TOC 
MSECV. Roca
Internet-DraftA. Francillon
Intended status: ExperimentalS. Faurite
Expires: April 25, 2009INRIA
 October 22, 2008


Use of TESLA in the ALC and NORM Protocols
draft-ietf-msec-tesla-for-alc-norm-06.txt

Status of this Memo

By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

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.”

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

This Internet-Draft will expire on April 25, 2009.

Abstract

This document details the TESLA packet source authentication and packet integrity verification protocol and its integration within the ALC and NORM content delivery protocols. This document only considers the authentication/integrity verification of the packets generated by the session's sender. The authentication and integrity verification of the packets sent by receivers, if any, is out of the scope of this document.



Table of Contents

1.  Introduction
    1.1.  Scope of this Document
    1.2.  Conventions Used in this Document
    1.3.  Terminology and Notations
        1.3.1.  Notations and Definitions Related to Cryptographic Functions
        1.3.2.  Notations and Definitions Related to Time
2.  Using TESLA with ALC and NORM: General Operations
    2.1.  ALC and NORM Specificities that Impact TESLA
    2.2.  Bootstrapping TESLA
        2.2.1.  Bootstrapping TESLA with an Out-Of-Band Mechanism
        2.2.2.  Bootstrapping TESLA with an In-Band Mechanism
    2.3.  Setting Up a Secure Time Synchronization
        2.3.1.  Direct Time Synchronization
        2.3.2.  Indirect Time Synchronization
    2.4.  Determining the Delay Bounds
        2.4.1.  Delay Bound Calculation in Direct Time Synchronization Mode
        2.4.2.  Delay Bound Calculation in Indirect time Synchronization Mode
3.  Sender Operations
    3.1.  TESLA Parameters
        3.1.1.  Time Intervals
        3.1.2.  Key Chains
        3.1.3.  Time Interval Schedule
        3.1.4.  Timing Parameters
    3.2.  TESLA Signaling Messages
        3.2.1.  Bootstrap Information
        3.2.2.  Direct Time Synchronization Response
    3.3.  TESLA Authentication Information
        3.3.1.  Authentication Tags
        3.3.2.  Digital Signatures
        3.3.3.  Group MAC Tags
    3.4.  Format of TESLA Messages and Authentication Tags
        3.4.1.  Format of a Bootstrap Information Message
        3.4.2.  Format of a Direct Time Synchronization Response
        3.4.3.  Format of a Standard Authentication Tag
        3.4.4.  Format of a Standard Authentication Tag Without Key Disclosure
        3.4.5.  Format of an Authentication Tag with a ``New Key Chain'' Commitment
        3.4.6.  Format of an Authentication Tag with a ``Last Key of Old Chain'' Disclosure
        3.4.7.  Format of the Compact Authentication Tags
4.  Receiver Operations
    4.1.  Verification of the Authentication Information
        4.1.1.  Processing the Group MAC Tag
        4.1.2.  Processing the Digital Signature
        4.1.3.  Processing the Authentication Tag
    4.2.  Initialization of a Receiver
        4.2.1.  Processing the Bootstrap Information Message
        4.2.2.  Performing Time Synchronization
    4.3.  Authentication of Received Packets
        4.3.1.  Wrong Guess of the i Parameter
        4.3.2.  Discarding Unnecessary Packets Earlier
    4.4.  Flushing the Non Authenticated Packets of a Previous Key Chain
5.  Integration in the ALC and NORM Protocols
    5.1.  Authentication Header Extension Format
    5.2.  Use of Authentication Header Extensions
        5.2.1.  EXT_AUTH Header Extension of Type Bootstrap Information
        5.2.2.  EXT_AUTH Header Extension of Type Authentication Tag
        5.2.3.  EXT_AUTH Header Extension of Type Direct Time Synchronization Request
        5.2.4.  EXT_AUTH Header Extension of Type Direct Time Synchronization Response
6.  Security Considerations
    6.1.  Dealing With DoS Attacks
    6.2.  Dealing With Replay Attacks
        6.2.1.  Impacts of Replay Attacks on TESLA
        6.2.2.  Impacts of Replay Attacks on NORM
        6.2.3.  Impacts of Replay Attacks on ALC
7.  IANA Considerations
8.  Acknowledgments
9.  References
    9.1.  Normative References
    9.2.  Informative References
§  Authors' Addresses
§  Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements




 TOC 

1.  Introduction

Many applications using multicast and broadcast communications require that each receiver be able to authenticate the source of any packet it receives as well as the integrity of these packets. This is the case with ALC [RMT‑PI‑ALC] (Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, “Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) Protocol Instantiation,” November 2007.) and NORM [RMT‑PI‑NORM] (Adamson, B., Bormann, C., Handley, M., and J. Macker, “Negative-acknowledgment (NACK)-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) Protocol,” January 2008.), two Content Delivery Protocols (CDP) designed to transfer reliably objects (e.g., files) between a session's sender and several receivers. The NORM protocol is based on bidirectional transmissions. Each receiver acknowledges data received or, in case of packet erasures, asks for retransmissions. On the opposite, the ALC protocol is based on purely unidirectional transmissions. Reliability is achieved by means of the cyclic transmission of the content within a carousel and/or by the use of proactive Forward Error Correction codes (FEC). Both protocols have in common the fact that they operate at application level, on top of an erasure channel (e.g., the Internet) where packets can be lost (erased) during the transmission.

The goal of this document is to counter attacks where an attacker impersonates the ALC or NORM session's sender and injects forged packets to the receivers, thereby corrupting the objects reconstructed by the receivers.

Preventing this attack is much more complex in case of group communications than it is with unicast communications. Indeed, with unicast communications a simple solution exists: the sender and the receiver share a secret key to compute a Message Authentication Code (MAC) of all messages exchanged. This is no longer feasible in case of multicast and broadcast communications since sharing a group key between the sender and all receivers implies that any group member can impersonate the sender and send forged messages to other receivers.

The usual solution to provide the source authentication and message integrity services in case of multicast and broadcast communications consists in relying on asymmetric cryptography and using digital signatures. Yet this solution is limited by high computational costs and high transmission overheads. The Timed Efficient Stream Loss-tolerant Authentication protocol (TESLA) is an alternative solution that provides the two required services, while being compatible with high rate transmissions over lossy channels.

This document explains how to integrate the TESLA source authentication and packet integrity protocol to the ALC and NORM CDP. Any application built on top of ALC and NORM will directly benefit from the services offered by TESLA at the transport layer. In particular, this is the case of FLUTE.

For more information on the TESLA protocol and its principles, please refer to [RFC4082] (Perrig, A., Song, D., Canetti, R., Tygar, J., and B. Briscoe, “Timed Efficient Stream Loss-Tolerant Authentication (TESLA): Multicast Source Authentication Transform Introduction,” June 2005.)[Perrig04] (Perrig, A. and J. Tygar, “Secure Broadcast Communication in Wired and Wireless Networks,” 2004.). For more information on ALC and NORM, please refer to [RMT‑PI‑ALC] (Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, “Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) Protocol Instantiation,” November 2007.), [RMT‑BB‑LCT] (Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, “Layered Coding Transport (LCT) Building Block,” July 2008.) and [RMT‑PI‑NORM] (Adamson, B., Bormann, C., Handley, M., and J. Macker, “Negative-acknowledgment (NACK)-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) Protocol,” January 2008.) respectively. For more information on FLUTE, please refer to [RMT‑FLUTE] (Paila, T., Walsh, R., Luby, M., Lehtonen, R., and V. Roca, “FLUTE - File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport,” October 2007.).



 TOC 

1.1.  Scope of this Document

This specification only considers the authentication/integrity of the packets generated by the session's sender. This specification does not consider the packets that may be sent by receivers, for instance NORM's feedback packets. However, since this is usually a low-rate flow (unlike the downstream flow), using computing intensive techniques like digital signatures is often acceptable. The Section 5 (Integration in the ALC and NORM Protocols) explains how to use several authentication schemes in a given session, which can be used to that purpose.

This specification relies on several external mechanisms, for instance:

These mechanisms are required in order to bootstrap TESLA at a sender and at a receiver and must be deployed in parallel to TESLA. Besides, the randomness of the Primary Key of the key chain (Section 3.1.2 (Key Chains)) is vital to the security of TESLA. Therefore the sender needs a appropriate mechanism to generate this random key.

Several technical details of TESLA, like the most appropriate way to alternate between the transmission of a key disclosure and a commitment to a new key chain, or the transmission of a key disclosure and the last key of the previous key chain, or the disclosure of a key and the compact flavor that does not disclose any key, are specific to the target use-case (Section 3.1.2 (Key Chains)). For instance, it depends on the number of packets sent per time interval, on the desired robustness and the acceptable transmission overhead, which can only be optimized after taking into account the use-case specificities.



 TOC 

1.2.  Conventions Used in this Document

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.).



 TOC 

1.3.  Terminology and Notations

The following notations and definitions are used throughout this document.



 TOC 

1.3.1.  Notations and Definitions Related to Cryptographic Functions

Notations and definitions related to cryptographic functions [RFC4082] (Perrig, A., Song, D., Canetti, R., Tygar, J., and B. Briscoe, “Timed Efficient Stream Loss-Tolerant Authentication (TESLA): Multicast Source Authentication Transform Introduction,” June 2005.)[RFC4383] (Baugher, M. and E. Carrara, “The Use of Timed Efficient Stream Loss-Tolerant Authentication (TESLA) in the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP),” February 2006.):



 TOC 

1.3.2.  Notations and Definitions Related to Time

Notations and definitions related to time:



 TOC 

2.  Using TESLA with ALC and NORM: General Operations



 TOC 

2.1.  ALC and NORM Specificities that Impact TESLA

The ALC and NORM protocols have features and requirements that largely impact the way TESLA can be used.

In case of ALC:

Depending on the use case, some of the above features may not apply. For instance ALC can also be used over a bidirectional channel or with a limited number of receivers.

In case of NORM:



 TOC 

2.2.  Bootstrapping TESLA

In order to initialize the TESLA component at a receiver, the sender MUST communicate some key information in a secure way, so that the receiver can check the source of the information and its integrity. Two general methods are possible:

The current specification does not recommend any mechanism to bootstrap TESLA. Choosing between an in-band and out-of-band scheme is left to the implementer, depending on the target use-case.



 TOC 

2.2.1.  Bootstrapping TESLA with an Out-Of-Band Mechanism

For instance [RFC4442] (Fries, S. and H. Tschofenig, “Bootstrapping Timed Efficient Stream Loss-Tolerant Authentication (TESLA),” March 2006.) describes the use of the MIKEY (Multimedia Internet Keying) protocol to bootstrap TESLA. As a side effect, MIKEY also provides a loose time synchronization feature, that TESLA can benefit. Other solutions, for instance based on an extended session description, are possible, on condition these solutions provide the required security level.



 TOC 

2.2.2.  Bootstrapping TESLA with an In-Band Mechanism

This specification describes an in-band mechanism. In some use-cases, it might be desired that bootstrap take place without requiring the use of an additional external mechanism. For instance each device may feature a clock with a known time-drift that is negligible in front of the time accuracy required by TESLA, and each device may embed the public key of the sender. It is also possible that the use-case does not feature a bidirectional channel which prevents the use of out-of-band protocols like MIKEY. For these two examples, the exchange of a bootstrap information message (described in Section 3.4.1 (Format of a Bootstrap Information Message)) and the knowledge of a few additional parameters (listed below) are sufficient to bootstrap TESLA at a receiver.

Some parameters cannot be communicated in-band. In particular:

The way these parameters are communicated is out of the scope of this document.



 TOC 

2.3.  Setting Up a Secure Time Synchronization

The security offered by TESLA heavily relies on time. Therefore the session's sender and each receiver need to be time synchronized in a secure way. To that purpose, two general methods exist:

It is also possible that a given session include receivers that use the direct time synchronization mode while others use the indirect time synchronization mode.



 TOC 

2.3.1.  Direct Time Synchronization

When direct time synchronization is used, each receiver asks the sender for a time synchronization. To that purpose, a receiver sends a "Direct Time Synchronization Request" (Section 4.2.2.1 (Direct Time Synchronization)). The sender then directly answers to each request with a "Direct Time Synchronization Response" (Section 3.4.2 (Format of a Direct Time Synchronization Response)), signing this reply. Upon receiving this response, a receiver first verifies the signature, and then calculates an upper bound of the lag of his clock with respect to the clock of the sender, D_t. The details on how to calculate D_t are given in Section 2.4.1 (Delay Bound Calculation in Direct Time Synchronization Mode).

This synchronization method is both simple and secure. Yet there are two potential issues:

Relying on direct time synchronization is not expected to be an issue with NORM since (1) bidirectional communications already take place, and (2) NORM scalability is anyway limited. Yet it can be required that a mechanism, that is out of the scope of this document, be used to spread the transmission of "Direct time synchronization request" messages over the time if there is a risk that the sender may collapse.

But direct time synchronization is potentially incompatible with ALC since (1) there might not be a back channel and (2) there are potentially a huge number of receivers and therefore a risk that the sender collapses.



 TOC 

2.3.2.  Indirect Time Synchronization

When indirect time synchronization is used, the sender and each receiver must synchronize securely via an external time reference. Several possibilities exist:

A bidirectional channel is required by the NTP/SNTP schemes. On the opposite, with the GPS/Galileo and high precision clock schemes, no such assumption is made. In situations where ALC is used on purely unidirectional transport channels (Section 2.1 (ALC and NORM Specificities that Impact TESLA)), using the NTP/SNTP schemes is not possible. Another aspect is the scalability requirement of ALC, and to a lesser extent of NORM. From this point of view, the above mechanisms usually do not raise any problem, unlike the direct time synchronization schemes. Therefore, using indirect time synchronization can be a good choice.

The details on how to calculate an upper bound of the lag of a receiver's clock with respect to the clock of the sender, D_t, are given in Section 2.4.2 (Delay Bound Calculation in Indirect time Synchronization Mode).



 TOC 

2.4.  Determining the Delay Bounds

Let us assume that a secure time synchronization has been set up. This section explains how to define the various timing parameters that are used during the authentication of received packets.



 TOC 

2.4.1.  Delay Bound Calculation in Direct Time Synchronization Mode

In direct time synchronization mode, synchronization between a receiver and the sender follows the following protocol [RFC4082] (Perrig, A., Song, D., Canetti, R., Tygar, J., and B. Briscoe, “Timed Efficient Stream Loss-Tolerant Authentication (TESLA): Multicast Source Authentication Transform Introduction,” June 2005.):

After this initial synchronization, at any point throughout the session, the receiver knows that: T_s < T_r + D_t, where T_s is the current time at the sender and T_r is the current time at the receiver.



 TOC 

2.4.2.  Delay Bound Calculation in Indirect time Synchronization Mode

In indirect time synchronization, the sender and the receivers must synchronize indirectly with one or several time references.



 TOC 

2.4.2.1.  Single time reference

Let us assume that there is a single time reference.

  1. The sender calculates D^O_t, the upper bound of the lag of the sender's clock with respect to the time reference. This D^O_t value is then be communicated to the receivers (Section 3.2.1 (Bootstrap Information)).
  2. Similarly, a receiver R calculates D^R_t, the upper bound of the lag of the receiver's clock with respect to the time reference.
  3. Then, for receiver R, the overall upper bound of the lag of the receiver's clock with respect to the clock of the sender, D_t, is the sum: D_t = D^O_t + D^R_t.

The D^O_t and D^R_t calculation depends on the time synchronization mechanism used (Section 2.3.2 (Indirect Time Synchronization)). In some cases, the synchronization scheme specifications provide these values. In other cases, these parameters can be calculated by means of a scheme similar to the one specified in Section 2.4.1 (Delay Bound Calculation in Direct Time Synchronization Mode), for instance when synchronization is achieved via a group controller [RFC4082] (Perrig, A., Song, D., Canetti, R., Tygar, J., and B. Briscoe, “Timed Efficient Stream Loss-Tolerant Authentication (TESLA): Multicast Source Authentication Transform Introduction,” June 2005.).



 TOC 

2.4.2.2.  Multiple time references

Let us now assume that there are several time references (e.g., several NTP/SNTP servers). The sender and receivers use the direct time synchronization scheme to synchronize with the various time references. It results in D^O_t and D^R_t. Let D_err be an upper bound of the time error between all the time references. Then, the overall value of D_t within receiver R is set to the sum: D_t = D^O_t + D^R_t + D_err.

In some cases, the D_t value is part of the time synchronization scheme specifications. For instance NTPv3 [RFC1305] (Mills, D., “Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Specification, Implementation,” March 1992.) defines algorithms that are "capable of accuracies in the order of a millisecond, even after extended periods when synchronization to primary reference sources has been lost". In practice, depending on the NTP server stratum, the accuracy might be a little bit worse. In that case, D_t = security_factor * (1ms + 1ms), where the security_factor is meant to compensate several sources of inaccuracy in NTP. The choice of the security_factor value is left to the implementer, depending on the target use-case.



 TOC 

3.  Sender Operations

This section describes the TESLA operations at a sender.



 TOC 

3.1.  TESLA Parameters



 TOC 

3.1.1.  Time Intervals

The sender divides the time into uniform intervals of duration T_int. Time interval numbering starts at 0 and is incremented consecutively. The interval index MUST be stored in an unsigned 32 bit integer so that wrapping to 0 takes place only after 2^^32 intervals. For instance, if T_int is equal to 0.5 seconds, then wrapping takes place after approximately 68 years.



 TOC 

3.1.2.  Key Chains



 TOC 

3.1.2.1.  Principles

The sender computes a one-way key chain of n_c = N+1 keys, and assigns one key from the chain to each interval, consecutively but in reverse order. Key numbering starts at 0 and is incremented consecutively, following the time interval numbering: K_0, K_1 .. K_N.

In order to compute this chain, the sender must first select a Primary Key, K_N, and a PRF function, f. The functions F and F' are two one-way functions that are defined as: F(k)=f_k(0) and F'(k)=f_k(1), where f_k is the result of the k-th application of the PRF function f. The sender computes all the keys of the chain, starting with K_N, using: K_{i-1} = F(K_i). The key for MAC calculation can then be derived from the corresponding K_i key by K'_i=F'(K_i). The randomness of the Primary Key, K_N, is vital to the security and no one should be able to guess it.

The key chain has a finite length, N, which corresponds to a maximum time duration of (N + 1) * T_int. The content delivery session has a duration T_delivery, which may either be known in advance, or not. A first solution consists in having a single key chain of an appropriate length, so that the content delivery session finishes before the end of the key chain, i.e., T_delivery ≤ (N + 1) * T_int. But the longer the key chain, the higher the memory and computation required to cope with it. Another solution consists in switching to a new key chain, of the same length, when necessary (see Figure 1 (Switching to the second key chain with the in-band mechanism, assuming that d=2, n_tx_newkcc=3, n_tx_lastkey=3.)) [Perrig04] (Perrig, A. and J. Tygar, “Secure Broadcast Communication in Wired and Wireless Networks,” 2004.).



 TOC 

3.1.2.2.  Using Multiple Key Chains

When several key chains are needed, all of them MUST be of the same length. Switching from the current key chain to the next one requires that a commitment to the new key chain be communicated in a secure way to the receiver. This can be done by using either an out-of-band mechanism, or an in-band mechanism. This document only specifies the in-band mechanism.



< -------- old key chain --------- >||< -------- new key chain --...
+-----+-----+ .. +-----+-----+-----+||+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
   0     1    ..   N-2   N-1    N   ||  N+1   N+2   N+3   N+4   N+5
                                    ||
Key disclosures:                    ||
  N/A   N/A   ..  K_N-4 K_N-3 K_N-2 || K_N-1  K_N  K_N+1 K_N+2 K_N+3
                 |                  ||            |                 |
                 |< -------------- >||            |< ------------- >|
Additional key        F(K_N+1)      ||                   K_N
disclosures        (commitment to   ||              (last key of the
(in parallel):      the new chain)  ||                 old chain)
 Figure 1: Switching to the second key chain with the in-band mechanism, assuming that d=2, n_tx_newkcc=3, n_tx_lastkey=3. 

Figure 1 (Switching to the second key chain with the in-band mechanism, assuming that d=2, n_tx_newkcc=3, n_tx_lastkey=3.) illustrates the switch to the new key chain, using the in-band mechanism. Let us say that the old key chain stops at K_N and the new key chain starts at K_{N+1} (i.e., F(K_{N+1}) and K_N are two different keys). Then the sender includes the commitment F(K_{N+1}) to the new key chain to packets authenticated with the old key chain (see Section 3.4.5 (Format of an Authentication Tag with a ``New Key Chain'' Commitment)). This commitment SHOULD be sent during n_tx_newkcc time intervals before the end of the old key chain. Since several packets are usually sent during an interval, the sender SHOULD alternate between sending a disclosed key of the old key chain and the commitment to the new key chain. The details of how to alternate between the disclosure and commitment are out of the scope of this document.

The receiver will keep the commitment until the key K_{N+1} is disclosed, at interval N+1+d. Then the receiver will be able to test the validity of that key by computing F(K_{N+1}) and comparing it to the commitment.

When the key chain is changed, it becomes impossible to recover a previous key from the old key chain. This is a problem if the receiver lost the packets disclosing the last key of the old key chain. A solution consists in re-sending the last key, K_N, of the old key chain (see Section 3.4.6 (Format of an Authentication Tag with a ``Last Key of Old Chain'' Disclosure)). This SHOULD be done during n_tx_lastkey additional time intervals after the end of the time interval where K_N is disclosed. Since several packets are usually sent during an interval, the sender SHOULD alternate between sending a disclosed key of the new key chain, and the last key of the old key chain. The details of how to alternate between the two disclosures are out of the scope of this document.

In some cases a receiver having experienced a very long disconnection might have lost the commitment of the new chain. Therefore this receiver will not be able to authenticate any packet related to the new chain and all the following ones. The only solution for this receiver to catch up consists in receiving an additional bootstrap information message. This can happen by waiting for the next periodic transmission (in indirect time synchronization mode), by requesting it (in direct time synchronization mode), or through an external mechanism (Section 3.2.1 (Bootstrap Information)).



 TOC 

3.1.2.3.  Values of the n_tx_lastkey and n_tx_newkcc Parameters

When several key chains and the in-band commitment mechanism are used, a sender MUST initialize the n_tx_lastkey and n_tx_newkcc parameters in such a way that no overlapping occur. In other words, once a sender starts transmitting commitments for a new key chain, he MUST NOT send a disclosure for the last key of the old key chain any more. Therefore, the following property MUST be verified:

d + n_tx_lastkey + n_tx_newkcc ≤ N + 1

It is RECOMMENDED, for robustness purposes, that, once n_tx_lastkey has been chosen, then:

n_tx_newkcc = N + 1 - n_tx_lastkey - d

In other words, the sender starts transmitting a commitment to the following key chain immediately after having sent all the disclosures of the last key of the previous key chain. Doing so increases the probability that a receiver gets a commitment for the following key chain.

In any case, these two parameters are sender specific and need not be transmitted to the receivers. Of course, as explained above, the sender alternates between the disclosure of a key of the current key chain and the commitment to the new key chain (or the last key of the old key chain).



 TOC 

3.1.2.4.  The Particular Case of the Session Start

Since a key cannot be disclosed before the disclosure delay, d, no key will be disclosed during the first d time intervals (intervals 0 and 1 in Figure 1 (Switching to the second key chain with the in-band mechanism, assuming that d=2, n_tx_newkcc=3, n_tx_lastkey=3.)) of the session. To that purpose, the sender uses the standard authentication tag without key disclosure Section 3.4.4 (Format of a Standard Authentication Tag Without Key Disclosure) or its compact flavor. The following key chains, if any, are not concerned since they will disclose the last d keys of the previous chain.



 TOC 

3.1.2.5.  Managing Silent Periods

An ALC or NORM sender may stop transmitting packets for some time. For instance it can be the end of the session and all packets have already been sent, or the use-case may consist in a succession of busy periods (when fresh objects are available) followed by silent periods. In any case, this is an issue since the authentication of the packets sent during the last d intervals requires that the associated keys be disclosed, which will take place during d additional time intervals.

To solve this problem, it is recommended that the sender transmit empty packets (i.e., without payload) containing the TESLA EXT_AUTH header extension along with a standard authentication tag (or its compact flavor) during at least d time intervals after the end of the regular ALC or NORM packet transmissions. The number of such packets and the duration during which they are sent must be sufficient for all receivers to receive, with a high probability, at least one packet disclosing the last useful key (i.e., the key used for the last non-empty packet sent).



 TOC 

3.1.3.  Time Interval Schedule

The sender must determine the following parameters:

The correct choice of T_int, d, and N is crucial for the efficiency of the scheme. For instance, a T_int * d product that is too long will cause excessive delay in the authentication process. A T_int * d product that is too short prevents many receivers from verifying packets. A N * T_int product that is too small will cause the sender to switch too often to new key chains. A N that is too long with respect to the expected session duration (if known) will require the sender to compute too many useless keys. [RFC4082] (Perrig, A., Song, D., Canetti, R., Tygar, J., and B. Briscoe, “Timed Efficient Stream Loss-Tolerant Authentication (TESLA): Multicast Source Authentication Transform Introduction,” June 2005.) sections 3.2 and 3.6 give general guidelines for initializing these parameters.

The T_0, T_int, d and N parameters MUST NOT be changed during the lifetime of the session. This restriction is meant to prevent introducing vulnerabilities. For instance if a sender was authorized to change the key disclosure schedule, a receiver that did not receive the change notification would still believe in the old key disclosure schedule, thereby creating vulnerabilities [RFC4082] (Perrig, A., Song, D., Canetti, R., Tygar, J., and B. Briscoe, “Timed Efficient Stream Loss-Tolerant Authentication (TESLA): Multicast Source Authentication Transform Introduction,” June 2005.).



 TOC 

3.1.4.  Timing Parameters

In indirect time synchronization mode, the sender must determine the following parameter:

The D^O_t parameter MUST NOT be changed during the lifetime of the session.



 TOC 

3.2.  TESLA Signaling Messages

At a sender, TESLA produces two types of signaling information:



 TOC 

3.2.1.  Bootstrap Information

In order to initialize the TESLA component at a receiver, the sender must communicate some key information in a secure way. This information can be sent in-band or out-of-band, as discussed in Section 2.2 (Bootstrapping TESLA). In this section we only consider the in-band scheme.

The TESLA bootstrap information message MUST be digitally signed (Section 3.3.2 (Digital Signatures)). The goal is to enable a receiver to check the packet source and packet integrity. Then, the bootstrap information can be:

Let us consider situations where the bootstrap information is broadcast. This message should be broadcast at the beginning of the session, before data packets are actually sent. This is particularly important with ALC or NORM sessions in "push" mode, when all clients join the session in advance. For improved reliability, bootstrap information might be sent a certain number of times.

A periodic broadcast of the bootstrap information message could also be useful when:

A balance must be found between the signaling overhead and the maximum initial waiting time at the receiver before starting the delayed authentication process. A period of a few seconds for the transmission of this bootstrap information is often a reasonable value.



 TOC 

3.2.2.  Direct Time Synchronization Response

In Direct Time Synchronization, upon receipt of a synchronization request, the sender records its local time, t_s, and sends a response message that contains both t_r and t_s (Section 2.4.1 (Delay Bound Calculation in Direct Time Synchronization Mode)). This message is unicast to the receiver. This Direct Time Synchronization Response message MUST be digitally signed in order to enable a receiver to check the packet source and packet integrity (Section 3.3.2 (Digital Signatures)). The receiver MUST also be able to associate this response and his request, which is the reason why t_r is included in the response message.



 TOC 

3.3.  TESLA Authentication Information

At a sender, TESLA produces three types of security tags:

Because of interdependencies, their computation MUST follow a strict order:



 TOC 

3.3.1.  Authentication Tags

All the data packets sent MUST have an authentication tag containing:

The computation of MAC(K'_i, M) MUST include the ALC or NORM header (with the various header extensions) and the payload (when applicable). The UDP/IP headers MUST NOT be included. During this computation, the MAC(K'_i, M) field of the authentication tag MUST be set to 0.



 TOC 

3.3.2.  Digital Signatures

The Bootstrap Information message (with the in-band bootstrap scheme) and Direct Time Synchronization Response message (with the indirect time synchronization scheme) both need to be signed by the sender. These two messages contain a "Signature" field to hold the digital signature. The bootstrap information message also contains the "Signature Encoding Algorithm", the "Signature Cryptographic Function", and the "Signature Length" fields that enable a receiver to process the "Signature" field. Note that there is no such "Signature Encoding Algorithm", "Signature Cryptographic Function" and "Signature Length" fields in case of a Direct Time Synchronization Response message since it is assumed that these parameters are already known (i.e., the receiver either received a bootstrap information message before, or these values have been communicated out-of-band).

Several "Signature Encoding Algorithms" can be used, including RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5, the default, and RSASSA-PSS (Section 7 (IANA Considerations)). With these encodings, SHA-1 is the default "Signature Cryptographic Function".

The computation of the signature MUST include the ALC or NORM header (with the various header extensions) and the payload when applicable. The UDP/IP headers MUST NOT be included. During this computation, the "Signature" field MUST be set to 0 as well as the optional Group MAC, when present, since this Group MAC is calculated later on.

More specifically, from [RFC4359] (Weis, B., “The Use of RSA/SHA-1 Signatures within Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH),” January 2006.): digital signature generation is performed as described in [RFC3447] (Jonsson, J. and B. Kaliski, “Public-Key Cryptography Standards (PKCS) #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications Version 2.1,” February 2003.), Section 8.2.1 for RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 and Section 8.1.1 for RSASSA-PSS. The authenticated portion of the packet is used as the message M, which is passed to the signature generation function. The signer's RSA private key is passed as K. In summary (when SHA-1 is used), the signature generation process computes a SHA-1 hash of the authenticated packet bytes, signs the SHA-1 hash using the private key, and encodes the result with the specified RSA encoding type. This process results in a value S, which is the digital signature to be included in the packet.

With RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 and RSASSA-PSS signatures, the size of the signature is equal to the "RSA modulus", unless the "RSA modulus" is not a multiple of 8 bits. In that case, the signature MUST be prepended with between 1 and 7 bits set to zero such that the signature is a multiple of 8 bits [RFC4359] (Weis, B., “The Use of RSA/SHA-1 Signatures within Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH),” January 2006.). The key size, which in practice is also equal to the "RSA modulus", has major security implications. [RFC4359] (Weis, B., “The Use of RSA/SHA-1 Signatures within Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH),” January 2006.) explains how to choose this value depending on the maximum expected lifetime of the session. This choice is out of the scope of this document.



 TOC 

3.3.3.  Group MAC Tags

An optional Group MAC can be used to mitigate DoS attacks coming from attackers that are not group members [RFC4082] (Perrig, A., Song, D., Canetti, R., Tygar, J., and B. Briscoe, “Timed Efficient Stream Loss-Tolerant Authentication (TESLA): Multicast Source Authentication Transform Introduction,” June 2005.). This feature assumes that a group key, K_g, is shared by the sender and all receivers. When the attacker is not a group member, the benefits of adding a group MAC to every packet sent are threefold:

The computation of the group MAC, MAC(K_g, M), MUST include the ALC or NORM header (with the various header extensions) and the payload when applicable. The UDP/IP headers MUST NOT be included. During this computation, the Group MAC field MUST be set to 0. However the digital signature (e.g., of a bootstrap message) and the MAC fields (e.g., of an authentication tag), when present, MUST have been calculated since they are included in the Group MAC calculation itself. Then the sender truncates the MAC output to keep the n_w most significant bits and stores the result in the Group MAC field.

This scheme features a few limits:

For a given use-case, the benefits brought by the group MAC must be balanced against these limitations.

Note that the Group MAC function can be different from the TESLA MAC function (e.g., it can use a weaker but faster MAC function). Note also that the mechanism by which the group key, K_g, is communicated to all group members, and perhaps periodically updated, is out of the scope of this document.



 TOC 

3.4.  Format of TESLA Messages and Authentication Tags

This section specifies the format of the various kinds of TESLA messages and authentication tags sent by the session's sender. Because these TESLA messages are carried as EXT_AUTH header extensions of the ALC or NORM packets (Section 5 (Integration in the ALC and NORM Protocols)), the following formats do not start on 32 bit word boundaries.



 TOC 

3.4.1.  Format of a Bootstrap Information Message

When bootstrap information is sent in-band, the following message is used:


  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
                                                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  ---
                                                 | V |resvd|S|G|A|  ^
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  |
 |       d       |    PRF Type   | MAC Func Type |WG MAC Fun Type|  | f
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  | i
 |   SigEncAlgo  | SigCryptoFunc |      Signature Key Length     |  | x
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  | e
 |            Reserved           |             T_int             |  | d
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  |
 |                                                               |  | l
 +                  T_0 (NTP timestamp format)                   +  | e
 |                                                               |  | n
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  | g
 |                      N (Key Chain Length)                     |  | t
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  | h
 |                    Current Interval Index i                   |  v
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  ---
 |                                                               |
 ~                 Current Key Chain Commitment  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                               |   Padding     |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 +                                                               +
 ~                           Signature                           ~
 +                                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                               |    Padding    |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |P|                                                             |
 +-+       D^O_t Extension (optional, present if A==1)           +
 |    (NTP timestamp diff, positive if P==1, negative if P==0)   |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 ~                      Group MAC (optional)                     ~
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Figure 2: Bootstrap information format. 

The format of the bootstrap information is depicted in Figure 2 (Bootstrap information format.). The fields are:

"V" (Version) field (2 bits):

The "V" field contains the version number of the protocol. For this specification, the value of 0 MUST be used.

"Reserved" field (3 bits):

This is a reserved field that MUST be set to zero in this specification.

"S" (Single Key Chain) flag (1 bits):

The "S" flag indicates whether this TESLA session is restricted to a single key chain (S==1) or relies on one or multiple key chains (S==0).

"G" (Group MAC Present) flag (1 bits):

The "G" flag indicates whether the Group MAC feature is used (G==1) or not (G==0). When it is used, a "Group MAC" field is added to all the packets containing a TESLA EXT_AUTH Header Extension (including this bootstrap message).

"A" flag (1 bit):

The "A" flag indicates whether the P flag and D^O_t fields are present (A==1) or not (A==0). In indirect time synchronization mode, A MUST be equal to 1 since these fields are needed.

"d" field (8 bits):

d is an unsigned integer that defines the key disclosure delay (in number of intervals). d MUST be greater or equal to 2.

"PRF Type" field (8 bits):

The "PRF Type" is the reference number of the f function used to derive the F (for key chain) and F' (for MAC keys) functions (Section 7 (IANA Considerations)).

"MAC Function Type" field (8 bits):

The "MAC Function Type" is the reference number of the function used to compute the MAC of the packets (Section 7 (IANA Considerations)).

"Group MAC Function Type" field (8 bits):

When G==1, this field contains the reference number of the cryptographic MAC function used to compute the group MAC (Section 7 (IANA Considerations)). When G==0, this field MUST be set to zero.

"Signature Encoding Algorithm" field (8 bits):

The "Signature Encoding Algorithm" is the reference number (Section 7 (IANA Considerations)) of the digital signature used to authenticate this bootstrap information and included in the "Signature" field.

"Signature Cryptographic Function" field (8 bits):

The "Signature Cryptographic Function" is the reference number (Section 7 (IANA Considerations)) of the cryptographic function used within the digital signature.

"Signature Key Length" field (12 bits):

The "Signature Length" is an unsigned integer that indicates the signature field size in bytes in the "Signature Extension" field.

"Reserved" fields (16 bits):

This is a reserved field that MUST be set to zero in this specification.

"T_int" field (16 bits):

T_int is an unsigned 16 bit integer that defines the interval duration (in milliseconds).

"T_0" field (64 bits):

"T_0" is a timestamp in NTP timestamp format that indicates the time when this session began.

"N" field (32 bits):

"N" is an unsigned integer that indicates the key chain length. There are N + 1 keys per chain.

"i" (Interval Index of K_i) field (32 bits):

"i" is an unsigned integer that indicates the current interval index when this bootstrap information message is sent.

"Current Key Chain Commitment" field (variable size, padded if necessary for 32 bit word alignment):

"Key Chain Commitment" is the commitment to the current key chain, i.e., the key chain corresponding to interval i. For instance, with the first key chain, this commitment is equal to F(K_0), with the second key chain, this commitment is equal to F(K_{N+1}), etc.). If need be, this field is padded (with 0) up to a multiple of 32 bits.

"Signature" field (variable size, padded if necessary for 32 bit word alignment):

The "Signature" field is mandatory. It contains a digital signature of this message, as specified by the encoding algorithm, cryptographic function and key length parameters. If the signature length is not multiple of 32 bits, this field is padded with 0.

"P" flag (optional, 1 bit if present):

The "P" flag is optional and only present if the A flag is equal to 1.. It is only used in indirect time synchronization mode. This flag indicates whether the D^O_t NTP timestamp difference is positive (P==1) or negative (P==0).

"D^O_t" field (optional, 63 bits if present):

The "D^O_t" field is optional and only present if the A flag is equal to 1. It is only used in indirect time synchronization mode. It is the upper bound of the lag of the sender's clock with respect to the time reference. When several time references are specified (e.g., several NTP servers), then D^O_t is the maximum upper bound of the lag with each time reference. D^O_t is composed of two unsigned integers, as with NTP timestamps: the first 31 bits give the time difference in seconds and the remaining 32 bits give the sub-second time difference.

"Group MAC" field (optional, variable length, multiple of 32 bits):

This field contains the group MAC, calculated with the group key, K_g, shared by all group members. The field length, in bits, is given by n_w which is known once the group MAC function type is known (Section 7 (IANA Considerations)).

Note that the first byte and the following seven 32-bit words are mandatory fixed length fields. The Current Key Chain Commitment and Signature fields are mandatory but variable length fields. The remaining D^O_t and Group MAC fields are optional.

In order to prevent attacks, some parameters MUST NOT be changed during the lifetime of the session (Section 3.1.3 (Time Interval Schedule), Section 3.1.4 (Timing Parameters)). The following table summarizes the parameters status:

ParameterStatus
V set to 0 in this specification
S static (during whole session)
G static (during whole session)
A static (during whole session)
T_O static (during whole session)
T_int static (during whole session)
d static (during whole session)
N static (during whole session)
D^O_t (if present) static (during whole session)
PRF Type static (during whole session)
MAC Function Type static (during whole session)
Signature Encoding Algorithm static (during whole session)
Signature Crypto. Function static (during whole session)
Signature Length static (during whole session)
Group MAC Func. Type static (during whole session)
i dynamic (related to current key chain)
K_i dynamic (related to current key chain)
signature dynamic, packet dependent
Group MAC (if present) dynamic, packet dependent



 TOC 

3.4.2.  Format of a Direct Time Synchronization Response



  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
                                                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                                 |    Reserved   |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 +                     t_s (NTP timestamp)                       +
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 +                     t_r (NTP timestamp)                       +
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 +                                                               +
 ~                           Signature                           ~
 +                                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                               |    Padding    |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 ~                     Group MAC (optional)                      ~
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Figure 3: Format of a Direct Time Synchronization Response 

The response to a direct time synchronization request contains the following information:

"Reserved" fields (8 bits):

This is a reserved field that MUST be set to zero in this specification.

"t_s" (NTP timestamp, 64 bits):

t_s is a timestamp in NTP timestamp format that corresponds to the sender local time value when receiving the direct time synchronization request message.

"t_r" (NTP timestamp, 64 bits):

t_r is a timestamp in NTP timestamp format that contains the receiver local time value received in the direct time synchronization request message.

"Signature" field (variable size, padded if necessary for 32 bit word alignment):

The "Signature" field is mandatory. It contains a digital signature of this message, as specified by the encoding algorithm, cryptographic function and key length parameters communicated in the bootstrap information message (if applicable) or out-of-band. If the signature length is not multiple of 32 bits, this field is padded with 0.

"Group MAC" field (optional, variable length, multiple of 32 bits):

This field contains the Group MAC, calculated with the group key, K_g, shared by all group members. The field length, in bits, is given by n_w, which is known once the group MAC function type is known (Section 7 (IANA Considerations)).



 TOC 

3.4.3.  Format of a Standard Authentication Tag



  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
                                                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                                 |   Reserved    |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                i (Interval Index of K'_i)                     |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~                    Disclosed Key K_{i-d}                      ~
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~                       MAC(K'_i, M)            +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                               |   Padding     |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 ~                     Group MAC (optional)                      ~
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Figure 4: Format of the authentication tag 

Figure 4 (Format of the authentication tag) shows the format of the authentication tag:

"Reserved" field (8 bits):

The "Reserved" field is not used in the current specification and MUST be set to zero by the sender.

"i" (Interval Index) field (32 bits):

i is the interval index associated to the key (K'_i) used to compute the MAC of this packet.

"Disclosed Key" (variable size, non padded):

The "Disclosed Key" is the key used for interval i-d: K_{i-d}; Note that during the first d time intervals of a session, this field must be initialized to "0" since no key can be disclosed yet. There is no padding between the "Disclosed Key" and "MAC(K'_i, M)" fields, and this latter MAY not start on a 32 bit boundary, depending on the n_p parameter.

"MAC(K'_i, M)" (variable size, padded if necessary for 32 bit word alignment):

MAC(K'_i, M) is the truncated message authentication code of the current packet. Only the n_m most significant bits of the MAC output are kept [RFC2104] (Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, “HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication,” February 1997.).

"Group MAC" field (optional, variable length, multiple of 32 bits):

This field contains the Group MAC, calculated with a group key, K_g, shared by all group members. The field length is given by n_w, in bits.

Note that because a key cannot be disclosed before the disclosure delay, d, the sender MUST NOT use this tag during the first d intervals of the session: {0 .. d-1} (inclusive). Instead the sender MUST use a Standard or a Compact Authentication Tag Without Key Disclosure.



 TOC 

3.4.4.  Format of a Standard Authentication Tag Without Key Disclosure

The authentication tag without key disclosure is meant to be used in situations where a high number of packets are sent in a given time interval. In such a case, it can be advantageous to disclose the K_{i-d} key only in a subset of the packets sent, using a standard authentication tag, and use the shortened version that does not disclose the K_{i-d} key in the remaining packets. It is left to the implementer to decide how many packets should disclose the K_{i-d} key. This authentication tag or its compact flavor MUST also be used during the first d intervals: {0 .. d-1} (inclusive).



  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
                                                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                                 |   Reserved    |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                i (Interval Index of K'_i)                     |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~                       MAC(K'_i, M)            +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                               |   Padding     |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 ~                     Group MAC (optional)                      ~
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Figure 5: Format of the authentication tag without key disclosure 



 TOC 

3.4.5.  Format of an Authentication Tag with a ``New Key Chain'' Commitment

During the last n_tx_newkcc intervals of the current key chain, the sender SHOULD send commitments to the next key chain. This is done by replacing the disclosed key of the authentication tag with the new key chain commitment, F(K_{N+1}) (or F(K_{2N+2}) in case of a switch between the second and third key chains, etc.). Figure 6 (Format of the authentication tag with a new key chain commitment) shows the corresponding format.

Note that since there is no padding between the "F(K_{N+1})" and "MAC(K'_i, M)" fields, this latter MAY not start on a 32 bit boundary, depending on the n_p parameter.



  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
                                                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                                 |   Reserved    |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                i (Interval Index of K'_i)                     |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~              New Key Commitment F(K_{N+1})                    ~
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~                       MAC(K'_i, M)            +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                               |   Padding     |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 ~                     Group MAC (optional)                      ~
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Figure 6: Format of the authentication tag with a new key chain commitment 



 TOC 

3.4.6.  Format of an Authentication Tag with a ``Last Key of Old Chain'' Disclosure

During the first n_tx_lastkey intervals of the new key chain after the disclosing interval, d, the sender SHOULD disclose the last key of the old key chain. This is done by replacing the disclosed key of the authentication tag with the last key of the old chain, K_N (or K_{2N+1} in case of a switch between the second and third key chains, etc.). Figure 7 (Format of the authentication tag with an old chain last key disclosure) shows the corresponding format.

Note that since there is no padding between the "K_N" and "MAC(K'_i, M)" fields, this latter MAY not start on a 32 bit boundary, depending on the n_p parameter.



  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
                                                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                                 |   Reserved    |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                i (Interval Index of K'_i)                     |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~                  Last Key of Old Chain, K_N                   ~
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~                       MAC(K'_i, M)            +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                               |   Padding     |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 ~                     Group MAC (optional)                      ~
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Figure 7: Format of the authentication tag with an old chain last key disclosure 



 TOC 

3.4.7.  Format of the Compact Authentication Tags

The four compact flavors of the Authentication tags follow.



  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
                                                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                                 |     i_LSB     |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~                    Disclosed Key K_{i-d}                      ~
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~                       MAC(K'_i, M)            +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                               |  i_NSB (opt)  |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 ~                     Group MAC (optional)                      ~
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Figure 8: Format of the compact authentication tag 



  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
                                                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                                 |     i_LSB     |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~                       MAC(K'_i, M)            +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                               |  i_NSB (opt)  |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 ~                     Group MAC (optional)                      ~
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Figure 9: Format of the compact authentication tag without key disclosure 



  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
                                                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                                 |     i_LSB     |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~              New Key Commitment F(K_{N+1})                    ~
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~                       MAC(K'_i, M)            +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                               |  i_NSB (opt)  |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 ~                     Group MAC (optional)                      ~
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Figure 10: Format of the compact authentication tag with a new key chain commitment 



  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
                                                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                                 |     i_LSB     |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~                  Last Key of Old Chain, K_N                   ~
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 ~                       MAC(K'_i, M)            +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                               |  i_NSB (opt)  |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 ~                     Group MAC (optional)                      ~
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Figure 11: Format of the compact authentication tag with a last key of old chain disclosure 

where:

"i_LSB" (Interval Index Least Significant Byte) field (8 bits):

the i_LSB field contains the least significant byte of the interval index associated to the key (K'_i) used to compute the MAC of this packet.

"i_NSB" (Interval Index Next Significant Bytes) field (variable length, depending on the MAC type):

the i_NSB field contains the next significant bytes (after i_LSB) of the interval index. This field replaces the "Padding" field when the MAC(K'_i, M) field length is not a multiple of 32 bits.

The compact version does not include the "i" interval index but the "i_LSB" field and sometimes, depending on the MAC type, the "i_NSB" field. Upon receiving such an authentication tag, a receiver infers the associated "i" value, by estimating the current interval where the sender is supposed to be, assuming that this packet has not been significantly delayed by the network. The remaining of the processing does not change.

For instance, with HMAC-SHA-1, the MAC(K'_i, M) field is 10 byte long. In that case the i_NSB field contains the middle two bytes of "i". Together with the i_LSB byte, the three least significant bytes of "i" are carried in the compact tag authentication header extensions. If T_int is 0.5s, then the {i_NSB; i_LSB} counter is sufficient (i.e. contains as much information as the 32 bit "i" field) for sessions that last at most 2330 hours.



 TOC 

4.  Receiver Operations

This section describes the TESLA operations at a receiver.



 TOC 

4.1.  Verification of the Authentication Information

This section details the computation steps required to verify each of the three possible authentication information of an incoming packet. The verification MUST follow a strict order:



 TOC 

4.1.1.  Processing the Group MAC Tag

Upon receiving a packet containing a Group MAC Tag, the receiver recomputes the Group MAC and compares it to the value carried in the packet. If the check fails, the packet MUST be immediately dropped.

More specifically, recomputing the Group MAC requires to save the value of the Group MAC field, to set this field to 0, and to do the same computation as a sender does (see Section 3.3.3 (Group MAC Tags)).



 TOC 

4.1.2.  Processing the Digital Signature

Upon receiving a packet containing a digital signature, the receiver verifies the signature as follows.

The computation of the signature MUST include the ALC or NORM header (with the various header extensions) and the payload when applicable. The UDP/IP headers MUST NOT be included. During this computation, the "Signature" field MUST be set to 0 as well as the optional Group MAC, when present.

From [RFC4359] (Weis, B., “The Use of RSA/SHA-1 Signatures within Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH),” January 2006.): Digital signature verification is performed as described in [RFC3447] (Jonsson, J. and B. Kaliski, “Public-Key Cryptography Standards (PKCS) #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications Version 2.1,” February 2003.), Section 8.2.2 (RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5) and [RFC3447] (Jonsson, J. and B. Kaliski, “Public-Key Cryptography Standards (PKCS) #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications Version 2.1,” February 2003.), Section 8.1.2 (RSASSA-PSS). Upon receipt, the digital signature is passed to the verification function as S. The authenticated portion of the packet is used as the message M, and the RSA public key is passed as (n, e). In summary (when SHA-1 is used), the verification function computes a SHA-1 hash of the authenticated packet bytes, decrypts the SHA-1 hash in the packet, and validates that the appropriate encoding was applied. The two SHA-1 hashes are compared, and if they are identical the validation is successful.

It is assumed that the receivers have the possibility to retrieve the sender's public key required to check this digital signature (Section 2.2 (Bootstrapping TESLA)). This document does not specify how the public key of the sender is communicated reliably and in a secure way to all possible receivers.



 TOC 

4.1.3.  Processing the Authentication Tag

When a receiver wants to authenticate a packet using an Authentication Tag and when he has the key for the associated time interval (i.e., after the disclosing delay, d), the receiver recomputes the MAC and compares it to the value carried in the packet. If the check fails, the packet MUST be immediately dropped.

More specifically, recomputing the MAC requires to save the value of the MAC field, to set this field to 0, and to do the same computation as a sender does (see Section 3.3.1 (Authentication Tags)).



 TOC 

4.2.  Initialization of a Receiver

A receiver must be initialized before being able to authenticate the source of incoming packets. This can be done by an out-of-band mechanism or an in-band mechanism (Section 2.2 (Bootstrapping TESLA)). Let us focus on the in-band mechanism. Two actions must be performed:



 TOC 

4.2.1.  Processing the Bootstrap Information Message

A receiver must first receive a packet containing the bootstrap information, digitally signed by the sender. Once the bootstrap information has been authenticated (sec Section 4.1 (Verification of the Authentication Information)), the receiver can initialize its TESLA component. The receiver MUST then ignore the following bootstrap information messages, if any. There is an exception though: when a new key chain is used and if a receiver missed all the commitments for this new key chain, then this receiver MUST process one of the future Bootstrap information messages (if any) in order to be able to authenticate the incoming packets associated to this new key chain.

Before TESLA has been initialized, a receiver MUST NOT process incoming packets other than the bootstrap information message and direct time synchronization response.



 TOC 

4.2.2.  Performing Time Synchronization

First of all, the receiver must know whether the ALC or NORM session relies on direct or indirect time synchronization. This information is communicated by an out-of-band mechanism (for instance when describing the various parameters of an ALC or NORM session. In some cases, both mechanisms might be available and the receiver can choose the preferred technique.



 TOC 

4.2.2.1.  Direct Time Synchronization

In case of a direct time synchronization, a receiver MUST synchronize with the sender. To that purpose, the receiver sends a direct time synchronization request message. This message includes the local time (in NTP timestamp format) at the receiver when sending the message. This timestamp will be copied in the sender's response for the receiver to associate the response to the request.

The direct time synchronization request message format is the following:



  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 +                     t_r (NTP timestamp)                       +
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 ~                     Group MAC (optional)                      ~
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Figure 12: Format of a Direct Time Synchronization Request 

The direct time synchronization request (Figure 12 (Format of a Direct Time Synchronization Request)) contains the following information:

"t_r" (NTP timestamp, 64 bits):

t_r is a timestamp in NTP timestamp format that contains the receiver local time value when sending this direct time synchronization request message;

"Group MAC" field (optional, variable length, multiple of 32 bits):

This field contains the Group MAC, calculated with the group key, K_g, shared by all group members. The field length, in bits, is given by n_w, which is known once the Group MAC function type is known (Section 7).

The receiver then awaits a response message (Section 3.4.2 (Format of a Direct Time Synchronization Response)). Upon receiving this message, the receiver:

checks that this response relates to the request, by comparing the t_r fields;

checks the Group MAC if present;

checks the signature;

retrieves the t_s value and calculates D_t (Section 2.4.1 (Delay Bound Calculation in Direct Time Synchronization Mode));

Note that in an ALC session, the direct time synchronization request message is sent to the sender by an out-of-band mechanism that is not specified by the current document.



 TOC 

4.2.2.2.  Indirect Time Synchronization

With the indirect time synchronization method, the sender MAY provide out-of-band the URL or IP address of the NTP server(s) he trusts along with an OPTIONAL certificate for each NTP server. When several NTP servers are specified, a receiver MUST choose one of them. This document does not specify how the choice is made, but for the sake of scalability, the clients SHOULD NOT use the same server if several possibilities are offered. The NTP synchronization between the NTP server and the receiver MUST be authenticated, either using the certificate provided by the server, or another certificate the client may obtain for this NTP server.

Then the receiver computes the time offset between itself and the NTP server chosen. Note that the receiver does not need to update the local time, (which often requires root privileges), computing the time offset is sufficient.

Since the offset between the server and the time reference, D^O_t, is indicated in the bootstrap information message (or communicated out-of-band), the receiver can now calculate an upper bound of the sender's local time (Section 2.4.2 (Delay Bound Calculation in Indirect time Synchronization Mode)).



 TOC 

4.3.  Authentication of Received Packets

The receiver can now authenticate incoming packets (other than bootstrap information and direct time synchronization response packets). To that purpose, he MUST follow different steps (see [RFC4082] (Perrig, A., Song, D., Canetti, R., Tygar, J., and B. Briscoe, “Timed Efficient Stream Loss-Tolerant Authentication (TESLA): Multicast Source Authentication Transform Introduction,” June 2005.) section 3.5):

  1. The receiver parses the different packet headers. If none of the eight TESLA authentication tags is present, the receiver MUST discard the packet. If the session is in "Single Key Chain" mode (e.g., when the "S" flag is set in the bootstrap information message), then the receiver MUST discard any packet containing an authentication tag with a new key chain commitment or an authentication tag with a last key of old chain disclosure.
  2. Safe packet test: When the receiver receives packet P_j, it first records the local time T at which the packet arrived. The receiver then computes an upper bound t_j on the sender's clock at the time when the packet arrived: t_j = T + D_t. The receiver then computes the highest interval the sender could possibly be in: highest_i = floor((t_j - T_0) / T_int). Two possibilities arise then: The receiver can now proceed with the "safe packet" test. If highest_i < i + d, then the sender is not yet in the interval during which it discloses the key K_i. The packet is safe (but not necessarily authentic). If the test fails, the packet is unsafe, and the receiver MUST discard the packet.
  3. Group MAC test: The receiver checks the optional Group Tag, if present. To that purpose, the receiver recomputes the group MAC and compares it to the value stored in the "Group MAC" field. If the check fails, the packet is immediately dropped.
  4. Disclosed Key processing: When the packet discloses a key (i.e., with a standard or compact authentication tag, or with a standard or compact authentication tag with a last key of old chain disclosure), the following tests are performed:
  5. When applicable, the receiver performs congestion control, even if the packet has not yet been authenticated [RMT‑BB‑LCT] (Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, “Layered Coding Transport (LCT) Building Block,” July 2008.). If this feature leads to a potential DoS attack (the attacker can send a high data rate stream of faked packets), it does not compromise the security features offered by TESLA and enables a rapid reaction in front of actual congestion problems.
  6. The receiver then buffers the packet for a later authentication, once the corresponding key will be disclosed (after d time intervals) or deduced from another key (if all packets disclosing this key are lost). In some situations, this packet might also be discarded later on, if it turns out that the receiver will never be able to deduce the associated key.
  7. Authentication test: Let v be the smallest index of the legitimate keys known by the receiver so far. For all the new keys K_w, with v < w < = i-d, that have been either disclosed by this packet (i.e., K_{i-d}) or derived by K_{i-d} (i.e., keys in interval {v+1,.. i-d-1}), the receiver verifies the authenticity of the safe packets buffered for the corresponding interval w. To authenticate one of the buffered packets P_h containing message M_h protected with a MAC that used key index w, the receiver will compute K'_w = F'(K_w) from which it can compute MAC( K'_w, M_h). If this MAC does not equal the MAC stored in the packet, the receiver MUST discard the packet. If the two MAC are equal, the packet is successfully authenticated and the receiver continues processing it.
  8. Authenticated new key chain commitment processing: If the authenticated packet contains a new key chain commitment and if no verified commitment already exists, then the receiver stores the commitment to the new key chain. Then, if there are non authenticated packets for a previous chain (i.e., the key chain before the current one), all these packets can be discarded (Section 4.4 (Flushing the Non Authenticated Packets of a Previous Key Chain)).
  9. The receiver continues the ALC or NORM processing of all the packets authenticated during the authentication test.

In this specification, a receiver using TESLA MUST immediately drop unsafe packets. But the receiver MAY also decide, at any time, to continue an ALC or NORM session in unsafe mode, ignoring TESLA extensions.



 TOC 

4.3.1.  Wrong Guess of the i Parameter

When a compact authentication tag is used, the receiver computes the "i" interval index from the "i_LSB" and perhaps "i_NSB" fields, and therefore there is a risk of error. Let us consider the case where only "i_LSB" is used (situation with the highest risks of error). An error occurs when the calculated i_high (at a receiver) differs from the original i_high (at the sender), where the receiver calculates i_high by: i_high = floor((t_j - T_0) / T_int) & 0xFFFFFF00). So an error occurs if the elapsed time: t_j - T_0 >= K*(256*T_int), where K is an integer greater or equal to 1. So there will be an error if the packet has been delayed by at least 256*T_int milliseconds. Since T_int is roughly equal to the RTT, the probability is low. This is even more true when both "i_LSB" and "i_NSB" fields are used.

Of course, an attacker can also deliberately corrupt the "i_LSB"/"i_NSB" fields, but the same remark can be done with the "i" field.

If ever an error occurs, be it intentional (attack) or not, this error will be caught either (Section 4.3 (Authentication of Received Packets)):

TESLA is therefore robust to wrong "i" parameter values.



 TOC 

4.3.2.  Discarding Unnecessary Packets Earlier

Following strictly the above steps can lead to excessive processing overhead in certain situations. This is the case when a receiver receives packets for an unwanted object with the ALC or NORM protocols, i.e., an object for which the application (or the end user) explicitly mentioned it is not interested in. This is also the case when a receiver receivers packets for an already decoded object, or when this object has been partitioned in several blocks, for an already decoded block. When such a packet is received, which is easily identified by looking at the receiver's status for the incoming ALC or NORM packet, the receiver MUST also check that the packet is a pure data packet that does not contain any signaling information of importance for the session. For instance, an ALC packet containing a "A" flag ("Close Session") MUST NOT be discarded before having been authenticated and processed normally. Otherwise, the receiver can safely discard the incoming packet for instance just after step 1 of Section 4.3 (Authentication of Received Packets). This optimization can dramatically reduce the processing overhead, by avoiding many useless authentication checks.



 TOC 

4.4.  Flushing the Non Authenticated Packets of a Previous Key Chain

In some cases a receiver having experienced a very long disconnection might have lost all the disclosures of the last key(s) of a previous key chain. Let j be the index of this key chain for which there remains non authenticated packets. This receiver can flush all the packets of the key chain j if he determines that:

If one of the above two tests succeeds, the sender can discard all the awaiting packets since there is no way to authenticate them.



 TOC 

5.  Integration in the ALC and NORM Protocols



 TOC 

5.1.  Authentication Header Extension Format

The integration of TESLA in ALC or NORM is similar and relies on the header extension mechanism defined in both protocols. More precisely this document details the EXT_AUTH==1 header extension defined in [RMT‑BB‑LCT] (Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, “Layered Coding Transport (LCT) Building Block,” July 2008.).

Editor's note: All authentication schemes using the EXT_AUTH header extension MUST reserve the same 4 bit "ASID" field after the HET/HEL fields. This way, several authentication schemes can be used in the same ALC or NORM session, even on the same communication path.

Several fields are added in addition to the HET (Header Extension Type) and HEL (Header Extension Length) fields (Figure 13 (Format of the TESLA EXT_AUTH header extension.)).



  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |   HET (=1)    |      HEL      |  ASID |  Type |               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+               +
 |                                                               |
 ~                                                               ~
 |                            Content                            |
 ~                                                               ~
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 Figure 13: Format of the TESLA EXT_AUTH header extension. 

The fields of the TESLA EXT_AUTH header extension are:

"ASID" (Authentication Scheme Identifier) field (4 bits):

The "ASID" identifies the source authentication scheme or protocol in use. The association between the "ASID" value and the actual authentication scheme is defined out-of-band, at session startup.

"Type" field (4 bits):

The "Type" field identifies the type of TESLA information carried in this header extension. This specification defines the following types:

"Content" field (variable length):

This is the TESLA information carried in the header extension, whose type is given by the "Type" field.



 TOC 

5.2.  Use of Authentication Header Extensions

Each packet sent by the session's sender MUST contain exactly one TESLA EXT_AUTH header extension.

All receivers MUST recognize EXT_AUTH but MAY not be able to parse its content, for instance because they do not support TESLA. In that case these receivers MUST ignore the TESLA EXT_AUTH extensions. In case of NORM, the packets sent by receivers MAY contain a direct synchronization request but MUST NOT contain any of the other five TESLA EXT_AUTH header extensions.



 TOC 

5.2.1.  EXT_AUTH Header Extension of Type Bootstrap Information

The "bootstrap information" TESLA EXT_AUTH (Type==0) MUST be sent in a stand-alone control packet, rather than in a packet containing application data. The reason for that is the large size of this bootstrap information. By using stand-alone packets, the maximum payload size of data packets is only affected by the (mandatory) authentication information header extension.

With ALC, the "bootstrap information" TESLA EXT_AUTH MUST be sent in a control packet, i.e., containing no encoding symbol.

With NORM, the "bootstrap information" TESLA EXT_AUTH MUST be sent in a NORM_CMD(APPLICATION) message.



  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  ---
 |   HET (=1)    |    HEL (=46)  |  ASID |   0   | 0 |  0  |0|1|0|  ^
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  |
 |       d       |       1       |       1       |       1       |  |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  |
 |       1       |       1       |              128              |  |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  |
 |         0 (reserved)          |             T_int             |  |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  |
 |                                                               |  |
 +                  T_0 (NTP timestamp format)                   +  | 5
 |                                                               |  | 2
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  |
 |                      N (Key Chain Length)                     |  | b
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  | y
 |                    Current Interval Index i                   |  | t
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  | e
 |                                                               |  | s
 +                                                               +  |
 |                                                               |  |
 +                 Current Key Chain Commitment                  +  |
 |                          (20 bytes)                           |  |
 +                                                               +  |
 |                                                               |  |
 +                                                               +  |
 |                                                               |  v
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  ---
 |                                                               |  ^ 1
 +                                                               +  | 2
 |                                                               |  | 8
 .                                                               .  |
 .                           Signature                           .  | b
 .                          (128 bytes)                          .  | y
 |                                                               |  | t
 +                                                               +  | e
 |                                                               |  v s
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  ---
 |                           Group MAC                           |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Figure 14: Example: Format of the bootstrap information message (Type 0), using SHA-1/1024 bit signatures, the default HMAC-SHA-1 and a Group MAC. 

For instance Figure 14 (Example: Format of the bootstrap information message (Type 0), using SHA-1/1024 bit signatures, the default HMAC-SHA-1 and a Group MAC.) shows the bootstrap information message when using the HMAC-SHA-1 transform for the PRF, MAC, and Group MAC functions, along with SHA-1/128 byte (1024 bit) key digital signatures (which also means that the signature field is 128 byte long). The TESLA EXT_AUTH header extension is then 184 byte long (i.e., 46 words of 32 bits).



 TOC 

5.2.2.  EXT_AUTH Header Extension of Type Authentication Tag

The eight "authentication tag" TESLA EXT_AUTH (Type 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8) MUST be attached to the ALC or NORM packet (data or control packet) that they protect.



  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |   HET (=1)    |     HEL (=9)  |  ASID |   5   |     i_LSB     |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 +                                                               +
 |                                                               |
 +                     Disclosed Key K_{i-d}                     +
 |                          (20 bytes)                           |
 +                                                               +
 |                                                               |
 +                                                               +
 |                                                               |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 +                         MAC(K'_i, M)                          +
 |                          (10 bytes)                           |
 +                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                               |             i_NSB             |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Figure 15: Example: Format of the compact authentication tag (Type 5), using the default HMAC-SHA-1. 



  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |   HET (=1)    |   HEL (=4)    |  ASID |   6   |     i_LSB     |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                                                               |
 +                         MAC(K'_i, M)                          +
 |                          (10 bytes)                           |
 +                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                               |             i_NSB             |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Figure 16: Example: Format of the compact authentication tag without key disclosure (Type 6), using the default HMAC-SHA-1. 

For instance, Figure 15 (Example: Format of the compact authentication tag (Type 5), using the default HMAC-SHA-1.) and Figure 16 (Example: Format of the compact authentication tag without key disclosure (Type 6), using the default HMAC-SHA-1.) show the format of the compact authentication tags, respectively with and without the K_{i-d} key disclosure, when using the (default) HMAC-SHA-1 transform for the PRF and MAC functions. In this example, the Group MAC feature is not used.



 TOC 

5.2.3.  EXT_AUTH Header Extension of Type Direct Time Synchronization Request

With NORM, the "direct time synchronization request" TESLA EXT_AUTH (Type==7) MUST be sent by a receiver in a NORM_CMD(APPLICATION) NORM packet.

With ALC, the "direct time synchronization request" TESLA EXT_AUTH cannot be included in an ALC packet, since ALC is restricted to unidirectional transmissions, from the session's sender to the receivers. An external mechanism must be used with ALC for carrying direct time synchronization requests to the session's sender.

In case of direct time synchronization, it is RECOMMENDED that the receivers spread the transmission of direct time synchronization requests over the time (Section 2.3.1 (Direct Time Synchronization)).



 TOC 

5.2.4.  EXT_AUTH Header Extension of Type Direct Time Synchronization Response

With NORM, the "direct time synchronization response" TESLA EXT_AUTH (Type==8) MUST be sent by the sender in a NORM_CMD(APPLICATION) message.

With ALC, the "direct time synchronization response" TESLA EXT_AUTH can be sent in an ALC control packet (i.e., containing no encoding symbol) or through the external mechanism use to carry the direct time synchronization request.



 TOC 

6.  Security Considerations

[RFC4082] (Perrig, A., Song, D., Canetti, R., Tygar, J., and B. Briscoe, “Timed Efficient Stream Loss-Tolerant Authentication (TESLA): Multicast Source Authentication Transform Introduction,” June 2005.) discusses the security of TESLA in general. These considerations apply to the present specification, namely:

The current specification discusses additional aspects with more details.



 TOC 

6.1.  Dealing With DoS Attacks

TESLA introduces new opportunities for an attacker to mount DoS attacks. For instance an attacker can try to saturate the processing capabilities of the receiver (faked packets are easy to create but checking them requires to compute a MAC over the packet or sometimes check a digital signature as with the bootstrap and direct time synchronization response messages). An attacker can also try to saturate the receiver's memory (since authentication is delayed and non-authenticated packets will accumulate), or to make the receiver believe that a congestion has happened (since congestion control MUST be performed before authenticating incoming packets, Section 4.3 (Authentication of Received Packets)).

In order to mitigate these attacks, it is RECOMMENDED to use the Group MAC scheme (Section 3.3.3 (Group MAC Tags)). No mitigation is possible if a group member acts as an attacker with Group MAC.

Generally, it is RECOMMENDED that the amount of memory used to store incoming packets waiting to be authenticated be limited to a reasonable value.



 TOC 

6.2.  Dealing With Replay Attacks

Replay attacks, whereby an attacker stores a valid message and replays it later on, can have significant impacts, depending on the message type. Two levels of impacts must be distinguished:



 TOC 

6.2.1.  Impacts of Replay Attacks on TESLA

Replay attacks can impact the TESLA component itself. We review here the potential impacts of such an attack depending on the TESLA message type:

To conclude, TESLA itself is robust in front of replay attacks.



 TOC 

6.2.2.  Impacts of Replay Attacks on NORM

We review here the potential impacts of a replay attack on the NORM component. Note that we do not consider here the protocols that could be used along with NORM, for instance the congestion control protocols.

First, let us consider replay attacks within a given NORM session. NORM defines a "sequence" field that can be used to protect against replay attacks [RMT‑PI‑NORM] (Adamson, B., Bormann, C., Handley, M., and J. Macker, “Negative-acknowledgment (NACK)-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) Protocol,” January 2008.) within a given NORM session. This "sequence" field is a 16-bit value that is set by the message originator (sender or receiver) as a monotonically increasing number incremented with each NORM message transmitted. It is RECOMMENDED that a receiver check this sequence field and drop messages considered as replayed. Similarly, it is RECOMMENDED that a sender check this sequence, for each known receiver, and drop messages considered as replayed. In both cases, checking this sequence field SHOULD be done before TESLA processing of the packet: if the sequence field has not been corrupted, the replay attack will immediately be identified, and otherwise the packet will fail the TESLA authentication test. This analysis shows that NORM itself is robust in front of replay attacks within the same session.

Now let us consider replay attacks across several NORM sessions. Since the key chain used in each session MUST differ, a packet replayed in a subsequent session will be identified as unauthentic. Therefore NORM is robust in front of replay attacks across different sessions.



 TOC 

6.2.3.  Impacts of Replay Attacks on ALC

We review here the potential impacts of a replay attack on the ALC component. Note that we do not consider here the protocols that could be used along with ALC, for instance the layered or wave based congestion control protocols.

First, let us consider replay attacks within a given ALC session:

This analysis shows that ALC itself is robust in front of replay attacks within the same session.

Now let us consider replay attacks across several ALC sessions. Since the key chain used in each session MUST differ, a packet replayed in a subsequent session will be identified as unauthentic. Therefore ALC is robust in front of replay attacks across different sessions.



 TOC 

7.  IANA Considerations

This document requires a IANA registration for the following attributes:

Cryptographic Pseudo-Random Function, TESLA-PRF: All implementations MUST support HMAC-SHA-256 (default).

PRF nameValuen_p and n_f
INVALID 0 N/A
HMAC-SHA-1 1 160 bits (20 bytes)
HMAC-SHA-224 2 224 bits (28 bytes)
HMAC-SHA-256 (default) 3 256 bits (32 bytes)
HMAC-SHA-384 4 384 bits (48 bytes)
HMAC-SHA-512 5 512 bits (64 bytes)

Cryptographic Message Authentication Code (MAC): All implementations MUST support HMAC-SHA-256 (default). These MAC schemes are used both for the computing of regular MAC and the Group MAC (if applicable).

MAC nameValuen_m (regular MAC)n_w (Group MAC)
INVALID 0 N/A N/A
HMAC-SHA-1 1 80 bits (10 bytes) 32 bits (4 bytes)
HMAC-SHA-224 2 112 bits (14 bytes) 32 bits (4 bytes)
HMAC-SHA-256 (default) 3 128 bits (16 bytes) 32 bits (4 bytes)
HMAC-SHA-384 4 192 bits (24 bytes) 32 bits (4 bytes)
HMAC-SHA-512 5 256 bits (32 bytes) 32 bits (4 bytes)

Signature Encoding Algorithm: All implementations MUST support RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 (default).

Signature Algorithm NameValue
INVALID 0
RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 (default) 1
RSASSA-PSS 2

Signature Cryptographic Function: All implementations MUST support SHA-256 (default).

Cryptographic Function NameValue
INVALID 0
SHA-1 1
SHA-224 2
SHA-256 (default) 3
SHA-384 4
SHA-512 5



 TOC 

8.  Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Brian Weis, Ramu Panayappan, Ran Canetti, David L. Mills and Lionel Giraud for their valuable comments while preparing this document. The authors are also grateful to Brian Weis for the digital signature details.



 TOC 

9.  References



 TOC 

9.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” RFC 2119, BCP 14, March 1997.
[RFC4082] Perrig, A., Song, D., Canetti, R., Tygar, J., and B. Briscoe, “Timed Efficient Stream Loss-Tolerant Authentication (TESLA): Multicast Source Authentication Transform Introduction,” RFC 4082, June 2005 (TXT).
[RMT-BB-LCT] Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, “Layered Coding Transport (LCT) Building Block,”  draft-ietf-rmt-bb-lct-revised-07.txt (work in progress), July 2008.
[RMT-PI-ALC] Luby, M., Watson, M., and L. Vicisano, “Asynchronous Layered Coding (ALC) Protocol Instantiation,”  draft-ietf-rmt-pi-alc-revised-05.txt (work in progress), November 2007.
[RMT-PI-NORM] Adamson, B., Bormann, C., Handley, M., and J. Macker, “Negative-acknowledgment (NACK)-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) Protocol,”  draft-ietf-rmt-pi-norm-revised-06.txt (work in progress), January 2008.


 TOC 

9.2. Informative References

[NTP-NTPv4] Burbank, J., Kasch, W., Martin, J., and D. Mills, “The Network Time Protocol Version 4 Protocol Specification,”  draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-proto-09.txt (work in progress), February 2008.
[Perrig04] Perrig, A. and J. Tygar, “Secure Broadcast Communication in Wired and Wireless Networks,” Kluwer Academic Publishers ISBN 0-7923-7650-1, 2004.
[RFC1305] Mills, D., “Network Time Protocol (Version 3) Specification, Implementation,” RFC 1305, March 1992 (TXT, PDF).
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, “HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication,” RFC 2104, February 1997 (TXT).
[RFC3447] Jonsson, J. and B. Kaliski, “Public-Key Cryptography Standards (PKCS) #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications Version 2.1,” RFC 3447, February 2003 (TXT).
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K. Norrman, “The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP),” RFC 3711, March 2004 (TXT).
[RFC4330] Mills, D., “Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP) Version 4 for IPv4, IPv6 and OSI,” RFC 4330, January 2006 (TXT).
[RFC4359] Weis, B., “The Use of RSA/SHA-1 Signatures within Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH),” RFC 4359, January 2006 (TXT).
[RFC4383] Baugher, M. and E. Carrara, “The Use of Timed Efficient Stream Loss-Tolerant Authentication (TESLA) in the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP),” RFC 4383, February 2006 (TXT).
[RFC4442] Fries, S. and H. Tschofenig, “Bootstrapping Timed Efficient Stream Loss-Tolerant Authentication (TESLA),” RFC 4442, March 2006 (TXT).
[RMT-FLUTE] Paila, T., Walsh, R., Luby, M., Lehtonen, R., and V. Roca, “FLUTE - File Delivery over Unidirectional Transport,”  draft-ietf-rmt-flute-revised-05.txt (work in progress), October 2007.


 TOC 

Authors' Addresses

  Vincent Roca
  INRIA
  655, av. de l'Europe
  Inovallee; Montbonnot
  ST ISMIER cedex 38334
  France
Email:  vincent.roca@inria.fr
URI:  http://planete.inrialpes.fr/~roca/
  
  Aurelien Francillon
  INRIA
  655, av. de l'Europe
  Inovallee; Montbonnot
  ST ISMIER cedex 38334
  France
Email:  aurelien.francillon@inria.fr
URI:  http://planete.inrialpes.fr/~francill/
  
  Sebastien Faurite
  INRIA
  655, av. de l'Europe
  Inovallee; Montbonnot
  ST ISMIER cedex 38334
  France
Email:  faurite@lcpc.fr


 TOC 

Full Copyright Statement

Intellectual Property