4, August 2015,
<https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/fips/180/4/
final>.
Appendix A. Examples
This appendix is informative.
This appendix presents a series of examples of constructing BPSec
security blocks (using the security contexts defined in this
document) and adding those blocks to a sample bundle.
The examples presented in this appendix represent valid constructions
of bundles, security blocks, and the encoding of security context
parameters and results. For this reason, they can inform unit test
suites for individual implementations as well as interoperability
test suites amongst implementations. However, these examples do not
cover every permutation of security context parameters, security
results, or use of security blocks in a bundle.
NOTES:
* The bundle diagrams in this appendix are patterned after the
bundle diagrams used in Section 3.11 ("BPSec Block Examples") of
[RFC9172].
* Figures in this appendix identified as "(CBOR Diagnostic
Notation)" are represented using the CBOR diagnostic notation
defined in [RFC8949]. This notation is used to express CBOR data
structures in a manner that enables visual inspection. The
bundles, security blocks, and security context contents in these
figures are represented using CBOR structures. In cases where BP
blocks (to include BPSec security blocks) are comprised of a
sequence of CBOR objects, these objects are represented as a CBOR
sequence as defined in [RFC8742].
* Examples in this appendix use the "ipn" URI scheme for endpoint ID
naming, as defined in [RFC9171].
* The bundle source is presumed to be the security source for all
security blocks in this appendix, unless otherwise noted.
A.1. Example 1 - Simple Integrity
This example shows the addition of a BIB to a sample bundle to
provide integrity for the payload block.
A.1.1. Original Bundle
The following diagram shows the original bundle before the BIB has
been added.
Block Block Block
in Bundle Type Number
+========================================+=======+========+
| Primary Block | N/A | 0 |
+----------------------------------------+-------+--------+
| Payload Block | 1 | 1 |
+----------------------------------------+-------+--------+
Figure 1: Example 1 - Original Bundle
A.1.1.1. Primary Block
The Bundle Protocol version 7 (BPv7) bundle has no special block and
bundle processing control flags, and no CRC is provided because the
primary block is expected to be protected by an integrity service BIB
using the BIB-HMAC-SHA2 security context.
The bundle is sourced at the source node ipn:2.1 and destined for the
destination node ipn:1.2. The bundle creation time is set to 0,
indicating lack of an accurate clock, with a sequence number of 40.
The lifetime of the bundle is given as 1,000,000 milliseconds since
the bundle creation time.
The primary block is provided as follows.
[
7, / BP version /
0, / flags /
0, / CRC type /
[2, [1,2]], / destination (ipn:1.2) /
[2, [2,1]], / source (ipn:2.1) /
[2, [2,1]], / report-to (ipn:2.1) /
[0, 40], / timestamp /
1000000 / lifetime /
]
Figure 2: Primary Block (CBOR Diagnostic Notation)
The CBOR encoding of the primary block is:
0x88070000820282010282028202018202820201820018281a000f4240
A.1.1.2. Payload Block
Other than its use as a source of plaintext for security blocks, the
payload has no required distinguishing characteristic for the purpose
of this example. The sample payload is a 35-byte string.
The payload is represented in the payload block as a byte string of
the raw payload string. It is NOT represented as a CBOR text string
wrapped within a CBOR binary string. The hex value of the payload
is:
0x526561647920746f2067656e657261746520612033322d62797465207061796c6f
6164
The payload block is provided as follows.
[
1, / type code: Payload block /
1, / block number /
0, / block processing control flags /
0, / CRC type /
h'526561647920746f206765 / type-specific-data: payload /
6e657261746520612033322d
62797465207061796c6f6164'
]
Figure 3: Payload Block (CBOR Diagnostic Notation)
The CBOR encoding of the payload block is:
0x85010100005823526561647920746f2067656e657261746520612033322d627974
65207061796c6f6164
A.1.1.3. Bundle CBOR Representation
A BPv7 bundle is represented as an indefinite-length array consisting
of the blocks comprising the bundle, with a terminator character at
the end.
The CBOR encoding of the original bundle is:
0x9f88070000820282010282028202018202820201820018281a000f424085010100
005823526561647920746f2067656e657261746520612033322d6279746520706179
6c6f6164ff
A.1.2. Security Operation Overview
This example adds a BIB to the bundle using the BIB-HMAC-SHA2
security context to provide an integrity mechanism over the payload
block.
The following diagram shows the resulting bundle after the BIB is
added.
Block Block Block
in Bundle Type Number
+========================================+=======+========+
| Primary Block | N/A | 0 |
+----------------------------------------+-------+--------+
| Block Integrity Block | 11 | 2 |
| OP(bib-integrity, target=1) | | |
+----------------------------------------+-------+--------+
| Payload Block | 1 | 1 |
+----------------------------------------+-------+--------+
Figure 4: Example 1 - Resulting Bundle
A.1.3. Block Integrity Block
In this example, a BIB is used to carry an integrity signature over
the payload block.
A.1.3.1. Configuration, Parameters, and Results
For this example, the following configuration and security context
parameters are used to generate the security results indicated.
This BIB has a single target and includes a single security result:
the calculated signature over the payload block.
Key : h'1a2b1a2b1a2b1a2b1a2b1a2b1a2b1a2b'
SHA Variant : HMAC 512/512
Scope Flags : 0x00
Payload Data: h'526561647920746f2067656e65726174
6520612033322d62797465207061796c
6f6164'
IPPT : h'005823526561647920746f2067656e65
7261746520612033322d627974652070
61796c6f6164'
Signature : h'3bdc69b3a34a2b5d3a8554368bd1e808
f606219d2a10a846eae3886ae4ecc83c
4ee550fdfb1cc636b904e2f1a73e303d
cd4b6ccece003e95e8164dcc89a156e1'
Figure 5: Example 1 - Configuration, Parameters, and Results
A.1.3.2. Abstract Security Block
The abstract security block structure of the BIB's block-type-
specific data field for this application is as follows.
[1], / Security Target - Payload block /
1, / Security Context ID - BIB-HMAC-SHA2 /
1, / Security Context Flags - Parameters Present /
[2,[2, 1]], / Security Source - ipn:2.1 /
[ / Security Parameters - 2 Parameters /
[1, 7], / SHA Variant - HMAC 512/512 /
[3, 0x00] / Scope Flags - No Additional Scope /
],
[ / Security Results: 1 Result /
[ / Target 1 Results /
[1, h'3bdc69b3a34a2b5d3a8554368bd1e808 / MAC /
f606219d2a10a846eae3886ae4ecc83c
4ee550fdfb1cc636b904e2f1a73e303d
cd4b6ccece003e95e8164dcc89a156e1']
]
]
Figure 6: Example 1 - BIB Abstract Security Block (CBOR
Diagnostic Notation)
The CBOR encoding of the BIB block-type-specific data field (the
abstract security block) is:
0x810101018202820201828201078203008181820158403bdc69b3a34a2b5d3a8554
368bd1e808f606219d2a10a846eae3886ae4ecc83c4ee550fdfb1cc636b904e2f1a7
3e303dcd4b6ccece003e95e8164dcc89a156e1
A.1.3.3. Representations
The complete BIB is as follows.
[
11, / type code /
2, / block number /
0, / flags /
0, / CRC type /
h'810101018202820201828201078203008181820158403bdc69b3a34a
2b5d3a8554368bd1e808f606219d2a10a846eae3886ae4ecc83c4ee550
fdfb1cc636b904e2f1a73e303dcd4b6ccece003e95e8164dcc89a156e1'
]
Figure 7: Example 1 - BIB (CBOR Diagnostic Notation)
The CBOR encoding of the BIB block is:
0x850b0200005856810101018202820201828201078203008181820158403bdc69b3
a34a2b5d3a8554368bd1e808f606219d2a10a846eae3886ae4ecc83c4ee550fdfb1c
c636b904e2f1a73e303dcd4b6ccece003e95e8164dcc89a156e1
A.1.4. Final Bundle
The CBOR encoding of the full output bundle, with the BIB:
0x9f88070000820282010282028202018202820201820018281a000f4240850b0200
005856810101018202820201828201078203008181820158403bdc69b3a34a2b5d3a
8554368bd1e808f606219d2a10a846eae3886ae4ecc83c4ee550fdfb1cc636b904e2
f1a73e303dcd4b6ccece003e95e8164dcc89a156e185010100005823526561647920
746f2067656e657261746520612033322d62797465207061796c6f6164ff
A.2. Example 2 - Simple Confidentiality with Key Wrap
This example shows the addition of a BCB to a sample bundle to
provide confidentiality for the payload block. AES key wrap is used
to transmit the symmetric key used to generate the security results
for this service.
A.2.1. Original Bundle
The following diagram shows the original bundle before the BCB has
been added.
Block Block Block
in Bundle Type Number
+========================================+=======+========+
| Primary Block | N/A | 0 |
+----------------------------------------+-------+--------+
| Payload Block | 1 | 1 |
+----------------------------------------+-------+--------+
Figure 8: Example 2 - Original Bundle
A.2.1.1. Primary Block
The primary block used in this example is identical to the primary
block presented for Example 1 in Appendix A.1.1.1.
In summary, the CBOR encoding of the primary block is:
0x88070000820282010282028202018202820201820018281a000f4240
A.2.1.2. Payload Block
The payload block used in this example is identical to the payload
block presented for Example 1 in Appendix A.1.1.2.
In summary, the CBOR encoding of the payload block is:
0x85010100005823526561647920746f2067656e657261746520612033322d627974
65207061796c6f6164
A.2.1.3. Bundle CBOR Representation
A BPv7 bundle is represented as an indefinite-length array consisting
of the blocks comprising the bundle, with a terminator character at
the end.
The CBOR encoding of the original bundle is:
0x9f88070000820282010282028202018202820201820018281a000f424085010100
005823526561647920746f2067656e657261746520612033322d6279746520706179
6c6f6164ff
A.2.2. Security Operation Overview
This example adds a BCB using the BCB-AES-GCM security context using
AES key wrap to provide a confidentiality mechanism over the payload
block and transmit the symmetric key.
The following diagram shows the resulting bundle after the BCB is
added.
Block Block Block
in Bundle Type Number
+========================================+=======+========+
| Primary Block | N/A | 0 |
+----------------------------------------+-------+--------+
| Block Confidentiality Block | 12 | 2 |
| OP(bcb-confidentiality, target=1) | | |
+----------------------------------------+-------+--------+
| Payload Block (Encrypted) | 1 | 1 |
+----------------------------------------+-------+--------+
Figure 9: Example 2 - Resulting Bundle
A.2.3. Block Confidentiality Block
In this example, a BCB is used to encrypt the payload block, and AES
key wrap is used to encode the symmetric key prior to its inclusion
in the BCB.
A.2.3.1. Configuration, Parameters, and Results
For this example, the following configuration and security context
parameters are used to generate the security results indicated.
This BCB has a single target -- the payload block. Three security
results are generated: ciphertext that replaces the plaintext block-
type-specific data to encrypt the payload block, an authentication
tag, and the AES wrapped key.
Content Encryption
Key: h'71776572747975696f70617364666768'
Key Encryption Key: h'6162636465666768696a6b6c6d6e6f70'
IV: h'5477656c7665313231323132'
AES Variant: A128GCM
AES Wrapped Key: h'69c411276fecddc4780df42c8a2af892
96fabf34d7fae700'
Scope Flags: 0x00
Payload Data: h'526561647920746f2067656e65726174
6520612033322d62797465207061796c
6f6164'
AAD: h'00'
Authentication Tag: h'efa4b5ac0108e3816c5606479801bc04'
Payload Ciphertext: h'3a09c1e63fe23a7f66a59c7303837241
e070b02619fc59c5214a22f08cd70795
e73e9a'
Figure 10: Example 2 - Configuration, Parameters, and Results
A.2.3.2. Abstract Security Block
The abstract security block structure of the BCB's block-type-
specific data field for this application is as follows.
[1], / Security Target - Payload block /
2, / Security Context ID - BCB-AES-GCM /
1, / Security Context Flags - Parameters Present /
[2,[2, 1]], / Security Source - ipn:2.1 /
[ / Security Parameters - 4 Parameters /
[1, h'5477656c7665313231323132'], / Initialization Vector /
[2, 1], / AES Variant - A128GCM /
[3, h'69c411276fecddc4780df42c8a / AES wrapped key /
2af89296fabf34d7fae700'],
[4, 0x00] / Scope Flags - No extra scope/
],
[ / Security Results: 1 Result /
[ / Target 1 Results /
[1, h'efa4b5ac0108e3816c5606479801bc04'] / Payload Auth. Tag /
]
]
Figure 11: Example 2 - BCB Abstract Security Block (CBOR
Diagnostic Notation)
The CBOR encoding of the BCB block-type-specific data field (the
abstract security block) is:
0x8101020182028202018482014c5477656c76653132313231328202018203581869
c411276fecddc4780df42c8a2af89296fabf34d7fae7008204008181820150efa4b5
ac0108e3816c5606479801bc04
A.2.3.3. Representations
The complete BCB is as follows.
[
12, / type code /
2, / block number /
1, / flags - block must be replicated in every fragment /
0, / CRC type /
h'8101020182028202018482014c5477656c766531323132313282020182035818
69c411276fecddc4780df42c8a2af89296fabf34d7fae7008204008181820150
efa4b5ac0108e3816c5606479801bc04'
]
Figure 12: Example 2 - BCB (CBOR Diagnostic Notation)
The CBOR encoding of the BCB block is:
0x850c02010058508101020182028202018482014c5477656c766531323132313282
02018203581869c411276fecddc4780df42c8a2af89296fabf34d7fae70082040081
81820150efa4b5ac0108e3816c5606479801bc04
A.2.4. Final Bundle
The CBOR encoding of the full output bundle, with the BCB:
0x9f88070000820282010282028202018202820201820018281a000f4240850c0201
0058508101020182028202018482014c5477656c7665313231323132820201820358
1869c411276fecddc4780df42c8a2af89296fabf34d7fae7008204008181820150ef
a4b5ac0108e3816c5606479801bc04850101000058233a09c1e63fe23a7f66a59c73
03837241e070b02619fc59c5214a22f08cd70795e73e9aff
A.3. Example 3 - Security Blocks from Multiple Sources
This example shows the addition of a BIB and BCB to a sample bundle.
These two security blocks are added by two different nodes. The BCB
is added by the source endpoint, and the BIB is added by a forwarding
node.
The resulting bundle contains a BCB to encrypt the Payload Block and
a BIB to provide integrity to the primary block and Bundle Age Block.
A.3.1. Original Bundle
The following diagram shows the original bundle before the security
blocks have been added.
Block Block Block
in Bundle Type Number
+========================================+=======+========+
| Primary Block | N/A | 0 |
+----------------------------------------+-------+--------+
| Extension Block: Bundle Age Block | 7 | 2 |
+----------------------------------------+-------+--------+
| Payload Block | 1 | 1 |
+----------------------------------------+-------+--------+
Figure 13: Example 3 - Original Bundle
A.3.1.1. Primary Block
The primary block used in this example is identical to the primary
block presented for Example 1 in Appendix A.1.1.1.
In summary, the CBOR encoding of the primary block is:
0x88070000820282010282028202018202820201820018281a000f4240
A.3.1.2. Bundle Age Block
A Bundle Age Block is added to the bundle to help other nodes in the
network determine the age of the bundle. The use of this block is
recommended because the bundle source does not have an accurate clock
(as indicated by the DTN time of 0).
Because this block is specified at the time the bundle is being
forwarded, the bundle age represents the time that has elapsed from
the time the bundle was created to the time it is being prepared for
forwarding. In this case, the value is given as 300 milliseconds.
The Bundle Age extension block is provided as follows.
[
7, / type code: Bundle Age Block /
2, / block number /
0, / block processing control flags /
0, / CRC type /
<<300>> / type-specific-data: age /
]
Figure 14: Bundle Age Block (CBOR Diagnostic Notation)
The CBOR encoding of the Bundle Age Block is:
0x85070200004319012c
A.3.1.3. Payload Block
The payload block used in this example is identical to the payload
block presented for Example 1 in Appendix A.1.1.2.
In summary, the CBOR encoding of the payload block is:
0x85010100005823526561647920746f2067656e657261746520612033322d627974
65207061796c6f6164
A.3.1.4. Bundle CBOR Representation
A BPv7 bundle is represented as an indefinite-length array consisting
of the blocks comprising the bundle, with a terminator character at
the end.
The CBOR encoding of the original bundle is:
0x9f88070000820282010282028202018202820201820018281a000f424085070200
004319012c85010100005823526561647920746f2067656e65726174652061203332
2d62797465207061796c6f6164ff
A.3.2. Security Operation Overview
This example provides:
* a BIB with the BIB-HMAC-SHA2 security context to provide an
integrity mechanism over the primary block and Bundle Age Block.
* a BCB with the BCB-AES-GCM security context to provide a
confidentiality mechanism over the payload block.
The following diagram shows the resulting bundle after the security
blocks are added.
Block Block Block
in Bundle Type Number
+========================================+=======+========+
| Primary Block | N/A | 0 |
+----------------------------------------+-------+--------+
| Block Integrity Block | 11 | 3 |
| OP(bib-integrity, targets=0, 2) | | |
+----------------------------------------+-------+--------+
| Block Confidentiality Block | 12 | 4 |
| OP(bcb-confidentiality, target=1) | | |
+----------------------------------------+-------+--------+
| Extension Block: Bundle Age Block | 7 | 2 |
+----------------------------------------+-------+--------+
| Payload Block (Encrypted) | 1 | 1 |
+----------------------------------------+-------+--------+
Figure 15: Example 3 - Resulting Bundle
A.3.3. Block Integrity Block
In this example, a BIB is used to carry an integrity signature over
the Bundle Age Block and an additional signature over the payload
block. The BIB is added by a waypoint node -- ipn:3.0.
A.3.3.1. Configuration, Parameters, and Results
For this example, the following configuration and security context
parameters are used to generate the security results indicated.
This BIB has two security targets and includes two security results,
holding the calculated signatures over the Bundle Age Block and
primary block.
Key: h'1a2b1a2b1a2b1a2b1a2b1a2b1a2b1a2b'
SHA Variant: HMAC 256/256
Scope Flags: 0x00
Primary Block Data: h'88070000820282010282028202018202
820201820018281a000f4240'
Bundle Age Block
Data: h'4319012c'
Primary Block IPPT: h'00581c88070000820282010282028202
018202820201820018281a000f4240'
Bundle Age Block
IPPT: h'004319012c'
Primary Block
Signature: h'cac6ce8e4c5dae57988b757e49a6dd14
31dc04763541b2845098265bc817241b'
Bundle Age Block
Signature: h'3ed614c0d97f49b3633627779aa18a33
8d212bf3c92b97759d9739cd50725596'
Figure 16: Example 3 - Configuration, Parameters, and Results for
the BIB
A.3.3.2. Abstract Security Block
The abstract security block structure of the BIB's block-type-
specific data field for this application is as follows.
[0, 2], / Security Targets /
1, / Security Context ID - BIB-HMAC-SHA2 /
1, / Security Context Flags - Parameters Present /
[2,[3, 0]], / Security Source - ipn:3.0 /
[ / Security Parameters - 2 Parameters /
[1, 5], / SHA Variant - HMAC 256 /
[3, 0] / Scope Flags - No Additional Scope /
],
[ / Security Results: 2 Results /
[ / Primary Block Results /
[1, h'cac6ce8e4c5dae57988b757e49a6dd14
31dc04763541b2845098265bc817241b'] / MAC /
],
[ / Bundle Age Block Results /
[1, h'3ed614c0d97f49b3633627779aa18a33
8d212bf3c92b97759d9739cd50725596'] / MAC /
]
]
Figure 17: Example 3 - BIB Abstract Security Block (CBOR
Diagnostic Notation)
The CBOR encoding of the BIB block-type-specific data field (the
abstract security block) is:
0x8200020101820282030082820105820300828182015820cac6ce8e4c5dae57988b
757e49a6dd1431dc04763541b2845098265bc817241b81820158203ed614c0d97f49
b3633627779aa18a338d212bf3c92b97759d9739cd50725596
A.3.3.3. Representations
The complete BIB is as follows.
[
11, / type code /
3, / block number /
0, / flags /
0, / CRC type /
h'8200020101820282030082820105820300828182015820cac6ce8e4c5dae5798
8b757e49a6dd1431dc04763541b2845098265bc817241b81820158203ed614c0d9
7f49b3633627779aa18a338d212bf3c92b97759d9739cd50725596'
]
Figure 18: Example 3 - BIB (CBOR Diagnostic Notation)
The CBOR encoding of the BIB block is:
0x850b030000585c8200020101820282030082820105820300828182015820cac6ce
8e4c5dae57988b757e49a6dd1431dc04763541b2845098265bc817241b8182015820
3ed614c0d97f49b3633627779aa18a338d212bf3c92b97759d9739cd50725596
A.3.4. Block Confidentiality Block
In this example, a BCB is used encrypt the payload block. The BCB is
added by the bundle source node, ipn:2.1.
A.3.4.1. Configuration, Parameters, and Results
For this example, the following configuration and security context
parameters are used to generate the security results indicated.
This BCB has a single target, the payload block. Two security
results are generated: ciphertext that replaces the plaintext block-
type-specific data to encrypt the payload block and an authentication
tag.
Content Encryption
Key: h'71776572747975696f70617364666768'
IV: h'5477656c7665313231323132'
AES Variant: A128GCM
Scope Flags: 0x00
Payload Data: h'526561647920746f2067656e65726174
6520612033322d62797465207061796c
6f6164'
AAD: h'00'
Authentication Tag: h'efa4b5ac0108e3816c5606479801bc04'
Payload Ciphertext: h'3a09c1e63fe23a7f66a59c7303837241
e070b02619fc59c5214a22f08cd70795
e73e9a'
Figure 19: Example 3 - Configuration, Parameters, and Results for
the BCB
A.3.4.2. Abstract Security Block
The abstract security block structure of the BCB's block-type-
specific data field for this application is as follows.
[1], / Security Target - Payload block /
2, / Security Context ID - BCB-AES-GCM /
1, / Security Context Flags - Parameters Present /
[2,[2, 1]], / Security Source - ipn:2.1 /
[ / Security Parameters - 3 Parameters /
[1, h'5477656c7665313231323132'], / Initialization Vector /
[2, 1], / AES Variant - AES 128 /
[4, 0] / Scope Flags - No Additional Scope /
],
[ / Security Results: 1 Result /
[
[1, h'efa4b5ac0108e3816c5606479801bc04'] / Payload Auth. Tag /
]
]
Figure 20: Example 3 - BCB Abstract Security Block (CBOR
Diagnostic Notation)
The CBOR encoding of the BCB block-type-specific data field (the
abstract security block) is:
0x8101020182028202018382014c5477656c76653132313231328202018204008181
820150efa4b5ac0108e3816c5606479801bc04
A.3.4.3. Representations
The complete BCB is as follows.
[
12, / type code /
4, / block number /
1, / flags - block must be replicated in every fragment /
0, / CRC type /
h'8101020182028202018382014c5477656c766531323132313282020182040081
81820150efa4b5ac0108e3816c5606479801bc04'
]
Figure 21: Example 3 - BCB (CBOR Diagnostic Notation)
The CBOR encoding of the BCB block is:
0x850c04010058348101020182028202018382014c5477656c766531323132313282
02018204008181820150efa4b5ac0108e3816c5606479801bc04
A.3.5. Final Bundle
The CBOR encoding of the full output bundle, with the BIB and BCB
added is:
0x9f88070000820282010282028202018202820201820018281a000f4240850b0300
00585c8200020101820282030082820105820300828182015820cac6ce8e4c5dae57
988b757e49a6dd1431dc04763541b2845098265bc817241b81820158203ed614c0d9
7f49b3633627779aa18a338d212bf3c92b97759d9739cd50725596850c0401005834
8101020182028202018382014c5477656c7665313231323132820201820400818182
0150efa4b5ac0108e3816c5606479801bc0485070200004319012c85010100005823
3a09c1e63fe23a7f66a59c7303837241e070b02619fc59c5214a22f08cd70795e73e
9aff
A.4. Example 4 - Security Blocks with Full Scope
This example shows the addition of a BIB and BCB to a sample bundle.
A BIB is added to provide integrity over the payload block, and a BCB
is added for confidentiality over the payload and BIB.
The integrity scope and additional authentication data will bind the
primary block, target header, and the security header.
A.4.1. Original Bundle
The following diagram shows the original bundle before the security
blocks have been added.
Block Block Block
in Bundle Type Number
+========================================+=======+========+
| Primary Block | N/A | 0 |
+----------------------------------------+-------+--------+
| Payload Block | 1 | 1 |
+----------------------------------------+-------+--------+
Figure 22: Example 4 - Original Bundle
A.4.1.1. Primary Block
The primary block used in this example is identical to the primary
block presented for Example 1 in Appendix A.1.1.1.
In summary, the CBOR encoding of the primary block is:
0x88070000820282010282028202018202820201820018281a000f4240
A.4.1.2. Payload Block
The payload block used in this example is identical to the payload
block presented for Example 1 in Appendix A.1.1.2.
In summary, the CBOR encoding of the payload block is:
0x85010100005823526561647920746f2067656e657261746520612033322d627974
65207061796c6f6164
A.4.1.3. Bundle CBOR Representation
A BPv7 bundle is represented as an indefinite-length array consisting
of the blocks comprising the bundle, with a terminator character at
the end.
The CBOR encoding of the original bundle is:
0x9f88070000820282010282028202018202820201820018281a000f424085010100
005823526561647920746f2067656e657261746520612033322d6279746520706179
6c6f6164ff
A.4.2. Security Operation Overview
This example provides:
* a BIB with the BIB-HMAC-SHA2 security context to provide an
integrity mechanism over the payload block.
* a BCB with the BCB-AES-GCM security context to provide a
confidentiality mechanism over the payload block and BIB.
The following diagram shows the resulting bundle after the security
blocks are added.
Block Block Block
in Bundle Type Number
+========================================+=======+========+
| Primary Block | N/A | 0 |
+----------------------------------------+-------+--------+
| Block Integrity Block (Encrypted) | 11 | 3 |
| OP(bib-integrity, target=1) | | |
+----------------------------------------+-------+--------+
| Block Confidentiality Block | 12 | 2 |
| OP(bcb-confidentiality, targets=1, 3) | | |
+----------------------------------------+-------+--------+
| Payload Block (Encrypted) | 1 | 1 |
+----------------------------------------+-------+--------+
Figure 23: Example 4 - Resulting Bundle
A.4.3. Block Integrity Block
In this example, a BIB is used to carry an integrity signature over
the payload block. The IPPT contains the block-type-specific data of
the payload block, the primary block data, the payload block header,
and the BIB header. That is, all additional headers are included in
the IPPT.
A.4.3.1. Configuration, Parameters, and Results
For this example, the following configuration and security context
parameters are used to generate the security results indicated.
This BIB has a single target and includes a single security result:
the calculated signature over the Payload block.
Key: h'1a2b1a2b1a2b1a2b1a2b1a2b1a2b1a2b'
SHA Variant: HMAC 384/384
Scope Flags: 0x07 (all additional headers)
Primary Block Data: h'88070000820282010282028202018202
820201820018281a000f4240'
Payload Data: h'526561647920746f2067656e65726174
6520612033322d62797465207061796c
6f6164'
Payload Header: h'010100'
BIB Header: h'0b0300'
IPPT: h'07880700008202820102820282020182
02820201820018281a000f4240010100
0b03005823526561647920746f206765
6e657261746520612033322d62797465
207061796c6f6164'
Payload Signature: h'f75fe4c37f76f046165855bd5ff72fbf
d4e3a64b4695c40e2b787da005ae819f
0a2e30a2e8b325527de8aefb52e73d71,
Figure 24: Example 4 - Configuration, Parameters, and Results for
the BIB
A.4.3.2. Abstract Security Block
The abstract security block structure of the BIB's block-type-
specific data field for this application is as follows.
[1], / Security Target - Payload block /
1, / Security Context ID - BIB-HMAC-SHA2 /
1, / Security Context Flags - Parameters Present /
[2,[2, 1]], / Security Source - ipn:2.1 /
[ / Security Parameters - 2 Parameters /
[1, 6], / SHA Variant - HMAC 384/384 /
[3, 0x07] / Scope Flags - All additional headers /
],
[ / Security Results: 1 Result /
[ / Target 1 Results /
[1, h'f75fe4c37f76f046165855bd5ff72fbf / MAC /
d4e3a64b4695c40e2b787da005ae819f
0a2e30a2e8b325527de8aefb52e73d71']
]
]
Figure 25: Example 4 - BIB Abstract Security Block (CBOR
Diagnostic Notation)
The CBOR encoding of the BIB block-type-specific data field (the
abstract security block) is:
0x81010101820282020182820106820307818182015830f75fe4c37f76f046165855
bd5ff72fbfd4e3a64b4695c40e2b787da005ae819f0a2e30a2e8b325527de8aefb52
e73d71
A.4.3.3. Representations
The complete BIB is as follows.
[
11, / type code /
3, / block number /
0, / flags /
0, / CRC type /
h'81010101820282020182820106820307818182015830f75fe4c37f76f0461658
55bd5ff72fbfd4e3a64b4695c40e2b787da005ae819f0a2e30a2e8b325527de8
aefb52e73d71'
]
Figure 26: Example 4 - BIB (CBOR Diagnostic Notation)
The CBOR encoding of the BIB block is:
0x850b030000584681010101820282020182820106820307818182015830f75fe4c3
7f76f046165855bd5ff72fbfd4e3a64b4695c40e2b787da005ae819f0a2e30a2e8b3
25527de8aefb52e73d71
A.4.4. Block Confidentiality Block
In this example, a BCB is used encrypt the payload block and the BIB
that provides integrity over the payload.
A.4.4.1. Configuration, Parameters, and Results
For this example, the following configuration and security context
parameters are used to generate the security results indicated.
This BCB has two targets: the payload block and BIB. Four security
results are generated: ciphertext that replaces the plaintext block-
type-specific data of the payload block, ciphertext to encrypt the
BIB, and authentication tags for both the payload block and BIB.
Key: h'71776572747975696f70617364666768
71776572747975696f70617364666768'
IV: h'5477656c7665313231323132'
AES Variant: A256GCM
Scope Flags: 0x07 (All additional headers)
Payload Data: h'526561647920746f2067656e65726174
6520612033322d62797465207061796c
6f6164'
BIB Data: h'81010101820282020182820106820307
818182015830f75fe4c37f76f0461658
55bd5ff72fbfd4e3a64b4695c40e2b78
7da005ae819f0a2e30a2e8b325527de8
aefb52e73d71'
Primary Block Data: h'88070000820282010282028202018202
820201820018281a000f4240'
Payload Header: h'010100'
BIB Header: h'0b0300'
BCB Header: h'0c0201'
Payload AAD: h'07880700008202820102820282020182
02820201820018281a000f4240010100
0c0201'
BIB AAD: h'07880700008202820102820282020182
02820201820018281a000f42400b0300
0c0201'
Payload Block
Authentication Tag: h'd2c51cb2481792dae8b21d848cede99b'
BIB
Authentication Tag: h'220ffc45c8a901999ecc60991dd78b29'
Payload Ciphertext: h'90eab6457593379298a8724e16e61f83
7488e127212b59ac91f8a86287b7d076
30a122'
BIB Ciphertext: h'438ed6208eb1c1ffb94d952175167df0
902902064a2983910c4fb2340790bf42
0a7d1921d5bf7c4721e02ab87a93ab1e
0b75cf62e4948727c8b5dae46ed2af05
439b88029191'
Figure 27: Example 4 - Configuration, Parameters, and Results for
the BCB
A.4.4.2. Abstract Security Block
The abstract security block structure of the BCB's block-type-
specific data field for this application is as follows.
[3, 1], / Security Targets /
2, / Security Context ID - BCB-AES-GCM /
1, / Security Context Flags - Parameters Present /
[2,[2, 1]], / Security Source - ipn:2.1 /
[ / Security Parameters - 3 Parameters /
[1, h'5477656c7665313231323132'], / Initialization Vector /
[2, 3], / AES Variant - AES 256 /
[4, 0x07] / Scope Flags - All headers in SHA hash /
],
[ / Security Results: 2 Results /
[
[1, h'220ffc45c8a901999ecc60991dd78b29'] / BIB Auth. Tag /
],
[
[1, h'd2c51cb2481792dae8b21d848cede99b'] / Payload Auth. Tag /
]
]
Figure 28: Example 4 - BCB Abstract Security Block (CBOR
Diagnostic Notation)
The CBOR encoding of the BCB block-type-specific data field (the
abstract security block) is:
0x820301020182028202018382014c5477656c766531323132313282020382040782
81820150220ffc45c8a901999ecc60991dd78b2981820150d2c51cb2481792dae8b2
1d848cede99b
A.4.4.3. Representations
The complete BCB is as follows.
[
12, / type code /
2, / block number /
1, / flags - block must be replicated in every fragment /
0, / CRC type /
h'820301020182028202018382014c5477656c7665313231323132820203820407
8281820150220ffc45c8a901999ecc60991dd78b2981820150d2c51cb2481792
dae8b21d848cede99b'
]
Figure 29: Example 4 - BCB (CBOR Diagnostic Notation)
The CBOR encoding of the BCB block is:
0x850c0201005849820301020182028202018382014c5477656c7665313231323132
8202038204078281820150220ffc45c8a901999ecc60991dd78b2981820150d2c51c
b2481792dae8b21d848cede99b
A.4.5. Final Bundle
The CBOR encoding of the full output bundle, with the security blocks
added and payload block and BIB encrypted is:
0x9f88070000820282010282028202018202820201820018281a000f4240850b0300
005846438ed6208eb1c1ffb94d952175167df0902902064a2983910c4fb2340790bf
420a7d1921d5bf7c4721e02ab87a93ab1e0b75cf62e4948727c8b5dae46ed2af0543
9b88029191850c0201005849820301020182028202018382014c5477656c76653132
313231328202038204078281820150220ffc45c8a901999ecc60991dd78b29818201
50d2c51cb2481792dae8b21d848cede99b8501010000582390eab6457593379298a8
724e16e61f837488e127212b59ac91f8a86287b7d07630a122ff
Appendix B. CDDL Expression
For informational purposes, this section contains an expression of
the IPPT and AAD structures using the Concise Data Definition
Language (CDDL).
NOTES:
* Wherever the CDDL expression is in disagreement with the textual
representation of the security block specification presented in
earlier sections of this document, the textual representation
rules.
* The structure of BP bundles and BPSec security blocks are provided
by other specifications; this appendix only provides the CDDL
expression for structures uniquely defined in this specification.
Items related to elements of a bundle, such as "primary-block",
are defined in Appendix B of the Bundle Protocol version 7
[RFC9171].
* The CDDL itself does not have the concept of unadorned CBOR
sequences as a top-level subject of a specification. The current
best practice, as documented in Section 4.1 of [RFC8742], requires
representing the sequence as an array with a comment in the CDDL
noting that the array represents a CBOR sequence.
start = scope / AAD-list / IPPT-list ; satisfy CDDL decoders
scope = uint .bits scope-flags
scope-flags = &(
has-primary-ctx: 0,
has-target-ctx: 1,
has-security-ctx: 2,
)
; Encoded as a CBOR sequence
AAD-list = [
AAD-structure
]
; Encoded as a CBOR sequence
IPPT-list = [
AAD-structure,
target-btsd: bstr ; block-type-specific data of the target block.
]
AAD-structure = (
scope,
? primary-block, ; present if has-primary-ctx flag set
? block-metadata, ; present if has-target-ctx flag set
? block-metadata, ; present if has-security-ctx flag set
)
; Selected fields of a canonical block
block-metadata = (
block-type-code: uint,
block-number: uint,
block-control-flags,
)
Figure 30: IPPT and AAD Expressions
Acknowledgments
Amy Alford of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
contributed useful review and analysis of these security contexts.
Brian Sipos kindly provided the CDDL expression in Appendix B.
Authors' Addresses
Edward J. Birrane, III
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
11100 Johns Hopkins Rd.
Laurel, MD 20723
United States of America
Phone: +1 443 778 7423
Email: Edward.Birrane@jhuapl.edu
Alex White
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
11100 Johns Hopkins Rd.
Laurel, MD 20723
United States of America
Phone: +1 443 778 0845
Email: Alex.White@jhuapl.edu
Sarah Heiner
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
11100 Johns Hopkins Rd.
Laurel, MD 20723
United States of America
Phone: +1 240 592 3704
Email: Sarah.Heiner@jhuapl.edu