Signer Info Algorithm Protection Attribute
draft-schaad-smime-algorithm-attribute-03

Abstract

A new attribute is defined that allows for protection of the digest and signature algorithm structures in an authenticated data or a signer info structure. Using the attribute includes the algorithm definition information in the integrity protection process.

Status of this Memo

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 27, 2011.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2010 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.

Table of Contents

1.  Introduction
    1.1.  Notation
2.  Attribute Structure
3.  Verification Process
    3.1.  Signed Data Verification Changes
    3.2.  Authenticated Data Verification Changes
4.  IANA Considerations
5.  Security Considerations
6.  References
    6.1.  Normative References
    6.2.  Informational References
Appendix A.  ASN.1 Module
§  Author's Address

1.  Introduction

In the current definition of [CMS] (Housley, R., “Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS),” September 2009.), there are some fields that are not protected in the process of doing either a signature validation or an authentication validation. In this document a new signed or authenticated attribute is defined which permits these fields to be validated.

Taking the SignerInfo structure from CMS, let's look at each of the fields and discuss what is and is not protected by the signature. The ASN.1 is included here for convenience. (The analysis of AuthenticatedData is similar.)

      SignerInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
        version CMSVersion,
        sid SignerIdentifier,
        digestAlgorithm DigestAlgorithmIdentifier,
        signedAttrs [0] IMPLICIT SignedAttributes OPTIONAL,
        signatureAlgorithm SignatureAlgorithmIdentifier,
        signature SignatureValue,
        unsignedAttrs [1] IMPLICIT UnsignedAttributes OPTIONAL }

version

is not protected by the signature. Many implementations of CMS today actually ignore the value of this field. If the structure decodes then this is considered sufficient to continue processing. Using most decoders on the market the value of this field does not control how the decoding is actually processed.

sid

can be protected by the use of either version of the signing certificate authenticated attribute. SigningCertificateV2 is defined in [RFC5035] (Schaad, J., “Enhanced Security Services (ESS) Update: Adding CertID Algorithm Agility,” August 2007.). SigningCertificate is defined in [RFC2634] (Hoffman, P., “Enhanced Security Services for S/MIME,” June 1999.). In addition to allowing for the protection of the signer identifier, the specific certificate is protected by including a hash of the certificate to be used for validation.

digestAlgorithm

the digest algorithm used has been implicitly protected by the fact that CMS has only defined one digest algorithm for each hash value length. (The algorithm RIPEM-160 was never standardized). If newer digest algorithms are defined where there are multiple algorithms for a given hash length, or where parameters are defined for a specific algorithm, this implicit protection will no longer exist.

signedAttributes

are directly protected by the signature when they are present. The DER encoding of this value is what is actually hashed for the signature computation.

signatureAlgorithm

has been protected by implication in the past. The use of an RSA public key implied that the RSA v 1.5 signature algorithm was being used. The hash algorithm and this fact could be checked by the internal padding defined. This is no longer true with the addition of the RSA-PSS signature algorithms. The use of a DSA public key implied the SHA-1 hash algorithm as that was the only possible hash algorithm and the DSA was the public signature algorithm. This is longer true with the addition of the SHA2 signature algorithms.

signature

is not directly protected by any other value unless a counter signature is present. However this represents the cryptographically computed value that protects the rest of the signature information.

unsignedAttrs

is not protected by the signature value. It is also explicitly designed not to be protected by the signature value.

As can be seen above, the digestAlgorithm and signatureAlgorithm fields have been indirectly rather than explicitly protected in the past. With new algorithms that have been or are being defined this will no longer be the case. This document defines and describes a new attribute that will explicitly protect these fields along with the macAlgorithm field of the AuthenticatedData structure.

1.1.  Notation

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] (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.).

2.  Attribute Structure

The following defines the algorithm protection attribute:

The algorithm-protection attribute has the ASN.1 type CMSAlgorithmProtection:

    aa-cmsAlgorithmProtection ATTRIBUTE ::= {
        TYPE CMSAlgorithmProtection
        IDENTIFIED BY { id-aa-CMSAlgorithmProtection }
    }

The following object identifier identifies the algorithm-protection attribute:

    id-aa-CMSAlgorithmProtection OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1)
         member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) 52 }

The algorithm-protection attribute uses the following ASN.1 type:

   CMSAlgorithmProtection ::= SEQUENCE {
       digestAlgorithm         DigestAlgorithmIdentifier,
       signatureAlgorithm  [1] SignatureAlgorithmIdentifier OPTIONAL,
       macAlgorithm        [2] MessageAuthenticationCodeAlgorithm
                                        OPTIONAL
   }
   (WITH COMPONENTS { signatureAlgorithm PRESENT,
                      macAlgorithm ABSENT } |
    WITH COMPONENTS { signatureAlgorithm ABSENT,
                      macAlgorithm PRESENT })

The fields are defined as follows:

digestAlgorithm

contains a copy of the SignerInfo.digestAlgorithm field or the AuthenticatedData.digestAlgorithm field including any parameters associated with it.

signatureAlgorithm

contains a copy of the signature algorithm identifier and any parameters associated with it. This field is only populated if the attribute is placed in a SignerInfo.signedAttrs sequence.

macAlgorithm

contains a copy of the message authentication code algorithm identifier and any parameters associated with it. This field is only populated if the attribute is placed in an AuthenticatedData.authAttrs sequence.

Exactly one of signatureAlgorithm and macAlgorithm SHALL be present.

An algorithm-protection attribute MUST have a single attribute value, even though the syntax is defined as a SET OF AttributeValue. There MUST NOT be zero or multiple instances of AttributeValue present.

The algorithm-protection attribute MUST be a signed attribute or an authenticated attribute; it MUST NOT be an unsigned attribute, an unauthenticated attribute or an unprotected attribute.

The SignedAttributes and AuthAttributes syntax are each defined as a SET of Attributes. The SignedAttributes in a signerInfo MUST include only one instance of the algorithm protection attribute. Similarly, the AuthAttributes in an AuthenticatedData MUST include only one instance of the algorithm protection attribute.

3.  Verification Process

The exact verification process depends on the structure being dealt with.

When doing comparisons of the fields, a field whose value is a default value and one which is explicitly provided MUST compare as equivalent. It is not required that a field which is absent in one case and present in another case be compared as equivalent. (This means that an algorithm identifier with absent parameters and one with NULL parameters are not expected to compare as equivalent.)

3.1.  Signed Data Verification Changes

If a CMS validator supports this attribute, the following additional verification steps MUST be performed:

1. The SignerInfo.digestAlgorithm field MUST be compared to the digestAlgorithm field in the attribute. If the fields are not the same (modulo encoding) then signature validation MUST fail.

2. The SignerInfo.signatureAlgorithm field MUST be compared to the signatureAlgorithm field in the attribute. If the fields are not the same (modulo encoding) then the signature validation MUST fail.

3.2.  Authenticated Data Verification Changes

If a CMS validator supports this attribute, the following additional verification steps MUST be performed:

1. The AuthenticatedData.digestAlgorithm field MUST be compared to the digestAlgorithm field in the attribute. If the fields are not same (modulo encoding) then signature validation MUST fail.

2. The AuthenticatedData.macAlgorithm field MUST be compared to the macAlgorithm field in the attribute. If the fields are not the same (modulo encoding) then the signature validation MUST fail.

4.  IANA Considerations

There are no IANA considerations. All identifiers are assigned out of the S/MIME OID arc.

5.  Security Considerations

This document is designed to address the security issue of algorithm substitutions of the algorithms used by the validator. At this time there is no known method to exploit this type of attack. If the attack could be successful, then either a weaker algorithm could be substituted for a stronger algorithm or the parameters could be modified by an attacker to change the behavior of the hashing algorithm used. (One example would be changing the initial parameter value for [I‑D.schaad‑smime‑hash‑experiment] (Schaad, J., “Experiment: Hash functions with parameters in CMS and S/MIME,” December 2009.).)

The attribute defined in this document is to be placed in a location that is protected by the signature or message authentication code. This attribute does not provide any additional security if placed in an un-signed or un-authenticated location.

6.  References

6.1. Normative References

6.2. Informational References

Appendix A.  ASN.1 Module

CMSAlgorithmProtectionAttribute
  { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549)
    pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) modules(0)
    id-mod-cms-algorithmProtect(52) }
DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::=
BEGIN
 IMPORTS

   -- Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) [CMS]

   DigestAlgorithmIdentifier, MessageAuthenticationCodeAlgorithm,
   SignatureAlgorithmIdentifier
   FROM  CryptographicMessageSyntax-2009
     { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549)
       pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) modules(0) id-mod-cms-2004-02(41) }

   -- Common PKIX structures [RFC5912]

   ATTRIBUTE
   FROM PKIX-CommonTypes-2009
     { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
       security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
       id-mod-pkixCommon-02(57)};

   --
   --  The CMS Algorithm Protection attribute is a Signed Attribute or
   --  an Authenticated Attribute.
   --
   --  Add this attribute to SignedAttributesSet in [CMS]
   --  Add this attribute to AuthAttributeSet in [CMS]
   --

   aa-cmsAlgorithmProtection ATTRIBUTE ::= {
      TYPE CMSAlgorithmProtection
      IDENTIFIED BY { id-aa-cmsAlgorithmProtect }
   }

   id-aa-cmsAlgorithmProtect OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {
      iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1)
      pkcs9(9) 52 }

   CMSAlgorithmProtection ::= SEQUENCE {
      digestAlgorithm         DigestAlgorithmIdentifier,
      signatureAlgorithm  [1] SignatureAlgorithmIdentifier OPTIONAL,
      macAlgorithm        [2] MessageAuthenticationCodeAlgorithm
                                        OPTIONAL
   }
   (WITH COMPONENTS { signatureAlgorithm PRESENT,
                      macAlgorithm ABSENT } |
    WITH COMPONENTS { signatureAlgorithm ABSENT,
                      macAlgorithm PRESENT })

END

Author's Address