Network Working Group A. Brusilovsky
Internet-Draft Lucent Technologies
Expires: September, 2006 March 5, 2006
Password Authenticated Diffie-Hellman Exchange (PAK)
draft-brusilovsky-pak-01.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 August 15, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document proposes to add mutual authentication, based on
human-memorizable password, to the basic unauthenticated Diffie-Hellman
key exchange. The proposed algorithm is called Password Authenticated
Key exchange (PAK). PAK allows two parties to authenticate themselves
while performing the Diffie-Hellman exchange.
The protocol is secure against all passive and active attacks.
In particular, it does not allow either type of attackers to obtain any
information that would enable an off-line dictionary attack on the
password. The use of Diffie-Hellman exchange ensures Forward Secrecy.
Brusilovsky [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-brusilovsky-pak-01.txt March 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Password Authendicated Key exchange
3. Diffie-Hellman parameters
4. IANA considerations
5. Security Considerations
6. Acknowledgments
7. References
Authors' and Contributors' Addresses
1. Introduction
When we propose PAK, we adhere to the following set of requirements:
a. Mutual authentication based on just a pre-shared,
human-memorizable password.
b. Fulfillment of the need to guard against a
man-in-the-middle and against offline dictionary attack.
c. Simplicity and openness, to promote widespread adoption
and to minimize flaws.
PAK (Password Authenticated Key exchange) satisfies all of the above.
PAK was presented at the sacred WG meeting at the IETF63 in Paris, where
it was proposed as a new work item for the sacred WG.
PAK advantages are listed here:
- Provides strong key exchange with weak passwords
- Foils the man-in-the-middle attack
- Provides explicit mutual authentication
- Ensures Forward Secrecy
The PAK protocol [BMP00, MP05] has been proved to be as secure as the
Diffie-Hellman [DH76] problem in the random oracle model [BR93]. That is,
PAK retains its security when used with low-entropy passwords, hence,
it can be seamlessly integrated into existing applications, which require
secure authentication.
Brusilovsky [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-brusilovsky-pak-01.txt March 2006
2. Password Authendicated Key exchange
We briefly describe PAK in this section. Details of the protocol are
omitted for simplicity.
Diffie-Hellman key agreement requires that both the sender and
recipient of a message create their own secret random numbers and
exchange the exponentiation of their respective numbers. By raising
the exchanged value with its secret random number both parties can
compute the same shared secret Diffie-Hellman key.
PAK has two parties, Alice and Bob, sharing a secret password PW. The
global Diffie-Hellman publicly known constants, a prime p and a generator
g are carefully selected so that
1. A safe prime p is large enough to make the computation of discrete
logarithm infeasible and
2. Powers of g modulo p cover the entire range of p-1 integers from 1 to
p-1. (References demonstrate working example of selections).
Conventions in this I-D:
- a mod b denotes the least non-negative remainder when a is divided by b;
- Hi(u) denotes an agreed-on hash function (e.g., based on SHA-1) computed
over a string u; The various H() act as independent random functions.
- s|t denotes concatenation of the strings s and t;
- ^ denotes exponentiation.
Initially, Alice selects a secret random exponent x and computes g^x mod p;
Bob selects a secret random exponent y and computes g^y mod p.
For efficiency purposes, short exponents could be used for x and y provided
they have a certain minimum size. Then:
1. Alice initiates the exchange by picking a random x and sending
Za = H1(A|B|PW)*(g^x mod p) to Bob;
2. Bob, upon receiving that quantity, verifies that Za is not a zero and then
divides it by H1(A|B|PW) to recover g^x mod p.
Then Bob picks a random y and computes
S1 = H3(A|B|PW|Za/H1(A|B|PW)|g^y mod p|(Za/H1(A|B|PW))^y mod p), and Zb== H2(A|B|PW)*(g^y mod p).
Alice sends Zb and S1 to Bob.
3. Upon receiving that message, Alice checks that Zb is not zero. Now Alice
can authenticate Bob by recovering what should be g^y mod p using
H2(A|B|PW), and computing S1 itself.
If the calculated S1 is equal to the received value, Alice computes the
key:
K = H5(A|B|PW|g^x mod p|Zb/H2(A|B|PW) mod p|(Zb/H2(A|B|PW))^x mod p)
To authenticate herself and to complete the exchange, Alice also computes
the quantity
Brusilovsky [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-brusilovsky-pak-01.txt March 2006
S2 = H4(A|B|PW|g^x mod p|Zb/H2(A|B|PW) mod p|(Zb/H2(A|B|PW))^x mod p)
and sends it to Bob.
4. Bob authenticates Alice by computing S2 himself and checking it against
the value received from Alice. If both are the same, Bob also computes
the key
K = H5(A|B|PW|Za/H1(A|B|PW) mod p|g^y mod p|(Za/H1(A|B|PW))^y mod p)
If any of the above verifications fails, the protocol halts; otherwise,
both parties have authenticated each other and established the key.
COMMENT TO ALEC: Aren't we repeating what we just described below???
A --> B: Za = H1(A|B|PW)*(g^x mod p),
Bob checks that Za does not equal zero and calculates S1 and Zb:
S1 = H3(A|B|PW|Za/H1(A|B|PW) mod p|g^y mod p|(Za/H1(A|B|PW))^y mod p)
Zb = H2(A|B|PW)*(g^y mod p)
A <-- B: Zb, S1
Alice checks that Zb does not equal zero,verifies S1 and calculates
S2 and K:
S2 = H4(A|B|PW|g^x mod p|Zb/H2(A|B|PW) mod p|(Zb/H2(A|B|PW))^x mod p)
K = H5(A|B|PW|g^x mod p|Zb/H2(A|B|PW) mod p|(Zb/H2(A|B|PW))^x mod p)
A --> B: S2
Bob verifies S2 calculates K = H5(A|B|PW|Za/H1(A|B|PW) mod p|g^y mod p|(Za/H1(A|B|PW))^y mod p)
3. Diffie-Hellman parameters:
[OTASP] and [WLAN] pre-sets public parameters p and g to their "published"
values. This is necessary to protect against an attacker sending bogus p
and g values tricking the legitimate user to engage in improper
Diffie-Hellman exponentiation and leaking some information about the
password. In addition, if short exponents [MP05]are used for Diffi-Hellman
parameters x and y, then they should have a minimum size of 384 bits as also
required in [OTASP] and [WLAN]. The independent random functions H1 and H2
should each output 1152 bits assuming prime p is 1024 bits long and session
keys K are 128 bits long. H3, H4, and H5 each output 128 bits.
More information on instantiating random functions using hash functions can be
found in [BR93]. We use the FIPS 180 SHA-1 hashing function to instantiate
the random function as done in [WLAN]:
H1(z): SHA-1(1,1,z) mod 2^128, SHA-1(1,2,z) mod 2^128,. . ., SHA-1(1,9,z) mod 2^128
H2(z): SHA-1(2,1,z) mod 2^128, SHA-1(2,2,z) mod 2^128,. . ., SHA-1(2,9,z) mod 2^128
H3(z): SHA(3,len(z),z,z) mod 2^128
H4(z): SHA(4,len(z),z,z) mod 2^128
Brusilovsky [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-brusilovsky-pak-01.txt March 2006
H5(z): SHA(5,len(z),z,z) mod 2^128
In order to create 1152 output bits for H1 and H2, nine calls to SHA-1 are made
and 128 lsbs of each output are used. The input payload of each call to SHA-1
consists of
a) 32 bits of function type which for H1 is set to 1 and for H2 is set to 2;
b) a counter value which is incremented from 1 to 9 for each call of SHA-1;
c) and finally the argument z to the function which in our application is (A|B|PW).
The functions H3, H4, and H5 require only one call to the SHA-1 hashing function
and its payload consists of
a) 32 bits of function type (e.g. 3 for H3);
b) a 32 bit value for the length of the argument z;
c) the actual argument repeated twice.
Finally, the 128 least significant bits of the output are used.
4. IANA considerations
No IANA considerations at this time
5. Security Considerations
PAK involves the use of shared keys. Protection the shared values and managing
(limiting) their exposure over time is of outmost importance.
Brusilovsky [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-brusilovsky-pak-01.txt March 2006
6. References
[BMP00] V. Boyko, P. MacKenzie, S. Patel, Provably secure password
authentication and key exchange using Diffie-Hellman,
Proc. of Eurocrypt 2000.
[BR93] M. Bellare and P. Rogaway, Random Oracles are Practical:
A Paradigm for Designing Efficient Protocols, Proc. Of the
fifth annual conference on computer and communications
security, 1993.
[DH76] W. Diffie and M.E. Hellman, New directions in cryptography,
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 22 (1976), 644-654.
Brusilovsky [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-brusilovsky-pak-01.txt March 2006
[MP05] P. MacKenzie, S. Patel, Hard Bits of the Discrete Log with
Applications to Password Authentication, CT-RSA 2005.
[RFC2631] IETF RFC 2631, E. Rescorla, Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement
Method, Standards track,1999
[SHA1] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
"Announcing the Secure Hash Standard", FIPS 180-1, U.S.
Department of Commerce, April 1995.
[OTASP] Over-the-Air Service Provisioning of Mobile Stations in Spread
Spectrum Standards, 3GPP2 C.S0016-C v. 1.0 5, 3GPP2, 10/2004.
[WLAN] Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) Interworking, 3GPP2 X.S0028-0,
v.1.0, 3GPP2, 4/2005
[WLAN-PP2] 3GPP2 X.S0028-0, v.1.0 (2005), Wireless Local Area Network
(WLAN) Interworking.
[X.800] ITU-T Recommendation X.805 (2003), Security Architecture for
Systems Providing End to end Communications.
Authors' and Contributors' Addresses
Alec Brusilovsky
Lucent Technologies
1960 Lucent Lane,
Naperville, IL 60564 USA
Tel: +1 630 979 5490
Email: abrusilovsky@lucent.com
Igor Faynberg
Lucent Technologies
Tel: +1 732 949 0137
Email: faynberg@lucent.com
Sarvar Patel
Lucent Technologies
Tel: +1 973 386 6558
Email: sarvar@lucent.com
Zachary Zeltsan
Lucent Technologies
Tel: +1 732 949 4187
Email: zeltsan@lucent.com
Brusilovsky [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-brusilovsky-pak-01.txt March 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES
OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Brusilovsky [Page 7]
Brusilovsky [Page 5]