Mls Status PagesMessaging Layer Security (Active WG)
Sec Area: Roman Danyliw, Benjamin Kaduk | 2018-May-29 —Chairs:
IETF-105 mls minutes
Session 2019-07-25 1740-1910: Place du Canada - mls chatroom
Session 2019-07-26 1000-1200: Laurier - Audio stream - mls chatroom
IETF 105 MLS Friday session 10:00-12:00 ======================================= Chairing: * Nick Sullivan * Sean Turner Notetaker: * Matthew A. Miller (m&m) # User Authentication in a Group (Britta Hale) Eric Rescorla (EKR): I just want to understand the security property we are striving for here. (paraphrasing) Are we protecting from an attacker from outside the group? * Britta Hale (BH): The attacker is from outside of group. Joe Hall (JH): What is an Epoch? * BH: Represents the current version of the group key, as defined in draft-ietf-mls-protocol. DKG: Are users interested the QR "dance" and how often would they need to do it? * BH: There is some interest yes. If we want to allow for deniability, this can help enable that. EKR: What guidance can we give the user? How often? * BH: We can give recommendation if concerned about cross-comparing with QR codes and how to do that correctly. If you do it once you can verify for all previous epochs. There is also some work that might come out that would allow an untrusted server to verify all epochs going forward. JH: Not as concerned about user-level; group-level is hard. Maybe we should think about and not necessarily design specifically towards it. * BH: If we want it we should make some plans, and we could try ratcheting the signature key. RLB: Is the proposal to generate new factors for the key schedule? (what is the impact on the protocol) BH: Group-level authentication vs Signature authentication. * "For group-level, derive one more key. Using currently existing keys requires keeping at least two keys in memory, breaking fwd secrecy. Identity-level requires updates to the signature keys. RLB: What about authenticating devices? * If we use a separate auth key, we can do cross-compare better. * RLB/BH: We are trying to auth that we have the same view of the group. RLB: Related to exporters -- we could do something to "off-ramp" and escape from the key schedule, and would this fit in there? BH: Yes, it could. RLB: Might be good to write this up as its own I-D. But, whether this is a PR or and I-D this seems useful. # draft-ietf-mls-protocol (Richard Barnes) Benjamin Beurdouche (BB): (re:consuming secrets) We throw away the secret as soon as we derive the secret. RLB: We should clarify that in the document. Riab Wahby (RW): Would it make sense to make look like an API that returns the next value? RLB: It could be, but need to figure out how to write that down. BB: This is exactly what we do in the security proof. Sean Turner (ST): Some of this setup was to mimic TLS with implementation experience, is that proving out? * RLB: The implementations are behind the current revisions (-07). * BB: Mine is slightly behind the current revision (-07). * RLB: How are they verified? * BB: The idea is that there are two implementations: one is recursive and compact and we have multiple 1000 lines of code in C (this one is further away). The company one can do the algorithms p255 and 25519. * RLB: Maybe we get a -08 and "pause" as part of the interim to give implementations time to catch up. ## Laziness (Richard Barnes) EKR: How does this work with the encrypted handshake messages? * RLB: I had not thought about it. Part of this notion might be sub-epochs. JH: Does this address the group add question? * RLB: There's a corollary < peek at slide 14> (if group changed, MUST always send ratchet before next app msg). Raphael Robert (RR): In the second line, there's a box missing about blanking, and that impacts the ratcheting steps. JH: If you have a group is mostly "silent", that "first message" is going to very expensive? * RLB: Yes, that's a good point. Trade-off between when you ratchet vs when you update. * RR: For context, wanted to defer hard computation work. Could avoid expense by doing ratches more. DKG: Question: Can you elaborate on "Add*"? * RLB: The asterisk is that someone outside can add into group, but cannot provision new secrets for the group. DKG: Concern: Not sure server-initiated is worthwhile, and if we can prevent that we have a better protocol. * RLB: To put bounds on it, we still have strong authentication and authorization provisions here; something could go unnoticed, but the cryptographic properties are maintained. EKR: The server-initiated rationale was to allow new devices to be added without access to older devices owned by the same user. * RLB: The other implementation is to allow the server to send a request, that a member completes. * EKR: The risk is server-side key escrow. * EKR: Is there a material security difference between server-initiated or server-requested? * RLB: The server-initiated is in-protocol and more accountability. * This is covered better in the next topic. RW: Do you have a sense of the range of optimality points (very-lazy vs not-lazy)? * RLB: It looks like there's enough variability that we can't have a single frequency. RLB: Excepting the server-initiated, it sounds like this is OK with the WG. ## server-initiated add DKG: This hasn't changed my concern on server-imitated concerns. * RLB/DKG: Not sure server-add has more accountability than in-band server-invite (though less with out-of-band). * DKG: Not clear what recourse others users have here other than A regular message that says "RLB got a new device". Jan Metzke (JM): I see a real benefit for something like this in-protocol, lots of usecases for it. Better to have something defined otherwise it would get abused because there are lots of usecases for it. * RLB: If you include the solicitation in the transcript you have similar accountability. Server-solicited add doesn't have good (other-client) offline properties. BH: Really see the usecases for server-initiated, but the limits on quantum-safe options is very worrisome. * RLB: We should see if we can find a way that this is still working with KEMs instead of DHs. EKR: Going back to first principles, this looks like something we should add at the application level, but have three options. * Option 1: Don't bother. * Option 2: Build constructs that tacitly permit but don't outright support (e.g., verify/audit the work). * Option 3: Build in the ability. EKR: Counter argument to lack of server-initiated: Are you better off in a world where others must add, or you can self-ignore the adds. * Live in a client-server world, with lots of clients per person. * If you force one path, then we don't get cross-fires and the chance of screwing up the tree. * Trying to avoid the case where one screwed up client messes up the group. JH: I just want to be suer we support the case where all adds are confirmed by participants. RLB: Were never trying to stop that user mode. RLB: Will take another shot at this. ## Which HPKE (Benjamin Beurdouche) RLB: The short answer (to adding context) is we should put in the symmetric inputs (cheap), but not the extra PKI initiator (expensive). ## Non-destructive Add (Benjamin Beurdouche) RLB: I think we should just do this. DKG: Did not fully understand; what happens with 3 adds? 4 adds? * RLB: You have a private key known pre-add, and a list of leaf keys added. * DKG: Doesn't this make add more efficient but send far less efficient? * BB: You only need to send to the tree + unmerged users. M&M: Less concerned about frequency, but this looks a lot more efficient for very large trees with (typically) few adds. RR: This is very interesting, but concerned about the complexity. This is orthogonal to laziness. ## Tree Signing (Benjamin Beurdouche) EKR: The (question mark) nodes are wrong (i.e., liars)? I'm not sure I'm concerned in wrong trees but right leaves. I care about confirm the partition. EKR: (in other words) I'd like to be able to tell you created the partition and can confirm the modifier. DKG: Which group members? Including the ones where you've been lied to? EKR: As a sysop, I want to correct as quickly as possible so I need to know whether encrypted messages are going to the right members. DKG: Not sure what these extra signatures concretely describe, and worry the transplanted signatures, i.e., somebody grafting subtree onto somewhere else. * BB: We want to confirm that e.g., a updated the tree, and others can verify. * BB: There is no way to enforce the same secrets on all states. DKG: Not concerned about forging, but about replay. * RLB: We have an id for the group. * BB: All the participants of the people in the subtree are mixed into the group. RLB: To wrap up, EKR's approach might be more practical compared to this, i.e., a state confirmation approach. # Next Interim (Chairs) Chairs: Sometime in September BB: Is one day enough? Maybe it should be 1.5 or even 2 days * Chairs: Will get consensus from the WG, depends on number of topics and presenters' timeliness. BH: CaN you do the poll now? * Chairs: Poll will go out today or this weekend.