| 6lo | D. Migault, Ed. |
| Internet-Draft | Ericsson |
| Intended status: Standards Track | T. Guggemos, Ed. |
| Expires: August 20, 2015 | LMU Munich |
| February 16, 2015 |
Diet-ESP: a flexible and compressed format for IPsec/ESP
draft-mglt-6lo-diet-esp-01.txt
IPsec/ESP secure every single IP packets exchanged between two nodes. This makes security transparent to the applications, as opposed to TLS or DTLS for example.
IPsec/ESP has not widely been used to secure application because IPsec is implemented in the kernel space, and IPsec/ESP security rules are defined on the device -- similarly to firewall. In addition, IPsec/ESP introduces network overhead on an IP packet basis, as opposed as TLS/DTLS that introduces network overhead on an UDP or TCP segment basis. This mostly impacts devices that do not perform IP fragmentation.
Such drawbacks are not anymore valid for IoT, and the IPsec/ESP may even better fits IoT usage and security requirements. IoT device are usually hardware dedicated for a given task or a given application which makes Kernel / user land split less significant. IoT devices send data that is most likely expected to fit in a single IP packet. Eventually, configuring IPsec/ESP security rules provides the ability to enforce the security of the device, as security is not handled on a per-application basis. Then the database structure of the IPsec/ESP security policies perfectly match sleeping nodes.
This document defines Diet-ESP that adapts IPsec/ESP for IoT. The goal of Diet-ESP is to reduce the size of the IPsec/ESP packet sent on the wire. As a result Diet-ESP is expected to compress traditional IPsec/ESP packet without impacting the security provided by IPsec/ESP.
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 August 20, 2015.
Copyright (c) 2015 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 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 [RFC2119].
The IPsec/ESP [RFC4303] is represented in Figure 1. It was designed to: 1) provide high level of security as a basis, 2) favor interoperability between implementations 3) scale on large infrastructures.
In order to match these goals, ESP format favor mandatory fields with fixed sizes that are designed for the worst case scenarios. This results in a kind of "unique" packet format common to all considered scenarios using ESP. These specific scenarios may result in carrying "unnecessary" or "larger than required" fields. This cost of additional bytes were considered as negligible versus interoperability, making ESP very successful over the years.
With IoT, requirements become slightly different. For most devices, like sensors, sending extra bytes directly impacts the battery and so the life time of the sensor. As a result, IoT may look at reducing the number of bytes sent on the wire. As sensors may belong to different specific network topologies, compression of the IPsec/ESP packet may differ from one network to the another. The use of different compressed IPsec/ESP packets may increase the code complexity of Diet-ESP versus the standard IPsec/ESP. Code complexity may directly impacts interoperability. In addition, in order to reduce the amount of code embedded on the sensors, some sensors may only embed the code associated to a specific compressed IPsec/ESP packet format. This may also impact interoperability between these specific sensors. The fact that Diet-ESP, more specifically IPsec/ESP compression may limit any sensor-to-any-sensor IPsec/ESP communication is not an issue. First, it is mainly an implementation issue, not a protocol issue, as implementation design may prefer limiting the code embedded on the device vs. interoperability. Secondly, very constrained devices are more likely to be connected to an IPsec/ESP Security Gateway. In this document, we consider that interoperability is provided as long as a generic Security Gateway is able to set a secure connection with any IPsec/Diet-ESP or IPsec/ESP sensor.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ---
| Security Parameters Index (SPI) | ^
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I
| Sequence Number (SN) | n
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ t--
| Payload Data* (variable) | e ^
~ ~ g c
| | r o
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ i n
| | Padding (0-255 bytes) | t f
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ y .
| | Pad Length | Next Header | v v
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ---
| Integrity Check Value-ICV (variable) |
~ ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: ESP Packet Description
This document is part of the Diet-ESP document suite that addresses the use of IPsec/ESP for IoT. Requirements for IPsec/ESP for IoT are expressed in [I-D.mglt-6lo-diet-esp-requirements].
Standard IPsec/ESP [RFC4303] defines a protocol and a packet format that carries an encrypted Payload Data. More specifically, the Payload Data is placed between an ESP Header and an ESP Trailer. Eventually, an Integrity Check Value (ICV) is appended to the ESP Trailer to authenticate the packet. The encryption algorithm (like [RFC3686] and [RFC3602]) defines how to encrypt the concatenation of the Payload Data and the Trailer. In fact, encryption or decryption is performed using a shared secret key as well as additional data such as the Initialization Vector (IV). In fact, with the AES suite protocols (AES-CBC [RFC3602], AES-CTR [RFC3686], AES-CCM [RFC4309] and AES-GCM [RFC4104]) carries the IV in each ESP packet. More specifically, the Payload Data is the concatenation of the IV and the Encrypted Clear Text Data where the Clear Text Data represents the data carried by the packet.
Setting an IPsec/ESP communication requires the peers to agree on the various configuration parameters (like , the IPsec mode, the encryption, integrity protocol) as well as various cryptographic material. This is the purpose of IKEv2 [RFC7296].
This document describes Diet-ESP which compresses fields of the Standard ESP [RFC4303]. As a result, compression of the Payload Data is out of scope of this document and is left to other documents. [I-D.mglt-6lo-aes-implicit-iv] describe how to compress the IV. As a result, the IV is not anymore sent in each ESP packet, but instead it is generated by each peers. The IV compression is defined through a new encryption protocol. As a result, is not specific to Diet-ESP and can be used with the standard IPsec/ESP as well.
On the other hand, [I-D.mglt-6lo-diet-esp-payload-compression] addresses the compression of the Clear Text Data, that is the Payload Data before compression. This compression is an extension to the Diet-ESP described in this document. More specifically, it describes additional fields of the Diet-ESP Context.
Finally, [I-D.mglt-6lo-diet-esp-context-ikev2-extension] defines how all necessary parameters for Diet-ESP can be negotiated using IKEv2. It includes both parameters described in this document as well as those described in [I-D.mglt-6lo-diet-esp-payload-compression]
This document describes how to compress ESP fields sent on the wire. Concerned fields are those of the ESP Header, the ESP Trailer and the ICV as represented in Figure 1. Compression of the Payload Data, including the IV is out of scope of the document.
The compression mechanisms defined in this document are based on ROHC [RFC3095], [RFC5225] and ROHCoverIPsec [RFC5856], [RFC5857], [RFC5858].
ROHC defines mechanisms to compress/decompress fields of an IP packet. These compressors are placed between the MAC layer and the IP layer. In the case of ESP, ROHC can be used to compress/decompress SPI, SN. However, ROHC cannot be used to compress encrypted fields like Padding, Pad Length, Next Header -- and later the Clear Text Data before encryption. In fact, at the MAC layer, these fields are encrypted and their encrypted value is used generate the ICV. As a result, compression an ESP packet at the MAC layer requires to decrypt the packet to be able to compress fields like Clear Text Data, Pad Length in order to be able to eventually remove the Padding Field. Similarly, decompressing a compress ESP packet at the MAC layer would require to decrypt the received packet, decompress the packet the Clear Text Data as well as the other ESP fields, before forwarding the ESP packet to the IP stack. Note that in some case decompression is not feasible. Consider for example an ESP implementation that generates a random Padding. If this field is removed by the compressor, it can hardly be recovered by the decompressor. Using a different Padding field would result is ESP rejecting the packet as the ICV check will not succeed. As a result ROHC cannot be used alone.
On the other hand, ROHCoverIPsec makes compression possible before the ESP payload is encrypted, and so the Clear Text Data can be compressed, but not the ESP related fields like Padding, Pad Length and Next Header.
ROHC and ROHCoverIPsec have been designed for bandwidth optimization, but not necessarily for constraint devices. As a result, defining ROHC and ROHCoverIPsec profiles is not sufficient to fulfill the complete set of Diet-ESP requirements listed in [I-D.mglt-6lo-diet-esp-requirements]. In fact Diet-ESP MUST result in an light implementation that does not require implementation of the full ROHC and ROHCoverIPsec frameworks.
In order to achieve ESP field compression, this document describes the Diet-ESP Context. This context contains all necessary parameters to compress an ESP packet. This Diet-ESP Context can be provided as input to proceed to Diet-ESP compression / decompression. This document uses the ROHC and ROHCoverIPsec framework to compress the ESP packet. The advantage of using ROHC and ROHCoverIPsec is that compression behavior follows a standardized compression framework. On the other hand, ROHC and ROHCoverIPsec frameworks are used in a stand alone mode, which means no ROHC communications between compressor and decompressor are considered. This enables specific and lighter implementations to perform Diet-ESP compression without implementing the ROHC or ROHCoverIPsec frameworks. All Diet-ESP implementations only have to agree on the Diet-ESP Context to become inter-operable.
The remaining of the document is as follows. Section 4 described the Diet-ESP Context. Section 5 describes how the parameters of the Diet-ESP Context are used by the ROHC and ROHCoverIPsec framework to compress the ESP packet. This requires definition of new profiles and extensions. Section 6 describes the interactions of Diet-ESP interacts with other compression protocols such as 6lowPAN and ROHC compression for other protocols than ESP. Finally, Section 7 describes how Diet-ESP matches the requirements for Diet-ESP [I-D.mglt-6lo-diet-esp-requirements]. Appendix A is an informational section that illustrates how an minimal Diet-ESP implementation may be used in IoT devices. Appendix B lists the differences between Diet-ESP and Standard ESP.
This document uses the following terminology:
The Diet-ESP context provides the necessary parameters for the compressor and decompressor to perform the appropriated compression and decompression of the ESP packet. Table 1 in Section 4.1 describes the different parameters. Section 4.2 describes the Diet-ESP Context that makes Diet-ESP compliant with ESP. Finally, Section 4.3 provides the default Diet-ESP Context. This describes default values when not explicitly set by the developer. Motivation for default values is to make the use of Diet-ESP simple for developers while still providing a secure framework for IoT communications. It is also expected to simplify negotiation of a Diet-ESP Context between peers.
| Context Field Name | Overview |
|---|---|
| ALIGN | Necessary Alignment for the specific device. |
| SPI_SIZE | Size in bytes of the SPI field in the sent packet. |
| SN_SIZE | Size in byte of the SN field in the sent packet. |
| NH | Presence of the Next Header field in the ESP Trailer. |
| PAD | Presence of the Pad Length field present in the ESP trailer. |
| Diet-ESP_ICV_SIZE | Size of the Diet-ESP ICV in the sent packet. |
Some additional parameters may be added to the Diet-ESP Context. Such parameters are defined in other documents, like [I-D.mglt-6lo-diet-esp-payload-compression] the compression of protocol headers inside the encrypted ESP payload.
Table 2 defines the Diet-ESP Context that produces regular ESP packets. This makes Diet-ESP compatible with standard ESP.
| Context Field Name | Default Value |
|---|---|
| ALIGN | IP alignment (4 bytes for IPv4 and 8 bytes for IPv6) |
| SPI_SIZE | 4 bytes |
| SN_SIZE | 4 bytes |
| NH | Present |
| PAD | Present |
| Diet-ESP_ICV_SIZE | Not compressed |
This section defines a default Diet-ESP Context. IPsec/ESP has been designed to provide a secure framework that remains secure in any scenarios. As a result, specific scenarios may carry unnecessary bytes. In fact, compression is performed on a per-scenario basis, the Diet-ESP Context configuration for a given scenario may introduce vulnerabilities in another scenario. As a result, Diet-ESP can hardly define a optimized Diet-ESP Context that matches with any scenarios.
On the other hand, Diet-ESP is very flexible and make possible to compress any fields. Defining which field can be compressed without introducing vulnerabilities requires specific security knowledge we do not expect all application developers to have. Instead, we would like application developers to be able to simply mention that a given application needs to be secured with diet-esp without specifying any parameters. In that case, a Default Diet-ESP Context will be considered. This Diet-ESP Context is probably not optimized for the given scenario, but at least it does not introduce vulnerabilities. The values for the Default Diet-ESP Context are specified in Table 3.
| Context Field Name | Default Value |
|---|---|
| ALIGN | 8 bit Alignment |
| SPI_SIZE | 2 bytes |
| SN_SIZE | 2 bytes |
| NH | Present |
| PAD | Removed |
| ESP_ICV_SIZE | Not compressed |
This section defines Diet-ESP on the top of the ROHC and ROHCoverIPsec framework. Section 5.1 presents and explains the choice of these frameworks. This section is informational and its only goal is to position our work toward ROHC and ROHCoverIPsec. Section 5.2 defines profiles for all fields expect the Diet-ESP ICV field. Section 5.4 describes the Diet-ESP ICV field. In fact the Diet-ESP ICV field is not derived from the Standard ESP ICV field, but instead is built especially by Diet-ESP.
ROHC enables the compression of different protocols of all layers. It is designed as a framework, where protocol compression is defined as profile. Each profile is defined for a specific layer, and ROHC compression in [RFC3095] defines profiles for the following protocols: uncompressed, UDP/IP, ESP/IP and RTP/UDP/IP. The compression occurs between the IP and the MAC layer, and so remains independent of an eventual IP alignment.
The general idea of ROHC is to classify the different protocol fields. According to the classification, they can either completely and always be omitted, omitted only after the fields has been sent once and registered by the receiver or partly sent and be regenerated by the receiver. For example, a static field value may be negotiated out of band (for example IP version) and thus not be sent at all. In some cases, the value is not negotiated out of band and is carried in the first packet (for example SPI, UDP ports). As a result, the first packet is usually not so highly compressed with ROHC. Finally, some variable fields (for example Sequence Number) can be represented partially by their Last Significant Bits (LSB) and regenerated by the receiver.
The main issue encountered with ESP and ROHC is that ESP may contain encrypted data which makes compression between the IP and MAC layer complex to achieve. Therefore ROHC defines different compression of the ESP protocol (see Figure 2), so compression of the Clear Text Data can occur before the ESP encryption. Regular ROHC can compress the ESP header. If the packet is not encrypted, the rate of compression is extremely high as the whole packet including padding can be compressed in the regular ROHC stack, too. For encrypted payload ROHC defines ROHCoverIPsec ([RFC5856], [RFC5857], [RFC5858]) to compress the ESP payload before it is going to be encrypted. This leads to a second ESP stack, where another ROHC compressor (resp. decompressor) works (see Figure 2). Excluding the first packet which initializes the ROHC context, this makes ESP compression highly efficient.
+-------------------------------+---
| Transport Layer | Layer 4
+---------------+---------------+---
| ROHCoverIPsec | Standard ESP | ^
+---------------+---------------+ | Layer 3
| IP Layer | v
+-------------------------------+---
| ROHC (de-)compressor | ^
+-------------------------------+ | Layer 2
| MAC Layer | v
+-------------------------------+---
Figure 2: The two different ROHC layers in the TCP/IP stack.
The first drawback for ROHC and ROHCoverIPsec is, that it leads to two ROHC compression layers (ROHCoverIPsec before ESP encryption and ROHC before the MAC layer) in addition to two ESP implementations (Standard ESP and ROHCoverIPsec ESP). Both frameworks are quite complex and require a lot of resources which does not fit IoT requirements. Then ROHCoverIPsec also limits the compression of the ESP protocol, according to the IP restrictions. Padding remains necessary as IPsec is part of the IP stack which requires a 32 bits (resp. 64 bits for IPv6) aligned packet. This makes compression quite inefficient when small amount of data are sent.
Note that mechanism to compress encrypted fields may be possible with ROHC only and without ROHCoverIPsec. Such mechanisms may be possible for fields like the Next Header or the Padding and Pad Length when the data sent is of fixed size. As the sizes of the fields are known the compressor may simply remove these fields. However, even in this case, it almost doubles the amount of computation on the receiver's side. In fact, the ROHC compressor would almost decompress and re-encrypt the compressed ESP payload before forwarding it to the IP stack. In addition, since the receiver has to re-encrypt the decompressed information before integrity of the packet can be checked, one can easily construct a DoS attack. Flooding the receiver with invalid packet causes the receiver to perform the complex encryption and authentication algorithm for each packet.
This section defines how the compression of all ESP fields is performed within the ROHC and ROHCoverIPsec frameworks. More especially fields that are in the ESP Header (i.e. the SPI and the SN) and the ICV are compressed by the ROHC framework. The other fields, that is to say those of the ESP Trailer, are compressed by the ROHCoverIPsec framework. The specific Diet-ESP ICV field is detailed in Section 5.4 as more details are required.
Diet-ESP fits in the ROHC and the ROHCoverIPsec in a very specific way.
The ROHC header field classifications are defined in Appendix A.1 of [RFC3095] and Appendix A of [RFC5225].
| Field | ROHC class | Framework | Encoding Method | Diet-ESP Context Parameters |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPI | STATIC-DEF | ROHC | LSB | SPI_SIZE |
| SN | PATTERN | ROHC | LSB | SN_SIZE |
| Padding | PATTERN | ROHCoverIPsec | Removed | PAD, ALIGN |
| Pad Length | PATTERN | ROHCoverIPsec | Removed | PAD, ALIGN |
| Next Header | STATIC-DEF | ROHCoverIPsec | Removed | NH |
With Standard ESP the Standard ESP ICV is computed over the whole ESP Packet. If Diet-ESP were using the Standard ESP ICV value, then Diet-ESP would have to decompressed Diet-ESP to Standard ESP packet to check the Standard ESP ICV value. First, this is not in the scope of Diet-ESP that is looking for light implementation of ESP. Then, as there is no standard way to generate the Padding, this may be impossible in most cases.
The Diet-ESP ICV payload is defined to enable an integrity check without decompressing the Diet-ESP packet to a Standard ESP packet. In order to do so, the Diet-ESP ICV is computed over the Diet-ESP packet before the ESP Header is compressed. In other words, the Diet-ESP ICV is computed over the ROHCoverIPsec compressed ESP payload before ROHC compression.
The reason of building the Diet-ESP ICV over the uncompressed header is the anti-replay protection of IPsec. If anti-replay is enabled at the receiver of the packet, the ICV ensures the integrity of the SN sent on the wire. Suppose the SN is compressed to 0 byte and the Diet-ESP ICV is built over the compressed ESP Header. In that case, the Diet-ESP ICV would not consider the SN value and thus removes the ESP anti-replay mechanism, as the SN cannot be compared with the one chosen by the sender. The problem also occurs when the SN is compressed to less then 4 bytes and the SN has been increased by more then SN_SIZE. For example, if the SN_SIZE is 1 byte the maximum increasing can be 255. If the received SN is increased by 300, the receiver will recognize a increase of only 45. Integrity check of the ICV with the whole ESP Header can determine the new SN is 300 and not 45.
Due to this issues the SN has to be decompressed to 32 bit SN before the Diet-ESP ICV generation takes place (see Figure 4). More specifically the regular ESP header is used for the Diet-ESP ICV generation on sender and receiver. This mechanism ensures the correctness of the anti-replay mechanism and the possibility to sent Standard ESP conform packets remains. As the receiver includes the Diet-ESP header to the Diet-ESP ICV generation he always checks the whole 32 Bit SN.
The algorithm used to generate the Diet-ESP ICV is the same as the one negotiated for ESP. As this field is computed for every packet, it is classified as PATTERN. The compressed Diet-ESP ICV consists in the Diet-ESP_ICV_SIZE LSB of the Diet-ESP ICV. Diet-ESP_ICV_SIZE is provided by the Diet-ESP Context. Profile parameters are summed up in Table 5
| Field | ROHC class | Framework | Encoding Method | Diet-ESP Context Parameters |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diet-ESP ICV | PATTERN | ROHCoverIPsec / ROHC | LSB | Diet-ESP_ICV_SIZE |
The Diet-ESP ICV differs from the ROHC ICV described in section 4.2 of [RFC5858]. The ROHC ICV is computed over the Clear Text Data, and encapsulated in the ESP payload. The goal of the ROHC ICV is to check the integrity of Clear Text Data output. It ensures that the compressed payload is not corrupted. As a result, the ROHC ICV authenticates the Clear Text Data over the whole chain compressor / network / decompressor. In contrast the Diet-ESP ICV authenticates the Diet-ESP packet over the network transmission. Note that the ROHC-ICV can be disabled by negotiating the algorithm NULL in the ROHC_INTEG notify payload [RFC5857].
Figure 3 illustrates the different Standard ESP ICV, ROHC ICV and Diet-ESP ICV. Note that ROHC ICV can be used with Diet-ESP ICV or Standard ESP ICV. Diet-ESP considers ROHC-ICV as disabled, that is to say that ROHC_INTEG algorithm is set to NULL.
1) BEFORE COMPRESSION AND APPLICATION OF ESP
----------------------------
| orig IP hdr | | |
|(any options)| UDP | Data |
----------------------------
<----------->
Clear Text Data
2) Standard ESP ICV including ROHC-ICV
--------------------------------------------------------
| orig IP hdr | ESP | | | ROHC | ESP | ESP|
|(any options)| Hdr | UDP | Data | ICV | Trailer | ICV|
--------------------------------------------------------
|<-ROHC ICV->|
|<------ ESP encryption ----->|
|<------------ ESP ICV ------------>|
3) DIET-ESP ICV including ROHC-ICV
3.1) Before ROHC compression
-------------------------------------------------------------
| orig IP hdr | ESP | Cmpr. | | ROHC |Cmpr.ESP| Diet-ESP|
|(any options)| Hdr |UDP Hdr.|Data| ICV |Trailer | ICV |
-------------------------------------------------------------
|<----Diet-ESP encryption --->|
|<--------- Diet-ESP ICV ---------->|
3.2) After ROHC compression
----------------------------------------------------------------
| orig IP hdr | Cmpr. | Cmpr. | | ROHC |Cmpr.ESP| Diet-ESP|
|(any options)|ESP-Hdr |UDP Hdr.|Data| ICV |Trailer | ICV |
----------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 3: Diet-ESP-ICV in Transport Mode.
Upon receipt a Diet-ESP ICV, the receiver MUST compute the Diet-ESP ICV and compare with the LSB provided in the packet. If a match occurs, the Diet-ESP packet is authenticated, otherwise, the packet MUST be rejected as illustrated in figure Figure 4.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| compr. SPI | compr. SN | encrypted Payload Data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Diet-ESP ICV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
V
+-----------------+
| decompressor |
+-----------------+
|
V
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Security Parameters Index (SPI) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| encrypted Payload Data | Diet-ESP ICV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
V
+-----------------+
| ICV generation |
| and |
| Integrity Check |
+-----------------+
Figure 4: Example of decompression of the header, before ICV generation and checking.
Diet-ESP exclusively defines compression for the ESP protocol as well as the ESP payload. It does not consider compression of the IP protocol. ROHC or 6LoWPAN may be used by a sensor to compress the IP (resp. IPv6) header. Since compression usually occurs between the MAC and IP layers, there are no expected complications with this family of compression protocols.
Diet-ESP smoothly interacts with 6LoWPAN. Every 6LoWPAN compression header (NHC_EH) has an NH bit. This one is set to 1 if the following header is compressed with 6LoWPAN. Similarly, the NH bit is set to 0 if the following header is not compressed with 6LowPAN. Thus, interactions between 6LowPAN and Diet-ESP considers two case: 1) NH set to 0: 6LowPAN indicates the Diet-ESP payload is not compressed and 2) NH set to 1: 6LowPAN indicates the Diet-ESP payload is compressed.
Suppose 6LowPAN indicates the Next Header ESP is not compressed by 6LowPAN. If the peers have agreed to use Diet-ESP, then the ESP layer on each peers receives the expected Diet-ESP packet. Diet-ESP is fully compatible with 6LowPAN ESP compression disabled.
Suppose 6LowPAN indicates the Next Header ESP is compressed by 6LowPAN. ESP compression with 6LowPAN [I-D.raza-6lowpan-ipsec] considers the compression of the ESP Header, that is to say the compression of the SPI and SN fields. As a result 6LowPAN compression expects a 4 byte SPI and a 4 byte SN from the ESP layer. Similarly 6LowPAN decompression provides a 4 byte SPI and a 4 byte SN to the ESP layer. If the peers have agreed to use Diet-ESP and one of them uses 6LowPAN ESP compression, then the Diet-ESP MUST use SPI SIZE and the SN SIZE MUST be set to 4 bytes.
ROHC and ROHCoverIPsec have been used to describe Diet-ESP. This means the ROHC and ROHCoverIPsec concepts and terminology have been used to describe Diet-ESP. In that sens Diet-ESP is compatible with the ROHC and ROHCoverIPsec framework. The remaining of the section describes how Diet-ESP interacts with ROHC and ROHCoverIPsec profiles and payloads.
ROHC compress packets between the MAC and the IP layer. Compression can only be performed over non encrypted packets. As a results, this section considers the case of an ESP encrypted packet and an ESP non encrypted packet.
For encrypted ESP packet, ROHC profiles that enable ESP compression (e.g. profile 0x0003 and 0x1003) compresses only the ESP Header and the IP header. To enable ROHC compression a Diet-ESP packet MUST present an similar header as the ESP Header, that is a 4 byte SPI and a 4 byte SN. This is accomplished by setting SPI_SIZE = 4 and SN_SIZE = 4 in the Diet-ESP Context. Reversely, if the Diet-ESP packet presents a 4 byte SPI and a 4 byte SN, ROHC can proceed to the compression. Note that Diet-ESP does not consider the IP header, then ESP and Diet-ESP are encrypted, thus ROHC can hardly make the difference between Diet-ESP and ESP packets. For encrypted packets, the only difference at the MAC layer might be the alignment.
For non encrypted ESP packet, ROHC MAY proceed to the compression of different fields of ESP and other layers, as the payload appears in clear. ROHC compressor are unlikely to deal with ESP fields compressed by Diet-ESP. As a result, it is recommended not to combine Diet-ESP and ROHC ESP compression with non encrypted ESP packets.
ROHC or 6LoWPAN are not able to compress the ESP payload, as long as it is encrypted. Diet-ESP describes how to compress the ESP-Trailer, which is part of the encrypted payload can be compressed. 6LowPANoverIPsec (section 2 of [I-D.raza-6lowpan-ipsec]) and ROHCoverIPsec define the compression of the ESP payload, more specifically the upper layer headers (e.g. IP header or Transport layer header). These protocols need a second, modified ESP stack in order to make the payload compression possible. Then the packets with compressed payload are forwarded to this second ESP stack which can compress or decompress the payload.
Diet-ESP and its extensions also needs a modified ESP stack in order to perform the compression of ESP payload possible. In addition, fields that are subject to compression are most likely to be the same with Diet6ESP and 6LowPANoverIPsec and/or ROHCoverIPsec. Therefore, if a device implements Diet-ESP and 6LowPANoverIPsec and/or ROHCoverIPsec the developer needs to define an order the various frameworks perform the compression. Currently this order has not been defined, and Diet-ESP is unlikely to be compatible with 6LowPANoverIPsec and/or ROHCoverIPsec. Integration of Diet-ESP and 6LowPANoverIPsec and/or ROHCoverIPsec has not been considered in the current document as Diet-ESP has been designed to avoid implementations of 6LowPANoverIPsec and/or ROHCoverIPsec frameworks to be implemented into the devices. Diet-ESP has been designed to be more lightweight than 6LowPANoverIPsec and/or ROHCoverIPsec by avoiding negotiations between compressors and decompressors.
[I-D.mglt-6lo-diet-esp-requirements] lists the requirements for Diet-ESP. This section position Diet-ESP described in this document toward these requirements.
There are no IANA consideration for this document.
This section lists security considerations related to the Diet-ESP protocol.
Small SPI_SIZE exposes the device to DoS. For a device, the number of SA is related to the number of SPI. For systems using small SPI_SIZE values as index of their database, the number of simultaneous communications is limited by the SPI_SIZE. This means that a given device initiating SPI_SIZE communications can isolate the system. In order to leverage this vulnerability, one can consider receiving systems that generate 32 bits SPI with a hash function that considers different parameters associated to the reduced SPI. For example, if one use the IP addresses as well as the reduced SPI, the number of SPI becomes SPI_SIZE per IP address. This may be sufficient as sensors are not likely to perform multiple communications.
Small size of ICV reduces the authentication strength. For example 8 bits mean that authentication can be spoofed with a probability of 1/256. Standard value considers a length of 96 bit for reliable authentication. If specified, the ICV field is truncated after the given number of bits which, for sure, has to be mentioned while incoming packet procession as well. For removing authentication ESP NULL has to be negotiated, as described in [RFC4303].
This section describes the security consideration for two possible scenarios
Due to this restrictions, we highly RECOMMEND not to use the time as a sequence number, if the SN SIZE is NOT 4.
The current work on Diet-ESP results from exchange and cooperation between Orange, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet Munich, Universite Pierre et Marie Curie. We thank Daniel Palomares and Carsten Bormann for their useful remarks, comments and guidances on the design. We thank Sylvain Killian for implementing an open source Diet-ESP on Contiki and testing it on the FIT IoT-LAB [fit-iot-lab] funded by the French Ministry of Higher Education and Research. We thank the IoT-Lab Team and the INRIA for maintaining the FIT IoT-LAB platform and for providing feed backs in an efficient way.
| [I-D.mglt-6lo-aes-implicit-iv] | Migault, D. and T. Guggemos, "Implicit IV for AES-CBC, AES-CTR, AES-CCM and AES-GCM", Internet-Draft draft-mglt-6lo-aes-implicit-iv-00, December 2014. |
| [I-D.mglt-6lo-diet-esp-context-ikev2-extension] | Migault, D., "Diet-ESP Context IKEv2 Extension", Internet-Draft draft-mglt-6lo-diet-esp-context-ikev2-extension-00, December 2014. |
| [I-D.mglt-6lo-diet-esp-payload-compression] | Migault, D. and T. Guggemos, "Diet-IPsec: ESP Payload Compression of IPv6 / UDP / TCP / UDP-Lite", January 2015. |
| [I-D.mglt-6lo-diet-esp-requirements] | Migault, D. and T. Guggemos, Requirements for Diet-ESP the IPsec/ESP protocol for IoT", Internet-Draft draft-mglt-6lo-diet-esp-requirements-00, January 2015. |
| [I-D.raza-6lowpan-ipsec] | Raza, S., Duquennoy, S. and G. Selander, "Compression of IPsec AH and ESP Headers for Constrained Environments", Internet-Draft draft-raza-6lowpan-ipsec-01, September 2013. |
| [RFC5856] | Ertekin, E., Jasani, R., Christou, C. and C. Bormann, "Integration of Robust Header Compression over IPsec Security Associations", RFC 5856, May 2010. |
| [fit-iot-lab] | Future Internet of Things (FIT) IoT-LAB", . | , "
Diet-ESP has been designed to enable light implementation. This section illustrates the case of a sensor sending a specific amount of data periodically. This section is not normative and has only an illustrative purpose. In this scenario the sensor measures a temperature every minute and sends its value to a gateway, which is assumed to collect the data. The data is sent in an UDP packet and there is no other connection between the two peers. The communication between the sensor and the gateway should be secured by a Diet-ESP connection in transport mode. Therefore the following context is chosen:
Encapsulating the outgoing Diet-ESP packet is proceeded as follows:
Diet-ESP | Standard ESP
+--------------------+ | +--------------------+
| orig | | | | | orig | | |
|IP hdr | UDP | Data | | |IP hdr | UDP | Data |
+--------------------+ | +--------------------+
| | |
V | V
+-----------+ | +-----------+
| Diet-ESP | | | ESP |
+-----------+ | +-----------+
| | |
V | V
+----------------------+|+---------------------------------------+
| orig | | Diet-ESP||| orig | ESP | | | ESP | ESP|
|IP hdr |Data| ICV |||IP hdr | Hdr | UDP |Data| Trailer | ICV|
+----------------------+|+---------------------------------------+
Figure 5: Minimal Example - Input and Output of the Diet-ESP function vs. Standard ESP.
Incoming Diet-ESP packet is processed as follows:
This section details how to use Diet-ESP to send and receive messages. The use of Diet-ESP is based on the IPsec architecture [RFC4301] and ESP [RFC4303]. We suppose the reader to be familiar with these documents and we list here possible adaptations that may be involved by Diet-ESP.
Each ESP packet has a fixed alignment to 32 bits (resp. 64 bits in IPv6). For Diet-ESP each device has an internal parameter that defines the minimal acceptable alignment. ALIGN SHOULD be a the maximum of the peer's minimal alignment.
Diet-ESP Context with SPI_SIZE + SN_SIZE that is not a multiple of ALIGN MUST be rejected.
For devices that are configured with a single SPI_SIZE value can process inbound packet as defined in [RFC4301]. As such, no modifications is required by Diet-ESP.
Detecting Inbound Security Association: Identifying the SA for incoming packets is a one of the main reasons the SPI is send in each packet on the wire. For regular ESP (and AH) packets, the Security Association is detected as follows:
For device that are dealing with different SPI_SIZE SPI, the way inbound packets are handled differs from the [RFC4301]. In fact, when a inbound packet is received, the peer does not know the SPI_SIZE. As a result, it does not know the SPI that applies to the incoming packet. The different values could be the 0 (resp. 1, 2, 3 and 4) first bytes of the IP payload.
Since the size of the SPI is not known for incoming packets, the detection of inbound SAs has to be redefined in a Diet-ESP environment. In order to ensure a detection of a SA the above described regular detection have to be done for each supported SPI size (in most cases 5 times). In most common cases this will return a unique Security Association.
If there is more than one SA matching the lookup, the authentication MUST be performed for all found SAs to detect the SA with the correct key. In case there is no match, the packet MUST be dropped. Of course this can lead into DoS vulnerability as an attacker recognizes an overlap of one or more IP-SPI combinations. Therefore it is highly recommended to avoid different values of the SPI_SIZE for one tuple of Source and Destination IP address. Furthermore this recommendation becomes mandatory if NULL authentication is supported. This is easy to implement as long as the sensors are not mobile and do not change their IP address.
The following optimizations MAY be considered for sensor that are not likely to perform mobility or multihoming features provided by MOBIKE [RFC4555] or any change of IP address during the lifetime of the SA.
If the the value 0 is chosen for the SPI_SIZE this option is not feasible.
+-----------+
| START |
+-----------+
|
V
+-----------------+
| find 1st SA to |
| IP address |------------------+
+-----------------+ |
| |
____V____ V
yes / \ +-----+
+------/ SPI_SIZE \ /----->|'---'|
| \ = 0 ? / / | SAD |
| \_________/ / + +
| |no / '---'
| V /
| +-----------------+ /
| | find 1st SA to |--/
| | SPI +IP |
| | address |
| +-----------------+
| |
| V
| +-----------------+
| | Diet-ESP packet |
+-->| procession |
+-----------------+
Figure 6: SAD lookup for incoming packets.
Outgoing lookups for the SPI are performed in the same way as it is done in ESP. The Traffic Selector for the packet is searched and the right SA is read from the SA. The SPI used in the packet MUST be reduced to the value stored in SPI_SIZE.
Sequence number in ESP [RFC4303] can be of 4 bytes or 8 bytes for extended ESP. Diet-ESP introduces different sizes. One way to deal with this is to add a MAX_SN value that stores the maximum value the SN can have. Any new value of the SN will be check against this MAX_SN.
NH, TH, IH, P indicate fields or payloads that are removed from the Diet-ESP packet. How the Diet-ESP packet is generated depends on the length Payload Data LPD, BLCK the block size of the encryption algorithm and the device alignment ALIGN. We note M = MAX(BLCK, ALIGN).
Decryption is for performed the other way around.
After SAD lookup, authenticating and decrypting the Diet-ESP payload the original packet is rebuild as follows:
[draft-mglt-6lo-diet-esp-00.txt]:
Changing affiliation
[draft-mglt-6lo-diet-esp-00.txt]:
Updating references
[draft-mglt-ipsecme-diet-esp-01.txt]:
Diet ESP described in the ROHC framework
ESP is not modified.
[draft-mglt-ipsecme-diet-esp-00.txt]:
NAT consideration added.
Comparison actualized to new Version of 6LoWPAN ESP.
[draft-mglt-dice-diet-esp-00.txt]: First version published.