RFC1851 - The ESP Triple DES Transform

领测软件测试网

　　 
Network Working Group P. Karn
Request for Comments: 1851 Qualcomm
Category: Experimental P. Metzger
Piermont
W. Simpson
Daydreamer
September 1995

The ESP Triple DES Transform

Status of this Memo

This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. This does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

This document describes the Triple DES-CBC security transform for the
IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP).

Table of Contents

1. Introduction .......................................... 2
1.1 Keys ............................................ 2
1.2 Initialization Vector ........................... 2
1.3 Data Size ....................................... 3
1.4 Performance ..................................... 3

2. Payload Format ........................................ 4

3. Algorithm ............................................. 6
3.1 Encryption ...................................... 6
3.2 Decryption ...................................... 7

SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS ...................................... 7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................. 8
REFERENCES ................................................... 9
AUTHOR'S ADDRESS ............................................. 11

1. Introduction

The Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) [RFC-1827] provides
confidentiality for IP datagrams by encrypting the payload data to be
protected. This specification describes the ESP use of a variant of
of the Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) mode of the US Data Encryption
Standard (DES) algorithm [FIPS-46, FIPS-46-1, FIPS-74, FIPS-81].
This variant, known as Triple DES (3DES), processes each block of the
plaintext three times, each time with a different key [Tuchman79].

This document assumes that the reader is familiar with the related
document "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol" [RFC-
1825], which defines the overall security plan for IP, and provides
important background for this specification.

1.1. Keys

The secret 3DES key shared between the communicating parties is
effectively 168-bits long. This key consists of three independent
56-bit quantities used by the DES algorithm. Each of the three 56-
bit subkeys is stored as a 64-bit (eight octet) quantity, with the
least significant bit of each octet used as a parity bit.

1.2. Initialization Vector

This mode of 3DES requires an Initialization Vector (IV) that is
eight octets in length.

Each datagram contains its own IV. Including the IV in each datagram
ensures that decryption of each received datagram can be performed,
even when other datagrams are dropped, or datagrams are re-ordered in
transit.

The method for selection of IV values is implementation dependent.

Notes:
A common acceptable technique is simply a counter, beginning with
a randomly chosen value. While this provides an easy method for
preventing repetition, and is sufficiently robust for practical
use, cryptanalysis may use the rare serendipitous occurrence when
a corresponding bit position in the first DES block increments in
exactly the same fashion.

Other implementations exhibit unpredictability, usually through a
pseudo-random number generator. Care should be taken that the
periodicity of the number generator is long enough to prevent
repetition during the lifetime of the session key.

1.3. Data Size

The 3DES algorithm operates on blocks of eight octets. This often
requires padding after the end of the unencrypted payload data.

Both input and output result in the same number of octets, which
facilitates in-place encryption and decryption.

On receipt, if the length of the data to be decrypted is not an
integral multiple of eight octets, then an error is indicated, as
described in [RFC-1825].

1.4. Performance

Three DES-CBC implementations may be pipelined in series to provide
parallel computation. At the time of writing, at least one hardware
implementation can encrypt or decrypt at about 1 Gbps [Schneier94, p.
231].

2. Payload Format

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Security Parameters Index (SPI) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Initialization Vector (IV) ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Payload Data ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... Padding | Pad Length | Payload Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Security Parameters Index (SPI)

A 32-bit value identifying the Security Parameters for this
datagram. The value MUST NOT be zero.

Initialization Vector (IV)

The size of this field is variable, although it is constant for
all 3DES datagrams of the same SPI and IP Destination. Octets are
sent in network order (most significant octet first) [RFC-1700].

The size MUST be a multiple of 32-bits. Sizes of 32 and 64 bits
are required to be supported. The use of other sizes is beyond
the scope of this specification. The size is expected to be
indicated by the key management mechanism.

When the size is 32-bits, a 64-bit IV is formed from the 32-bit
value followed by (concatenated with) the bit-wise complement of
the 32-bit value. This field size is most common, as it aligns
the Payload Data for both 32-bit and 64-bit processing.

All conformant implementations MUST also correctly process a 64-
bit field size. This provides strict compatibility with existing
hardware implementations.

It is the intent that the value not repeat during the lifetime
of the encryption session key. Even when a full 64-bit IV is
used, the session key SHOULD be changed at least as frequently
as 2**32 datagrams.

Payload Data

The size of this field is variable.

Prior to encryption and after decryption, this field begins with
the IP Protocol/Payload header specified in the Payload Type
field. Note that in the case of IP-in-IP encapsulation (Payload
Type 4), this will be another IP header.

Padding

The size of this field is variable.

Prior to encryption, it is filled with unspecified implementation
dependent (preferably random) values, to align the Pad Length and
Payload Type fields at an eight octet boundary.

After decryption, it MUST be ignored.

Pad Length

This field indicates the size of the Padding field. It does not
include the Pad Length and Payload Type fields. The value
typically ranges from 0 to 7, but may be up to 255 to permit
hiding of the actual data length.

This field is opaque. That is, the value is set prior to
encryption, and is examined only after decryption.

Payload Type

This field indicates the contents of the Payload Data field, using
the IP Protocol/Payload value. Up-to-date values of the IP
Protocol/Payload are specified in the most recent "Assigned
Numbers" [RFC-1700].

This field is opaque. That is, the value is set prior to
encryption, and is examined only after decryption.

For example, when encrypting an entire IP datagram (Tunnel-
Mode), this field will contain the value 4, which indicates
IP-in-IP encapsulation.

3. Algorithm

The 3DES algorithm is a simple variant on the DES-CBC algorithm. The
DES function is replaced by three rounds of that function, an
encryption followed by a decryption followed by an encryption, each
with independant keys, k1, k2 and k3.

Note that when all three keys (k1, k2 and k3) are the same, 3DES is
equivalent to DES-CBC. This property allows the 3DES hardware
implementations to operate in DES mode without modification.

For more explanation and implementation information for Triple DES,
see [Schneier94].

3.1. Encryption

Append zero or more octets of (preferably random) padding to the
plaintext, to make its modulo 8 length equal to 6. For example, if
the plaintext length is 41, 5 octets of padding are added.

Append a Pad Length octet containing the number of padding octets
just added.

Append a Payload Type octet containing the IP Protocol/Payload value
which identifies the protocol header that begins the payload.

Provide an Initialization Vector (IV) of the size indicated by the
SPI.

Encrypt the payload with Triple DES (EDE mode), producing a
ciphertext of the same length.

Octets are mapped to DES blocks in network order (most significant
octet first) [RFC-1700]. Octet 0 (modulo 8) of the payload
corresponds to bits 1-8 of the 64-bit DES input block, while octet 7
(modulo 8) corresponds to bits 57-64 of the DES input block.

Construct an appropriate IP datagram for the target Destination, with
the indicated SPI, IV, and payload.

The Total/Payload Length in the encapsulating IP Header reflects the
length of the encrypted data, plus the SPI, IV, padding, Pad Length,
and Payload Type octets.

3.2. Decryption

First, the SPI field is removed and examined. This is used as an
index into the local Security Parameter table to find the negotiated
parameters and decryption key.

The negotiated form of the IV determines the size of the IV field.
These octets are removed, and an appropriate 64-bit IV value is
constructed.

The encrypted part of the payload is decrypted using Triple DES (DED
mode).

The Payload Type is removed and examined. If it is unrecognized, the
payload is discarded with an appropriate ICMP message.

The Pad Length is removed and examined. The specified number of pad
octets are removed from the end of the decrypted payload, and the IP
Total/Payload Length is adjusted accordingly.

The IP Header(s) and the remaining portion of the decrypted payload
are passed to the protocol receive routine specified by the Payload
Type field.

Security Considerations

Users need to understand that the quality of the security provided by
this specification depends completely on the strength of the Triple
DES algorithm, the correctness of that algorithm's implementation,
the security of the key management mechanism and its implementation,
the strength of the key [CN94], and upon the correctness of the
implementations in all of the participating nodes.

Among other considerations, applications may wish to take care not to
select weak keys for any of the three DES rounds, although the odds
of picking one at random are low [Schneier94, p. 233].

It was originally thought that DES might be a group, but it has been
demonstrated that it is not [CW92]. Since DES is not a group,
composition of multiple rounds of DES is not equivalent to simply
using DES with a different key.

Triple DES with independent keys is not, as naively might be
expected, as difficult to break by brute force as a cryptosystem with
three times the keylength. A space/time tradeoff has been shown
which can brute-force break triple block encryptions in the time

naively expected for double encryption [MH81].

However, 2DES can be broken with a meet-in-the-middle attack, without
significantly more complexity than breaking DES requires [ibid], so
3DES with independant keys is actually needed to provide this level
of security. An attack on 3DES using two independent keys that is
somewhat (sixteen times) faster than any known for independent keys
has been shown [OW91].

The cut and paste attack described by [Bell95] exploits the nature of
all Cipher Block Chaining algorithms. When a block is damaged in
transmission, on decryption both it and the following block will be
garbled by the decryption process, but all subsequent blocks will be
decrypted correctly. If an attacker has legitimate access to the
same key, this feature can be used to insert or replay previously
encrypted data of other users of the same engine, revealing the
plaintext. The usual (ICMP, TCP, UDP) transport checksum can detect
this attack, but on its own is not considered cryptographically
strong. In this situation, user or connection oriented integrity
checking is needed [RFC-1826].

Although it is widely believed that 3DES is substantially stronger
than DES, as it is less amenable to brute force attack, it should be
noted that real cryptanalysis of 3DES might not use brute force
methods at all. Instead, it might be performed using variants on
differential [BS93] or linear [Matsui94] cryptanalysis. It should
also be noted that no encryption algorithm is permanently safe from
brute force attack, because of the increasing speed of modern
computers.

As with all cryptosystems, those responsible for applications with
substantial risk when security is breeched should pay close attention
to developments in cryptography, and especially cryptanalysis, and
switch to other transforms should 3DES prove weak.

Acknowledgements

Some of the text of this specification was derived from work by
Randall Atkinson for the SIP, SIPP, and IPv6 Working Groups.

Comments should be submitted to the ipsec@ans.net mailing list.

References

[Bell95] Bellovin, S., "An Issue With DES-CBC When Used Without
Strong Integrity", Proceedings of the 32nd IETF, Danvers,
MA, April 1995.

[BS93] Biham, E., and Shamir, A., "Differential Cryptanalysis of
the Data Encryption Standard", Berlin: Springer-Verlag,
1993.

[CN94] Carroll, J.M., and Nudiati, S., "On Weak Keys and Weak Data:
Foiling the Two Nemeses", Cryptologia, Vol. 18 No. 23 pp.
253-280, July 1994.

[CW92] Campbell, K.W., and Wiener, M.J., "Proof that DES Is Not a
Group", Advances in Cryptology -- Crypto '92 Proceedings,
Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1993, pp 518-526.

[FIPS-46]
US National Bureau of Standards, "Data Encryption Standard",
Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) Publication
46, January 1977.

[FIPS-46-1]
US National Bureau of Standards, "Data Encryption Standard",
Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) Publication
46-1, January 1988.

[FIPS-74]
US National Bureau of Standards, "Guidelines for
Implementing and Using the Data Encryption Standard",
Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) Publication
74, April 1981.

[FIPS-81]
US National Bureau of Standards, "DES Modes of Operation"
Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) Publication
81, December 1980.

[Matsui94]
Matsui, M., "Linear Cryptanalysis method dor DES Cipher,"
Advances in Cryptology -- Eurocrypt '93 Proceedings, Berlin:
Springer-Verlag, 1994.

[MH81] Merle, R.C., and Hellman, M., "On the Security of Multiple
Encryption", Communications of the ACM, v. 24 n. 7, 1981,
pp. 465-467.

[OW91] van Oorschot, P.C., and Weiner, M.J. "A Known-Plaintext
Attack on Two-Key Triple Encryption", Advances in Cryptology
-- Eurocrypt '90 Proceedings, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1991,
pp. 318-325.

[RFC-1800]
Postel, J., "Internet Official Protocol Standards", STD 1,
RFC1800, USC/Information Sciences Institute, July 1995.

[RFC-1700]
Reynolds, J., and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC
1700, USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1994.

[RFC-1825]
Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for the Internet
Protocol", RFC-1825, Naval Research Laboratory, July 1995.

[RFC-1826]
Atkinson, R., "IP Authentication Header", RFC-1826, Naval
Research Laboratory, July 1995.

[RFC-1827]
Atkinson, R., "IP Encapsulating Security Protocol (ESP)",
RFC-1827, Naval Research Laboratory, July 1995.

[Schneier94]
Schneier, B., "Applied Cryptography", John Wiley & Sons, New
York, NY, 1994. ISBN 0-471-59756-2

[Tuchman79]
Tuchman, W, "Hellman Presents No Shortcut Solutions to DES",
IEEE Spectrum, v. 16 n. 7, July 1979, pp. 40-41.

Author's Address

Questions about this memo can also be directed to:

Phil Karn
Qualcomm, Inc.
6455 Lusk Blvd.
San Diego, California 92121-2779

karn@unix.ka9q.ampr.org

Perry Metzger
Piermont Information Systems Inc.
160 Cabrini Blvd., Suite #2
New York, NY 10033

perry@piermont.com

William Allen Simpson
Daydreamer
Computer Systems Consulting Services
1384 Fontaine
Madison Heights, Michigan 48071

文章来源于领测软件测试网 https://www.ltesting.net/