NTP Working Group | D. Franke |
Internet-Draft | Akamai |
Intended status: Standards Track | D. Sibold |
Expires: May 4, 2017 | K. Teichel |
PTB | |
October 31, 2016 |
Using the Network Time Security Specification to Secure the Network Time Protocol
draft-ietf-ntp-using-nts-for-ntp-07
This document describes how to reach the objectives described in the Network Time Security (NTS) specification when securing time synchronization with servers using the Network Time Protocol (NTP).
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 4, 2017.
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
The Network Time Security (NTS) draft [I-D.ietf-ntp-network-time-security] specifies security measures which can be used to enable time synchronization protocols to verify authenticity of the time server and integrity of the time synchronization protocol packets.
This document provides detail on how to specifically use those measures to secure time synchronization between NTP clients and servers. In particular, it describes a mechanism for using Datagram Transport Layer Security [RFC6347] (DTLS) to provide cryptographic security for NTP. Certain sections, are not inherently NTP-specific and can be taken as guidance on how future work may apply the described techniques to other time synchronization protocols such as the Precision Time Protocol [IEC.61588_2009].
The specific objectives for applying the NTS specification to the NTP are as follows:
The Network Time Protocol includes many different operating modes to support various network topologies. In addition to its best-known and most-widely-used client-server mode, it also includes modes for synchronization between symmetric peers, a control mode for server monitoring and administration and a broadcast mode. These various modes have differing and contradictory requirements for security and performance. Symmetric and control modes demand mutual authentication and mutual replay protection, and for certain message types control mode may require confidentiality as well as authentication. Client-server mode places more stringent requirements on resource utilization than other modes, because servers may have vast number of clients and be unable to afford to maintain per-client state. However, client-server mode also has more relaxed security needs, because only the client requires replay protection: it is harmless for servers to process replayed packets. The security demands of symmetric and control modes, on the other hand, are in conflict with the resource-utilization demands of client-server mode: any scheme which provides replay protection inherently involves maintaining some state to keep track of what messages have already been seen.
This document does not discuss how to add security to NTP's broadcast mode.
The server does not keep a long-term state of the client. NTS initially verifies the authenticity of the time server and exchanges one or more symmetric keys. The DTLS-based key exchange procedure described in Section 5 can be used for this exchange. An implementation MUST support the use of this procedure. It MAY additionally support the use of any alternative secure communication for this purpose, as long as it fulfills the preconditions given in [I-D.ietf-ntp-network-time-security], Section 6.1.1.
After the keys have been exchanged, the participants then use them to protect the authenticity and the integrity of subsequent unicast-type time synchronization packets. In order to do this, the server attaches a Message Authentication Code (MAC) to each time synchronization packet. The calculation of the MAC includes the whole time synchronization packet and the symmetric key which is stored on the client side. Therefore, the client can perform a validity check for this MAC on reception of a time synchronization packet.
In the symmetric ("peer") mode as well as in control modes, there is no requirement for statelessness on either side. Both sides exchange and memorize one or more shared secrets. The shared secrets exchanged are then used to secure NTP peer mode or control packets by providing at least authenticity and integrity protection and possibly also confidentiality. The DTLS-based key exchange procedure described in Section 5.3 can be used for such communication. An implementation MUST support the use of this procedure.
Since (as discussed in Section 4.1) no single approach can simultaneously satisfy the needs of all modes, this specification consists of not one protocol but a suite of them:
Since securing time protocols is (as of 2016) a novel application of DTLS, no backward-compatibility concerns exist to justify using obsolete, insecure, or otherwise broken DTLS features or versions. We therefore put forward the following requirements and guidelines, roughly representing 2016's best practices.
Implementations MUST NOT negotiate DTLS versions earlier than 1.2.
Implementations willing to negotiate more than one possible version of DTLS SHOULD NOT respond to handshake failures by retrying with a downgraded protocol version. If they do, they MUST implement [RFC7507].
DTLS clients MUST NOT offer, and DTLS servers MUST not select, RC4 cipher suites. [RFC7465]
DTLS clients SHOULD offer, and DTLS servers SHOULD accept, the TLS Renegotiation Indication Extension [RFC5746]. Regardless, they MUST NOT initiate or permit insecure renegotiation. (*)
DTLS clients SHOULD offer, and DTLS servers SHOULD accept, the TLS Session Hash and Extended Master Secret Extension [RFC7627]. (*)
Use of the Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation Extension [RFC7301] is integral to NTS and support for it is REQUIRED for interoperability.
(*): Note that DTLS 1.3 or beyond may render the indicated recommendations inapplicable.
This section specifies two mechanisms, one REQUIRED and one OPTIONAL, for exchanging NTS-related DTLS records. It is intended that the choice of transport mechanism be orthogonal to any concerns at the application layer: DTLS records SHOULD receive identical disposition regardless of which mechanism they arrive by.
In this transport mechanism, DTLS records, formatted according to RFC 6347 [RFC6347] or a subsequent revision thereof, are exchanged directly on UDP port [[TBD]], with one DTLS record per UDP packet and no additional layer of encapsulation between the UDP header and the DTLS record. Servers which implement NTS MUST support this mechanism.
In this transport mechanism, DTLS records are exchanged within extension fields of specially-formed NTP packets, which are themselves exchanged via the usual NTP service port (123/udp). NTP packets conveying DTLS records SHALL be formatted as in Figure 1. They MUST NOT contain any other extensions or a legacy MAC field.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . . . NTP Header (48 octets) . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extension Type | Extension Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . . . DTLS Record (variable) . . . | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | . . . Padding (1-24 octets) . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Format of NTP packets conveying DTLS records
Within the NTP header,
The Extension Type field SHALL be set to [[TBD]]. The Extension Length field SHALL be computed and set as per RFC 7822 [RFC7822].
The DTLS Record field SHALL contain a DTLS Record formatted as per RFC 6347 [RFC6347] or a subsequent revision thereof.
The Padding field SHALL contain between 1 and 24 octets of padding, with every octet set to the number of padding octets included, e.g., "01", "02 02", or "03 03 03". The number of padding bytes should be chosen in order to comply with the RFC 7822 [RFC7822] requirement that (in the absence of a legacy MAC) extensions have a total length in octets (including the four octets for the type and length fields) which is at least 28 and divisible by 4. Furthermore, since future revisions of DTLS may employ record formats that are not self-delimiting, at least one octet of padding MUST be included so that receivers can unambiguously determine where the DTLS record ends and the padding begins. If the length of the DTLS record is already at least 24 and a multiple of 4, then the correct amount of padding to include is 4 octets.
The NTP header values specified above are selected such that NTP implementations which do not understand NTS will interpret the packet as an innocuous no-op and not attempt to use it for time synchronization. To NTS-aware implementations, however, these packets are best understood as not being NTP packets at all, but simply a means of "smuggling" arbitrary DTLS records across port 123/udp. Indeed, these records need not be pertinent to NTP at all — for example, they could be NTS-KE messages eventually intended for securing PTP traffic.
This transport mechanism is intended for use as a fallback in situations where firewalls or other middleboxes are preventing communication on the NTS port. Support for it is OPTIONAL.
The NTS-encapsulated NTPv4 protocol proceeds in two parts. First, DTLS handshake records are exchanged using one of the two transport mechanisms specified in Section 5.2. The two endpoints carry out a DTLS handshake in conformance with Section 5.1, with the client offering (via an ALPN [RFC7301] extension), and the server accepting, an application-layer protocol of "ntp/4". Second, once the handshake is successfully completed, the two endpoints use the established channel to exchange arbitrary NTPv4 packets as DTLS-protected Application Data.
In addition to the requirements specified in Section 5.1, implementations MUST enforce the anti-replay mechanism specified in Section 4.1.2.6 of RFC 6347 [RFC6347] (or an equivalent mechanism specified in a subsequent revision of DTLS). Servers wishing to enforce access control SHOULD either demand a client certificate or use a PSK-based handshake in order to establish the client's identity.
The NTS-encapsulated NTPv4 protocol is the RECOMMENDED mechanism for cryptographically securing mode 1 (symmetric active), 2 (symmetric passive), and 6 (control) NTPv4 traffic. It is equally safe for mode 3/4 (client/server) traffic, but is NOT RECOMMENDED for this purpose because it scales poorly compared to using NTS Extensions for NTPv4 [nts-extensions-for-ntpv4].
The NTS Key Establishment (NTS-KE) protocol is carried out by exchanging DTLS records using one of the two transport mechanisms specified in Section 5.2. The two endpoints carry out a DTLS handshake in conformance with Section 5.1, with the client offering (via an ALPN [RFC7301] extension), and the server accepting, an application-layer protocol of "ntske/1". Immediately following a successful handshake, the client SHALL send a single request (as Application Data encapsulated in the DTLS-protected channel), then the server SHALL send a single response followed by a "Close notify" alert and then discard the channel state.
The client's request and the server's response each SHALL consist of a sequence of records formatted according to Figure 2. The sequence SHALL be terminated by a "End of Message" record, which has a Record Type of zero and a zero-length body. Furthermore, requests and non-error responses each SHALL include exactly one NTS Next Protocol Negotiation record.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |C| Record Type | Body Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . . . Record Body . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2
[[Ed. Note: this ad-hoc binary format should be fine as long as we continue to keep things very simple. However, if we think there's any reasonable probability of wanting to include more complex data structures, we should consider using some semi-structured data format such as JSON, Protocol Buffers, or (ugh) ASN.1]]
The requirement that all NTS-KE messages be terminated by an End of Message record makes them self-delimiting. One DTLS record MAY, and typically will, contain multiple NTS-KE records. NTS-KE records MAY be split across DTLS record boundaries. If, likely due to packet loss, an incomplete NTS-KE message is received, implementations MUST treat this an error, which clients SHOULD handle by restarting with a fresh DTLS handshake and trying again.
The fields of an NTS-KE record are defined as follows:
The following NTS-KE Record Types are defined.
The End of Message record has a Record Type number of 0 and an zero-length body. It MUST occur exactly once as the final record of every NTS-KE request and response. The Critical Bit MUST be set.
The NTS Next Protocol Negotiation record has a record type of 1. It MUST occur exactly once in every NTS-KE request and response. Its body consists of a sequence of 16-octet strings. Each 16-octet string represents a Protocol Name from the IANA Network Time Security Next Protocols registry. The Critical Bit MUST be set.
The Protocol Names listed in the client's NTS Next Protocol Negotiation record denote those protocols which the client wishes to speak using the key material established through this NTS-KE session. The Protocol Names listed in the server's response MUST comprise a subset of those listed in the request, and denote those protocols which the server is willing and able to speak using the key material established through this NTS-KE session. The client MAY proceed with one or more of them. The request MUST list at least one protocol, but the response MAY be empty.
The Error record has a Record Type number of 2. Its body is exactly two octets long, consisting of an unsigned 16-bit integer in network byte order, denoting an error code. The Critical Bit MUST be set.
Clients MUST NOT include Error records in their request. If clients receive a server response which includes an Error record, they MUST discard any negotiated key material and MUST NOT proceed to the Next Protocol.
The following error code are defined.
The Warning record has a Record Type number of 3. Its body is exactly two octets long, consisting of an unsigned 16-bit integer in network byte order, denoting a warning code. The Critical Bit MUST be set.
Clients MUST NOT include Warning records in their request. If clients receive a server response which includes an Warning record, they MAY discard any negotiated key material and abort without proceeding to the Next Protocol. Unrecognized warning codes MUST be treated as errors.
This memo defines no warning codes.
The AEAD Algorithm Negotiation record has a Record Type number of 4. Its body consists of a sequence of unsigned 16-bit integers in network byte order, denoting Numeric Identifiers from the IANA AEAD registry [RFC5116]. The Critical Bit MAY be set.
If the NTS Next Protocol Negotiation record offers "ntp/4",this record MUST be included exactly once. Other protocols MAY require it as well.
When included in a request, this record denotes which AEAD algorithms the client is willing to use to secure the Next Protocol, in decreasing preference order. When included in a response, this record denotes which algorithm the server chooses to use, or is empty if the server supports none of the algorithms offered.. In requests, the list MUST include at least one algorithm. In responses, it MUST include at most one. Honoring the client's preference order is OPTIONAL: servers may select among any of the client's offered choices, even if they are able to support some other algorithm which the client prefers more.
Server implementations of NTS extensions for NTPv4 [nts-extensions-for-ntpv4] MUST support AEAD_AES_128_GCM (Numeric Identifier 1). That is, if the client includes AEAD_AES_128_GCM in its AEAD Algorithm Negotiation record, and the server accepts the "ntp/4" protocol in its NTS Next Protocol Negotiation record, then the server's AEAD Algorithm Negotiation record MUST NOT be empty.
The New Cookie for NTPv4 record has a Record Type number of 5. The contents of its body SHALL be implementation-defined and clients MUST NOT attempt to interpret them. See [[TODO]] for a RECOMMENDED construction.
Clients MUST NOT send records of this type. Servers MUST send at least one record of this type, and SHOULD send eight of them, if they accept "ntp/4" as a Next Protocol. The Critical Bit SHOULD NOT be set.
Following a successful run of the NTS-KE protocol, key material SHALL be extracted according to RFC 5705 [RFC5705]. Inputs to the exporter function are to be constructed in a manner specific to the negotiated Next Protocol. However, all protocols which utilize NTS-KE MUST conform to the following two rules:
Following a successful run of the NTS-KE protocol wherein "ntp/4" is selected as a Next Protocol, two AEAD keys SHALL be extracted: a client-to-server (C2S) key and a server-to-client (S2C) key. These keys SHALL be computed according to RFC 5705 [RFC5705], using the following inputs.
Implementations wishing to derive additional keys for private or experimental use MUST NOT do so by extending the above-specified syntax for per-association context values. Instead, they SHOULD use their own disambiguating label string. Note that RFC 5705 provides that disambiguating label strings beginning with "EXPERIMENTAL" MAY be used without IANA registration.
In general, an NTS-protected NTPv4 packet consists of:
Always included among the authenticated or authenticated-and-encrypted extensions are a cookie extension and a unique-identifier extension. The purpose of the cookie extension is to enable the server to offload storage of session state onto the client. The purpose of the unique-identifier extension is to protect the client from replay attacks.
The Unique Identifier extension has a Field Type of [[TBD]]. When the extension is included in a client packet (mode 3), its body SHALL consist of a string of octets generated uniformly at random. The string SHOULD be 32 octets long. When the extension is included in a server packet (mode 4), its body SHALL contain the same octet string as was provided in the client packet to which the server is responding. Its use in modes other than client/server is not defined.
The Unique Identifier extension provides the client with a cryptographically strong means of detecting replayed packets. It may also be used standalone, without NTS, in which case it provides the client with a means of detecting spoofed packets from off-path attackers. Historically, NTP's origin timestamp field has played both these roles, but for cryptographic purposes this is suboptimal because it is only 64 bits long and, depending on implementation details, most of those bits may be predictable. In contrast, the Unique Identifier extension enables a degree of unpredictability and collision-resistance more consistent with cryptographic best practice.
[[TODO: consider using separate extension types for request and response, thus allowing for use in symmetric mode. But proper handling in the presence of dropped packets needs to be documented and involves a lot of subtlety.]]
The NTS Cookie extension has a Field Type of [[TBD]]. Its purpose is to carry information which enables the server to recompute keys and other session state without having to store any per-client state. The contents of its body SHALL be implementation-defined and clients MUST NOT attempt to interpret them. See [[TODO]] for a RECOMMENDED construction. The NTS Cookie extension MUST NOT be included in NTP packets whose mode is other than 3 (client) or 4 (server).
The NTS Cookie Placeholder extension has a Field Type of [[TBD]]. When this extension is included in a client packet (mode 3), it communicates to the server that the client wishes it to send additional cookies in its response. This extension MUST NOT be included in NTP packets whose mode is other than 3.
Whenever an NTS Cookie Placeholder extension is present, it MUST be accompanied by an NTS Cookie extension, and the body length of the NTS Cookie Placeholder extension MUST be the same as the body length of the NTS Cookie Extension. (This length requirement serves to ensure that the response will not be larger than the request, in order to improve timekeeping precision and prevent DDoS amplification). The contents of the NTS Cookie Placeholder extension's body are undefined and, aside from checking its length, MUST be ignored by the server.
The NTS Authenticator and Encrypted Extensions extension is the central cryptographic element of an NTS-protected NTP packet. Its Field Type is [[TBD]] and the format of its body SHALL be as follows:
The Ciphertext field SHALL be formed by providing the following inputs to the negotiated AEAD Algorithm:
The NTS Authenticator and Encrypted Extensions extension MUST NOT be included in NTP packets whose mode is other than 3 (client) or 4 (server).
A client sending an NTS-protected request SHALL include the following extensions:
The client MAY include one or more NTS Cookie Placeholder extensions, which MUST be authenticated and MAY be encrypted. The number of NTS Cookie Placeholder extensions that the client includes SHOULD be such that if the client includes N placeholders and the server sends back N+1 cookies, the number of unused cookies stored by the client will come to eight. When both the client and server adhere to all cookie-management guidance provided in this memo, the number of placeholder extensions will equal the number of dropped packets since the last successful volley.
The client MAY include additional (non-NTS-related) extensions, which MAY appear prior to the NTS Authenticator and Encrypted Extensions extension (therefore authenticated but not encrypted), within it (therefore encrypted and authenticated), or after it (therefore neither encrypted nor authenticated). In general, however, the server MUST discard any unauthenticated extensions and process the packet as though they were not present. Servers MAY implement exceptions to this requirement for particular extensions if their specification explicitly provides for such.
Upon receiving an NTS-protected request, the server SHALL (through some implementation-defined mechanism) use the cookie to recover the AEAD Algorithm, C2S key, and S2C key associated with the request, and then use the C2S key to authenticate the packet and decrypt the ciphertext. If the cookie is valid and authentication and decryption succeed, then the server SHALL include the following extensions in its response:
The server MAY include additional (non-NTS-related) extensions, which MAY appear prior to the NTS Authenticator and Encrypted Extensions extension (therefore authenticated but not encrypted), within it (therefore encrypted and authenticated), or after it (therefore neither encrypted nor authenticated). In general, however, the client MUST discard any unauthenticated extensions and process the packet as though they were not present. Clients MAY implement exceptions to this requirement for particular extensions if their specification explicitly provides for such.
If the server is unable to validate the cookie or authenticate the request, it SHOULD respond with a Kiss-o'-Death packet (see RFC 5905, Section 7.4) [RFC5905]) with kiss code "NTSN" (meaning "NTS NAK"). Such a response MUST include exactly one Unique Identifier extension whose contents SHALL echo those provided by the client. It MUST NOT include any NTS Cookie or NTS Authenticator and Encrypted Extensions extension. [[Ed. Note: RFC 5905 already provides the kiss code "CRYP" meaning "Cryptographic authentication or identification failed" but I think this is meant to be Autokey-specific.]]
Upon receiving an NTS-protected response, the client MUST verify that the Unique Identifier matches that of an outstanding request, and that the packet is authentic under the S2C key associated with that request. If either of these checks fails, the packet MUST be discarded without further processing.
Upon receiving an NTS NAK, the client MUST verify that the Unique Identifier matches that of an outstanding request. If this check fails, the packet MUST be discarded without further processing. If this check passes, the client SHOULD discard all cookies and AEAD keys associated with the server which sent the NAK and initiate a fresh NTS-KE handshake.
This section provides a RECOMMENDED way for servers to construct NTS cookies. Clients MUST NOT examine the cookie under the assumption that it is constructed according to this section.
The role of cookies in NTS is closely analagous to that of session cookies in TLS. Accordingly, the thematic resemblance of this section to RFC 5077 [RFC5077] is deliberate, and the reader should likewise take heed of its security considerations.
Servers should select an AEAD algorithm which they will use to encrypt and authenticate cookies. The chosen algorithm should be one such as AEAD_AES_SIV_CMAC_256 [RFC5297] which resists accidential nonce reuse, and it need not be the same as the one that was negotiated with the client. Servers should randomly generate and store a master AEAD key `K`. Servers should additionally choose a non-secret, unique value `I` as key-identifier for `K`.
Servers should periodically (e.g., once daily) generate a new pair (I,K) and immediately switch to using these values for all newly-generated cookies. Immediately following each such key rotation, servers should securely erase any keys generated two or more rotation periods prior. Servers should continue to accept any cookie generated using keys that they have not yet erased, even if those keys are no longer current. Erasing old keys provides for forward secrecy, limiting the scope of what old information can be stolen if a master key is somehow compromised. Holding on to a limited number of old keys allows clients to seamlessly transition from one generation to the next without having to perform a new NTS-KE handshake.
[[TODO: discuss key management considerations for load-balanced servers]]
To form a cookie, servers should first form a plaintext `P` consisting of the following fields:
Servers should the generate a nonce `N` uniformly at random, and form AEAD output `C` by encrypting `P` under key `K` with nonce `N` and no associated data.
The cookie should consist of the tuple `(I,N,C)`.
[[TODO: explicitly specify how to verify and decrypt a cookie, not just how to form one]]
Within the "NTP Extensions Field Types" registry table, add the field types:
Field Type Meaning References ---------- ------------------------------------ ---------- TBD1 NTS-Related Content [this doc] TBD2 NTS-Related Content [this doc] TBD3 NTS-Related Content [this doc]
Within the "SMI Security for S/MIME CMS Content Type (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1)" table, add one content type identifier:
Decimal Description References ------- -------------------------------------------- ---------- TBD4 id-ct-nts-ntsForNtpMessageAuthenticationCode [this doc]
IANA is requested to allocate an entry in the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry as follows:
IANA is requested to allocate the following two entries in the Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs registry:
IANA is requested to allocate the following entry in the TLS Exporter Label Registry:
Value | DTLS-OK | Reference | Note |
---|---|---|---|
EXPORTER-network-time-security/1 | Y | [[this memo]] |
IANA is requested to allocate the following entries in the registry of NTP Kiss-o'-Death codes:
Code | Meaning |
---|---|
DTLS | Packet conveys a DTLS record |
NTSN | NTS NAK |
IANA is requested to allocate the following entries in the NTP Extensions Field Types registry:
Field Type | Meaning | Reference |
---|---|---|
[[TBD]] | DTLS Record | [[this memo]] |
[[TBD]] | Unique Identifier | [[this memo]] |
[[TBD]] | NTS Cookie | [[this memo]] |
[[TBD]] | NTS Authenticator and Encrypted Extensions | [[this memo]] |
IANA is requested to create a new registry entitled "Network Time Security Key Establishment Record Types". Entries SHALL have the following fields:
The policy for allocation of new entries in this registry SHALL vary by the Type Number, as follows:
Applications for new entries SHALL specify the contents of the Description, Set Critical Bit and Reference fields and which of the above ranges the Type Number should be allocated from. Applicants MAY request a specific Type Number, and such requests MAY be granted at the registrar's discretion.
The initial contents of this registry SHALL be as follows:
Field Number | Description | Critical | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
0 | End of message | MUST | [[this memo]] |
1 | NTS next protocol negotiation | MUST | [[this memo]] |
2 | Error | MUST | [[this memo]] |
3 | Warning | MUST | [[this memo]] |
4 | AEAD algorithm negotation | MAY | [[this memo]] |
5 | New cookie for NTPv4 | SHOULD NOT | [[this memo]] |
16384–32767 | Reserved for Private & Experimental Use | MAY | [[this memo]] |
IANA is requested to create a new registry entitled "Network Time Security Next Protocols". Entries SHALL have the following fields:
Applications for new entries in this registry SHALL specify all desired fields, and SHALL be granted on a First Come, First Serve basis. Protocol Names beginning with 0x78 0x2D ("x-") SHALL be reserved for Private or Experimental Use, and SHALL NOT be registered. The reserved entry "ptp/2" may be updated or released by a future Standards Action.
The initial contents of this registry SHALL be as follows:
Protocol Name | Human-Readable Name | Reference |
---|---|---|
0x6E 0x74 0x70 0x2F 0x34 | ntp/4 | [[this memo]] |
0x70 0x74 0x70 0x2F 0x32 | ptp/2 | Reserved by [[this memo]] |
IANA is requested to create two new registries entitled "Network Time Security Error Codes" and "Network Time Security Warning Codes". Entries in each SHALL have the following fields:
The policy for allocation of new entries in these registries SHALL vary by their Number, as follows:
The initial contents of the Network Time Security Error Codes Registry SHALL be as follows:
Number | Description | Reference |
---|---|---|
0 | Unrecognized Critical Extension | [[this memo]] |
1 | Bad Request | [[this memo]] |
The Network Time Security Warning Codes Registry SHALL initially be empty.
All security considerations described in [I-D.ietf-ntp-network-time-security] have to be taken into account. The application of NTS to NTP requires the following additional considerations.
The certification-based authentication scheme described in [I-D.ietf-ntp-network-time-security] is not applicable to the concept of NTP pools. Therefore, NTS is unable to provide secure usage of NTP pools.
The client may wish to verify the validity of certificates during the initial association phase. Since it generally has no reliable time during this initial communication phase, it is impossible to verify the period of validity of the certificates.
NTP packets which contains extension fields with key exchange messages do not provide integrity and authenticity protection of the included time stamps. Therefore these NTP packets MUST NOT be used for clock synchronization. Otherwise an initial attack on the client's clock [attacking-ntp] can potentially circumvent the employed security measures of later messages [delorean].
... TBD
In a packet delay attack, an adversary with the ability to act as a MITM delays time synchronization packets between client and server asymmetrically [RFC7384]. This prevents the client from accurately measuring the network delay, and hence its time offset to the server [Mizrahi]. The delay attack does not modify the content of the exchanged synchronization packets. Therefore, cryptographic means do not provide a feasible way to mitigate this attack. However, the maximum error that an adversary can introduced is bounded by half of the round trip delay. Also, several non-cryptographic precautions can be taken in order to detect this attack.
The actual time synchronization data in NTP packets does not involve any information that needs to be kept secret. There also does not seem to be any necessity to disguise the nature of an NTP association. This is why content confidentiality is a non-objective for this document.
The scenario that is to be prevented is one where whenever a new network address is associated with a device (e.g. because said device moved between different networks), a passive attacker is able to link said new address with one that was formerly used by the device, because of recognizable data that the device persistently sends as part of an NTS-secured NTP association. This is the justification for continually supplying the client with fresh cookies, so that a cookie never represents recognizable data in the sense outlined above.
Note that the objective of NTS regarding unlinkability is merely to not leak any additional data that would cause linkability. NTS does not rectify legacy linkability issues that are already present in NTP. To minimize the risk of being tracked by a passive adversary the NTP client has to minimize the information it transmits within a client request (mode 3 packet) as described in the draft "I-D.draft-dfranke-ntp-data-minimization".
Also note that normal NTP clients should not act as NTP servers. Otherwise, an active adversary may be able to abuse the client's server responses (mode 4 packets) for its tracking. This is done by [tbd].
The authors would like to thank Richard Barnes, Steven Bellovin, Sharon Goldberg, Russ Housley, Martin Langer, Miroslav Lichvar, Aanchal Malhotra, Dave Mills, Danny Mayer, Karen O'Donoghue, Eric K. Rescorla, Stephen Roettger, Kurt Roeckx, Kyle Rose, Rich Salz, Brian Sniffen, Susan Sons, Douglas Stebila, Harlan Stenn, Martin Thomson, and Richard Welty for contributions to this document. on the design of NTS.
[attacking-ntp] | Attacking the Network Time Protocol", October 2015. | , "
[delorean] | Bypassing HTTP Strict Transport Security", 2014. | , "
[IEC.61588_2009] | IEEE/IEC, "Precision clock synchronization protocol for networked measurement and control systems", IEEE 1588-2008(E), IEC 61588:2009(E), DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2009.4839002, February 2009. |
[Mizrahi] | Mizrahi, T., A game theoretic analysis of delay attacks against time synchronization protocols", in Proceedings of Precision Clock Synchronization for Measurement Control and Communication, ISPCS 2012, pp. 1-6, September 2012. |
[RFC5077] | Salowey, J., Zhou, H., Eronen, P. and H. Tschofenig, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session Resumption without Server-Side State", RFC 5077, DOI 10.17487/RFC5077, January 2008. |
[RFC7384] | Mizrahi, T., "Security Requirements of Time Protocols in Packet Switched Networks", RFC 7384, DOI 10.17487/RFC7384, October 2014. |
[RFC7821] | Mizrahi, T., "UDP Checksum Complement in the Network Time Protocol (NTP)", RFC 7821, DOI 10.17487/RFC7821, March 2016. |
[Shpiner] | Multi-path Time Protocols", in Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Precision Clock Synchronization for Measurement, Control and Communication (ISPCS), September 2013. | , "
+------------------------------>o | | | v | +-------------+ | |Key Exchange | | +------+------+ | | | o<------------------------------+ | | | | v | | +-------------------+ | | |Time Sync. Messages| | | +---------+---------+ | | | | | v | | +-----+ | | |Check| | | +--+--+ | | | | | /------------------+------------------\ | | v v v | | .-----------. .-------------. .-------. | | ( MAC Failure ) ( Nonce Failure ) ( Success ) | | '-----+-----' '------+------' '---+---' | | | | | | | v v v | | +-------------+ +-------------+ +--------------+ | | |Discard Data | |Discard Data | |Sync. Process | | | +-------------+ +------+------+ +------+-------+ | | | | | | | | | v | +-----------+ +------------------>o-----------+
Figure 3: The client's behavior in NTS unicast mode.