Internet DRAFT - draft-msahli-ise-ieee1609
draft-msahli-ise-ieee1609
Network Working Group M. Msahli, Ed.
Internet-Draft Telecom Paris
Intended status: Experimental N. Cam-Winget, Ed.
Expires: October 15, 2020 Cisco
W. Whyte, Ed.
Qualcomm
A. Serhrouchni
H. Labiod
Telecom Paris
April 13, 2020
TLS Authentication using ITS certificate
draft-msahli-ise-ieee1609-07
Abstract
The IEEE and ETSI have specified a type of end-entity certificates.
This document defines an experimental change to TLS to support IEEE/
ETSI certificate types to authenticate TLS entities.
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 15, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
Msahli, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IEEE and ETSI Certificate Types for TLS April 2020
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Experiment Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Requirements Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Extension Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. TLS Client and Server Handshake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Client Hello . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Server Hello . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Certificate Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. TLS Server and TLS Client use the ITS Certificate . . . . 9
6.2. TLS Client uses the ITS certificate and TLS Server uses
the X.509 certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Securely Obtaining Certificates from an Online Repository 10
7.2. Expiry of Certificates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.3. Algorithms and Cryptographic Strength . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.4. Interpreting ITS Certificate Permissions . . . . . . . . 11
7.5. Psid and Pdufunctionaltype in CertificateVerify . . . . . 11
8. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
The TLS protocol [RFC8446] allows the use of X.509 certificates and
Raw Public Key to authenticate servers and clients. This document
describes an experimental extension following the procedures laid out
by [RFC7250] to support use of the certificate format specified by
the IEEE in [IEEE1609.2] and profiled by the European
Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) in [TS103097]. These
standards specify secure communications in vehicular environments.
These certificates are referred to in this document as Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) Certificates.
The certificate types are optimized for bandwidth and processing time
to support delay-sensitive applications, and also to provide both
authentication and authorization information to enable fast access
control decisions in ad hoc networks such as are found in Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS). The standards specify different types
Msahli, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IEEE and ETSI Certificate Types for TLS April 2020
of certificate to support a full Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)
specification; the certificates to be used in this context are end-
entity certificates, i.e. certificates that have the IEEE 1609.2
appPermissions field present.
Use of ITS certificates is becoming widespread in the ITS setting.
ITS communications in practice make heavy use of 10 MHz channels with
a typical throughput of 6 Mbps. (The 802.11OCB modulation that gives
this throughput is not the one that gives the highest throughput, but
it provides for a robust signal over a range up to 300-500 m, which
is the "sweet spot" communications range for ITS operations like
collision avoidance). The compact nature of ITS certificates as
opposed to X.509 certificates makes them appropriate for this
setting.
The ITS certificates are also suited to the M2M ad hoc network
setting, because their direct encoding of permissions (see Security
Considerations, section 7.4) allows a receiver to make an immediate
accept/deny decision about an incoming message without having to
refer to a remote identity and access management server. The EU has
committed to the use of ITS certificates in Cooperative Intelligent
Transportation Systems deployments. A multi-year project developed a
certificate policy for the use of ITS certificates, including a
specification of how different root certificates can be trusted
across the system (hosted at
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/its/c-its_en, direct link at
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/
c-its_certificate_policy_release_1.pdf).
The EU has committed funding for the first five years of operation of
the top-level Trust List Manager entity, enabling organizations such
as motor vehicle OEMs and national road authorities to create root
CAs and have them trusted. In the US, the US Department of
Transportation (USDOT) published a proposed regulation, which as of
late 2019, is active though not rapidly progressing, which would
require all light vehicles in the US to implement V2X communications
including the use of ITS certificates (available from
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/12/2016-31059/
federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards-v2v-communications). As of
2019, ITS deployments across the US, Europe and Australia were using
ITS certificates. Volkswagen have committed to deploying V2X using
ITS certificates. New York, Tampa and Wyoming are deploying traffic
management systems using ITS certificates. GM deployed V2X in their
Cadillac CTSes using ITS certificates.
ITS certificates are also used in a number of standards that build on
top of the foundational IEEE and ETSI standards, particularly the SAE
J2945/x series of standards for applications and ISO 21177, which
Msahli, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IEEE and ETSI Certificate Types for TLS April 2020
builds a framework for exchanging multiple authentication tokens on
top of the TLS variant specified in this document.
1.1. Experiment Overview
This document describes an experimental extension to the TLS security
model. It uses a form of certificate that has not previously been
used in the Internet. Systems using this Experimental approach are
segregated from system using standard TLS by the use of a new
Certificate Type value, reserved through IANA (see Section 9). An
implementation of TLS that is not involved in the Experiment will not
recognise this new Certificate Type and will not participate in the
experiment: TLS sessions will either negotiate the use of existing
X.509 certificates or fail to be established.
This extension has been encouraged by stakeholders in the Cooperative
ITS community in order to support the ITS use cases deployment and it
is anticipated that its use will be widespread.
2. Requirements Terminology
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. Extension Overview
The TLS extension "client_certificate_type" and
"server_certificate_type" [RFC7250] are used to negotiate the type of
Certificate messages used in TLS to authenticate the server and,
optionally, the client. Using separate extension allows for mixed
deployments where client and server can use certificates of different
types. It is expected that ITS deployments will see both peers using
ITS certificates due to the homogeneity of the ecosystem, but there
is no barrier at a technical level that prevents mixed certificate
usage. This document defines a new certificate type, 1609Dot2, for
usage with TLS 1.3. The updated CertificateType enumeration and
corresponding addition to the CertificateEntry structure are shown
below. CertificateType values are sent in the
"server_certificate_type" and "client_certificate_type" extension,
and the CertificateEntry structures are included in the certificate
chain sent in the Certificate message. In case of TLS 1.3, the
"client_certificate_type " SHALL contain a list of supported
certificate types proposed by the client as provided in the figure
below:
Msahli, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IEEE and ETSI Certificate Types for TLS April 2020
/* Managed by IANA */
enum {
X509(0),
RawPublicKey(2),
1609Dot2(3),
(255)
} CertificateType;
struct {
select (certificate_type) {
/* certificate type defined in this document.*/
case 1609Dot2:
opaque cert_data<1..2^24-1>;
/* RawPublicKey defined in RFC 7250*/
case RawPublicKey:
opaque ASN.1_subjectPublicKeyInfo<1..2^24-1>;
/* X.509 certificate defined in RFC 5246*/
case X.509:
opaque cert_data<1..2^24-1>;
};
Extension extensions<0..2^16-1>;
} CertificateEntry;
As per [RFC7250], the server processes the received
[endpoint]_certificate_type extension(s) and selects one of the
offered certificate types, returning the negotiated value in its
EncryptedExtensions (TLS 1.3) message. Note that there is no
requirement for the negotiated value to be the same in
client_certificate_type and server_certificate_type extensions sent
in the same message.
4. TLS Client and Server Handshake
Figure 1 shows the handshake message flow for a full TLS 1.3
handshake negotiating both certificate types.
Msahli, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IEEE and ETSI Certificate Types for TLS April 2020
Client Server
Key ^ ClientHello
Exch | + server_certificate_type*
| + client_certificate_type*
| + key_share*
v + signature_algorithms* -------->
ServerHello ^ Key
+ key_share* v Exch
{EncryptedExtensions} ^ Server
{+ server_certificate_type*}| Params
{+ client_certificate_type*}|
{CertificateRequest*} v
{Certificate*} ^
{CertificateVerify*} | Auth
{Finished} v
<------- [Application Data*]
^ {Certificate*}
Auth | {CertificateVerify*}
v {Finished} -------->
[Application Data] <-------> [Application Data]
+ Indicates noteworthy extensions sent in the
previously noted message.
* Indicates optional or situation-dependent
messages/extensions that are not always sent.
{} Indicates messages protected using keys
derived from a [sender]_handshake_traffic_secret.
[] Indicates messages protected using keys
derived from [sender]_application_traffic_secret_N.
Figure 1: Message Flow with certificate type extension for Full TLS
1.3 Handshake
In the case of TLS 1.3, in order to negotiate the support of ITS
certificate-based authentication, clients and servers include the
extension of type "client_certificate_type" and
"server_certificate_type" in the extended Client Hello and
"EncryptedExtensions".
Msahli, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IEEE and ETSI Certificate Types for TLS April 2020
4.1. Client Hello
In order to indicate the support of ITS certificates, a client MUST
include an extension of type "client_certificate_type" or
"server_certificate_type" in the extended Client Hello message as
described in Section 4.1.2 of TLS 1.3 [RFC8446].
For both TLS 1.3, the rules for when the Client Certificate and
CertificateVerify messages appear are as follows:
- The client's Certificate message is present if and only if the
server sent a CertificateRequest message.
- The client's CertificateVerify message is present if and only if
the client's Certificate message is present and contains a non-
empty certificate_list.
For maximum compatibility, all implementations SHOULD be prepared to
handle "potentially" extraneous certificates and arbitrary orderings
from any TLS version, with the exception of the end-entity
certificate which MUST be first.
4.2. Server Hello
When the server receives the Client Hello containing the
client_certificate_type extension and/or the server_certificate_type
extension, the following scenarios are possible:
- If both client and server indicate support for the ITS
certificate type, the server MAY select the first (most preferred)
certificate type from the client's list that is supported by both
peers
- The server does not support any of the proposed certificate
types and terminates the session with a fatal alert of type
"unsupported_certificate".
- The server supports the certificate types specified in this
document. In this case, it MAY respond with a certificate of this
type. It MAY also include the client_certificate_type extension
in Encrypted Extension. Then, the server requests a certificate
from the client ( via the CertificateRequest message )
The certificates in the TLS client or server certificate chain MAY be
sent as part of the handshake, or MAY be sent obtained from an online
repository, or might already be known to and cached at the endpoint.
If the handshake does not contain all the certificates in the chain,
and the endpoint cannot access the repository, and the endpoint does
Msahli, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IEEE and ETSI Certificate Types for TLS April 2020
not already know the certificates from the chain, then it SHALL
reject the other endpoint's certificate and close the connection.
Protocols to support retrieving certificates from a repository are
specified in ETSI[ETSI102941].
5. Certificate Verification
Verification of an ITS certificates or certificate chain is described
in section 5.1 of [IEEE1609.2]. In the case of TLS 1.3 and when the
certificate_type is 1609.2, the CertificateVerify contents and
processing are different than for the CertificateVerify message
specified for other values of certificate_type in [RFC8446]. In this
case, the CertificateVerify message contains a Canonical Octet
Encoding Rules [ITU-TX.696] -encoded IEEE1609Dot2Data of type signed
as specified in [IEEE1609.2], [IEEE1609.2b], where:
Payload contains an extDataHash containing the SHA-256 hash of the
data the signature is calculated over. This is identical to the
data that the signature is calculated over it in standard TLS,
which is reproduced below for clarity.
Provider Service Identifier (Psid) indicates the application
activity that the certificate is authorizing.
generationTime is the time at which the data structure was
generated.
PduFunctionalType (as specified in [IEEE1609.2b]) is present and
is set equal to tlsHandshake (1).
All other fields in the headerInfo are omitted. The certificate
appPermissions field SHALL be present and SHALL permit (as defined in
[IEEE1609.2]) signing of PDUs with the PSID indicated in the
HeaderInfo of the SignedData. If the application specification for
that PSID requires Service Specific Permissions (SSP) for signing a
pduFunctionalType of tlsHandshake, this SSP SHALL also be present.
For more details on the use of PSID and SSP, see [IEEE1609.2] clauses
5.1.1 and 5.2.3.3.3. All other fields in the headerInfo are omitted.
The certificate appPermissions field SHALL be present and SHALL
permit (as defined in IEEE 1609.2) signing of PDUs with the PSID
indicated in the HeaderInfo of the SignedData. If the application
specification for that PSID requires Service Specific Permissions
(SSP) for signing a pduFunctionalType of tlsHandshake, this SSP SHALL
also be present.
The signature and verification are carried out as specified in
[IEEE1609.2].
Msahli, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IEEE and ETSI Certificate Types for TLS April 2020
The input to the hash process is identical to the message input for
TLS 1.3, as specified in [RFC8446] section 4.4.3, consisting of pad,
context string, separator and content, where content is Transcript-
Hash(Handshake Context, Certificate).
6. Examples
Some of message-exchange examples are illustrated in Figures 2 and 3.
6.1. TLS Server and TLS Client use the ITS Certificate
This section shows an example where the TLS client as well as the TLS
server use ITS certificates. In consequence, both the server and the
client populate the client_certificate_type and
server_certificate_type extension with the IEEE 1609 Dot 2 type as
mentioned in figure 2.
Client Server
ClientHello,
client_certificate_type=1609Dot2,
server_certificate_type=1609Dot2, --------> ServerHello,
{EncryptedExtensions}
{client_certificate_type=1609Dot2}
{server_certificate_type=1609Dot2}
{CertificateRequest}
{Certificate}
{CertificateVerify}
{Finished}
{Certificate} <------- [Application Data]
{CertificateVerify}
{Finished} -------->
[Application Data] <-------> [Application Data]
Figure 2: TLS Client and TLS Server use the ITS certificate
6.2. TLS Client uses the ITS certificate and TLS Server uses the X.509
certificate
This example shows the TLS authentication, where the TLS Client
populates the server_certificate_type extension with the X.509
certificate and Raw Public Key type as presented in figure 3. The
client indicates its ability to receive and to validate an X.509
certificate from the server. The server chooses the X.509
certificate to make its authentication with the Client. This is
applicable in case of Raw Public Key supported by the server.
Msahli, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IEEE and ETSI Certificate Types for TLS April 2020
Client Server
ClientHello,
client_certificate_type=(1609Dot2),
server_certificate_type=(1609Dot2,
X509,RawPublicKey), -----------> ServerHello,
{EncryptedExtensions}
{client_certificate_type=1609Dot2}
{server_certificate_type=X509}
{CertificateRequest}
{Certificate}
{CertificateVerify}
{Finished}
<--------- [Application Data]
{Finished} --------->
[Application Data] <--------> [Application Data]
Figure 3: TLS Client uses the ITS certificate and TLS Server uses the
X.509 certificate
7. Security Considerations
This section provides an overview of the basic security
considerations which need to be taken into account before
implementing the necessary security mechanisms. The security
considerations described throughout [RFC8446] apply here as well.
7.1. Securely Obtaining Certificates from an Online Repository
In particular, the certificates used to establish a secure connection
MAY be obtained from an online repository. An online repository may
be used to obtain the CA certificates in the chain of either
participant in the secure session. ETSI TS 102 941 [ETSI102941]
provides a mechanism that can be used to securely obtain ITS
certificates.
7.2. Expiry of Certificates
Conventions around certificate lifetime differ between ITS
certificates and X.509 certificates, and in particular ITS
certificates may be relatively short-lived compared with typical
X.509 certificates. A party to a TLS session that accepts ITS
certificates MUST check the expiry time in the received ITS
certificate and SHOULD terminate a session when the certificate
received in the handshake expires.
Msahli, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IEEE and ETSI Certificate Types for TLS April 2020
7.3. Algorithms and Cryptographic Strength
All ITS certificates use public-key cryptographic algorithms with an
estimated strength on the order of 128 bits or more, specifically,
Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) based on curves with keys of length
256 bits or longer. An implementation of the techniques specified in
this document SHOULD require that if X.509 certificates are used by
one of the parties to the session, those certificates are associated
with cryptographic algorithms with (pre-quantum-computer) strength of
at least 128 bits.
7.4. Interpreting ITS Certificate Permissions
ITS certificates in TLS express the certificate holders permissions
using two fields: a PSID, also known as an ITS Application Identifier
(ITS-AID), which identifies a broad set of application activities
which provide a context for the certificate holder's permissions, and
a Service Specific Permissions (SSP) field associated with that PSID,
which identifies which specific application activities the
certificate holder is entitled to carry out within the broad set of
activities identified by that PSID. For example, SAE [SAEJ29453]
uses PSID 0204099 to indicate activities around reporting weather and
managing weather response activities, and an SSP that states whether
the certificate holder is a Weather Data Management System (WDMS,
i.e. a central road manager), an ordinary vehicle, or a vehicle
belonging to a managed road maintenance fleet. For more information
about PSIDs, see [IEEE16092] and for more information about the
development of SSPs, see [SAEJ29455]
7.5. Psid and Pdufunctionaltype in CertificateVerify
The CertificateVerify message for TLS 1.3 is an Ieee1609Dot2Data of
type signed, signed using an ITS certificate. This certificate may
include multiple PSIDs. When a CertificateVerify message of this
form is used, the HeaderInfo within the Ieee1609Dot2Data MUST have
the pduFunctionalType field present and set to tlsHandshake. The
background to this requirement is as follows. A ITS certificate may
(depending on the definition of the application associated with its
PSID(s)) be used to directly sign messages, or to sign TLS
CertificateVerify messages, or both. To prevent the possibility that
a signature generated in one context could be replayed in a different
context i.e., that a message signature could be replayed as a
CertificateVerify, or vice versa, the pduFunctionalType field
provides a statement of intent by the signer as to the intended use
of the signed message. If the pduFunctionalType field is absent, the
message is a directly signed message for the application and MUST NOT
be interpreted as a CertificateVerify.
Msahli, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IEEE and ETSI Certificate Types for TLS April 2020
Note that each PSID is owned by an owning organization that has sole
rights to define activities associated with that PSID. If an
application specifier wishes to expand activities associated with an
existing PSID (for example, to include activities over a secure
session such as specified in this document), that application
specifier must negotiate with the PSID owner to have that
functionality added to the official specification of activities
associated with that PSID.
8. Privacy Considerations
For privacy considerations in a vehicular environment the ITS
certificate is used for many reasons:
In order to address the risk of a personal data leakage, messages
exchanged for V2V communications are signed using ITS pseudonym
certificates
The purpose of these certificates is to provide privacy and
minimize the exchange of private data
9. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains the "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions"
registry with a subregistry called "TLS Certificate Types".
IANA has previously assigned an entry (value 3) for "1609Dot2" with
reference set to draft-tls-certieee1609. IANA is requested to update
that entry to reference the RFC number of this document when it is
published.
10. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Adrian Farrel , Eric Rescola , Russ
Housley, Ilari Liusvaara and Benjamin Kaduk for their feedback and
suggestions on improving this document. Thanks are due to Sean
Turner for his valuable and detailed comments. Special thanks to
Panos Kampanakis, Jasja Tijink and Bill Lattin for their guidance and
support of the draft.
11. Normative References
[ETSI102941]
"ETSI TS 102 941 : Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS);
Security; Trust and Privacy Management", 2018.
Msahli, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IEEE and ETSI Certificate Types for TLS April 2020
[IEEE1609.2]
"IEEE Standard for Wireless Access in Vehicular
Environments - Security Services for Applications and
Management Messages", 2016.
[IEEE1609.2b]
"IEEE Standard for Wireless Access in Vehicular
Environments--Security Services for Applications and
Management Messages - Amendment 2--PDU Functional Types
and Encryption Key Management", 2019.
[IEEE16092]
"IEEE Standard for Wireless Access in Vehicular
Environments Identifier Allocations", December 2016.
[ISO21177]
"Intelligent transport systems -- ITS station security
services for secure session establishment and
authentication between trusted devices".
[ITU-TX.696]
"Procedures for the operation of object identifier
registration authorities: General procedures and top arcs
of the international object identifier tree", July 2011.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", March 1997.
[RFC7250] Wouters, P., Tschofenig, H., Weiler, S., and T. Kivinen,
"Using Raw Public Keys in Transport Layer Security (TLS)
and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", June 2014.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", May 2017.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", August 2018.
[SAEJ29453]
"Requirements for V2I Weather Applications".
[SAEJ29455]
"Service Specific Permissions and Security Guidelines for
Connected Vehicle Applications".
[TS103097]
"ETSI TS 103 097 : Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS);
Security; Security header and certificate formats".
Msahli, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IEEE and ETSI Certificate Types for TLS April 2020
Authors' Addresses
Mounira Msahli (editor)
Telecom Paris
France
EMail: mounira.msahli@telecom-paris.fr
Nancy Cam-Winget (editor)
Cisco
USA
EMail: ncamwing@cisco.com
William Whyte (editor)
Qualcomm
USA
EMail: wwhyte@qti.qualcomm.com
Ahmed Serhrouchni
Telecom Paris
France
EMail: ahmed.serhrouchni@telecom-paris.fr
Houda Labiod
Telecom Paris
France
EMail: houda.labiod@telecom-paris.fr
Msahli, et al. Expires October 15, 2020 [Page 14]
