Network Working Group K. Sklower
Request for Comments: 2419 University of California, Berkeley
Obsoletes: 1969 G. Meyer
Category: Standards Track Shiva
September 1998
The PPP DES Encryption Protocol, Version 2 (DESE-bis)
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) [1] provides a standard method for
transporting multi-protocol datagrams over point-to-point links.
The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP) [2] provides a method to
negotiate and utilize encryption protocols over PPP encapsulated
links.
This document provides specific details for the use of the DES
standard [5, 6] for encrypting PPP encapsulated packets.
Acknowledgements
The authors extend hearty thanks to Fred Baker of Cisco, Philip
Rakity of Flowpoint, and William Simpson of Daydreamer for helpful
improvements to the clarity and correctness of the document.
Table of Contents
1. IntrodUCtion ................................................ 2
1.1. Motivation ................................................ 2
1.2. Conventions ............................................... 2
2. General Overview ............................................ 2
3. Structure of This Specification ............................. 4
4. DESE Configuration Option for ECP ........................... 4
5. Packet Format for DESE ...................................... 5
6. Encryption .................................................. 6
6.1. Padding Considerations .................................... 7
6.2. Generation of the Ciphertext .............................. 8
6.3. Retrieval of the Plaintext ................................ 8
6.4. Recovery after Packet Loss ................................ 8
7. MRU Considerations .......................................... 9
8. Differences from RFC1969 ................................... 9
8.1. When to Pad ............................................... 9
8.2. Assigned Numbers .......................................... 9
8.3. Minor Editorial Changes ................................... 9
9. Security Considerations ..................................... 9
10. References ................................................. 10
11. Authors' Addresses ......................................... 11
12. Full Copyright Statement ................................... 12
1. Introduction
1.1. Motivation
The purpose of this memo is two-fold: to show how one specifies the
necessary details of a "data" or "bearer" protocol given the context
of the generic PPP Encryption Control Protocol, and also to provide
at least one commonly-understood means of secure data transmission
between PPP implementations.
The DES encryption algorithm is a well studied, understood and widely
implemented encryption algorithm. The DES cipher was designed for
efficient implementation in hardware, and consequently may be
relatively eXPensive to implement in software. However, its
pervasiveness makes it seem like a reasonable choice for a "model"
encryption protocol.
Source code implementing DES in the "Electronic Code Book Mode" can be
found in [7]. US export laws forbid the inclusion of
compilation-ready source code in this document.
1.2. Conventions
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 [8].
2. General Overview
The purpose of encrypting packets exchanged between two PPP
implementations is to attempt to insure the privacy of communication
conducted via the two implementations. The encryption process
depends on the specification of an encryption algorithm and a shared
secret (usually involving at least a key) between the sender and
receiver.
Generally, the encryptor will take a PPP packet including the
protocol field, apply the chosen encryption algorithm, place the
resulting cipher text (and in this specification, an explicit
sequence number) in the information field of another PPP packet. The
decryptor will apply the inverse algorithm and interpret the
resulting plain text as if it were a PPP packet which had arrived
directly on the interface.
The means by which the secret becomes known to both communicating
elements is beyond the scope of this document; usually some form of
manual configuration is involved. Implementations might make use of
PPP authentication, or the EndPoint Identifier Option described in
PPP Multilink [3], as factors in selecting the shared secret. If the
secret can be deduced by analysis of the communication between the
two parties, then no privacy is guaranteed.
While the US Data Encryption Standard (DES) algorithm [5, 6] provides
multiple modes of use, this specification selects the use of only one
mode in conjunction with the PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP):
the Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) mode. In addition to the US
Government publications cited above, the CBC mode is also discussed
in [7], although no C source code is provided for it per se.
The initialization vector for this mode is deduced from an explicit
64-bit nonce, which is exchanged in the clear during the negotiation
phase. The 56-bit key required by all DES modes is established as a
shared secret between the implementations.
One reason for choosing the chaining mode is that it is generally
thought to require more computation resources to deduce a 64 bit key
used for DES encryption by analysis of the encrypted communication
stream when chaining mode is used, compared with the situation where
each block is encrypted separately with no chaining. Certainly,
identical sequences of plaintext will produce different ciphers when
chaining mode is in effect, thus complicating analysis.
However, if chaining is to extend beyond packet boundaries, both the
sender and receiver must agree on the order the packets were
encrypted. Thus, this specification provides for an explicit 16 bit
sequence number to sequence decryption of the packets. This mode of
operation even allows recovery from occasional packet loss; details
are also given below.
3. Structure of This Specification
The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP), provides a framework for
negotiating parameters associated with encryption, such as choosing
the algorithm. It specifies the assigned numbers to be used as PPP
protocol numbers for the "data packets" to be carried as the
associated "data protocol", and describes the state machine.
Thus, a specification for use in that matrix need only describe any
additional configuration options required to specify a particular
algorithm, and the process by which one encrypts/decrypts the
information once the Opened state has been achieved.
4. DESE Configuration Option for ECP
Description
The ECP DESE Configuration Option indicates that the issuing
implementation is offering to employ this specification for
decrypting communications on the link, and may be thought of as
a request for its peer to encrypt packets in this manner.
The ECP DESE Configuration Option has the following fields,
which are transmitted from left to right:
Figure 1: ECP DESE Configuration Option
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type = 3 Length Initial Nonce ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
Type = 3, to indicate the DESE-bis protocol. The former
value 1 indicating the previous DESE specification is
deprecated, i.e. systems implementing this specification
MUST NOT offer the former value 1 in a configure-request
and MUST configure-reject the former value on receipt of a
configure-request containing it.
Length
10
Initial Nonce
This field is an 8 byte quantity which is used by the peer
implementation to encrypt the first packet transmitted
after the sender reaches the opened state.
To guard against replay attacks, the implementation SHOULD
offer a different value during each ECP negotiation. An
example might be to use the number of seconds since Jan
1st, 1970 (GMT/UT) in the upper 32 bits, and the current
number of nanoseconds relative to the last second mark in
the lower 32 bits.
Its formulaic role is described in the Encryption section
below.
5. Packet Format for DESE
Description
The DESE packets themselves have the following fields:
Figure 2: DES Encryption Protocol Packet Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Address Control 0000 Protocol ID
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Seq. No. High Seq. No. Low Ciphertext ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Address and Control
These fields MUST be present unless the PPP Address and
Control Field Compression option (ACFC) has been
negotiated.
Protocol ID
The value of this field is 0x53 or 0x55; the latter
indicates that ciphertext includes headers for the
Multilink Protocol, and REQUIRES that the Individual Link
Encryption Control Protocol has reached the opened state.
The leading zero MAY be absent if the PPP Protocol Field
Compression option (PFC) has been negotiated.
Sequence Number
These 16-bit numbers are assigned by the encryptor
sequentially starting with 0 (for the first packet
transmitted once ECP has reached the opened state.
Ciphertext
The generation of this data is described in the next
section.
6. Encryption
Once the ECP has reached the Opened state, the sender MUST NOT apply
the encryption procedure to LCP packets nor ECP packets.
If the async control character map option has been negotiated on the
link, the sender applies mapping after the encryption algorithm has
been run.
The encryption algorithm is generally to pad the Protocol and
Information fields of a PPP packet to some multiple of 8 bytes, and
apply DES in Chaining Block Cipher mode with a 56-bit key K.
There are a lot of details concerning what constitutes the Protocol
and Information fields, in the presence or non-presence of Multilink,
and whether the ACFC and PFC options have been negotiated, and the
sort of padding chosen.
Regardless of whether ACFC has been negotiated on the link, the
sender applies the encryption procedure to only that portion of the
packet excluding the address and control field.
If the Multilink Protocol has been negotiated and encryption is to be
construed as being applied to each link separately, then the
encryption procedure is to be applied to the (possibly extended)
protocol and information fields of the packet in the Multilink
Protocol.
If the Multilink Protocol has been negotiated and encryption is to be
construed as being applied to the bundle, then the multilink
procedure is to be applied to the resulting DESE packets.
6.1. Padding Considerations
Since the DES algorithm operates on blocks of 8 octets, plain text
packets which are of length not a multiple of 8 octets must be
padded. This can be injurious to the interpretation of some
protocols which do not contain an explicit length field in their
protocol headers.
Since there is no standard Directory of protocols which are
susceptible to corruption through padding, this can lead to confusion
over which protocols should be protected against padding-induced
corruption. Consequently, this specification requires that the
unambiguous technique described below MUST be applied to ALL plain
text packets.
The method of padding is based on that described for the LCP Self-
Describing-Padding (SDP) option (as defined in RFC1570 [4]), but
differs in two respects: first, maximum-pad value is fixed to be 8,
and second, the method is to be applied to ALL packets, not just
"specifically identified protocols".
Plain text which is not a multiple of 8 octets long MUST be padded
prior to encrypting the plain text with sufficient octets in the
sequence of octets 1, 2, 3 ... 7 to make the plain text a multiple of
8 octets.
Plain text which is already a multiple of 8 octets may require
padding with a further 8 octets (1, 2, 3 ... 8). These additional
octets MUST be appended prior to encrypting the plain text if the
last octet of the plain text has a value of 1 through 8, inclusive.
After the peer has decrypted the cipher text, it strips off the
Self-Describing-Padding octets, to recreate the original plain text.
Note that after decrypting, only the content of the last octet need
be examined to determine how many pad bytes should be removed.
However, the peer SHOULD discard the frame if all the octets forming
the padding do not match the scheme just described.
The padding operation described above is performed independently of
whether or not the LCP Self-Describing-Padding (SDP) option has been
negotiated. If it has, SDP would be applied to the packet as a whole
after it had been ciphered and after the Encryption Protocol
Identifiers had been prepended.
6.2. Generation of the Ciphertext
In this discussion, E[k] will denote the basic DES cipher determined
by a 56-bit key k acting on 64 bit blocks. and D[k] will denote the
corresponding decryption mechanism. The padded plaintext described
in the previous section then becomes a sequence of 64 bit blocks P[i]
(where i ranges from 1 to n). The circumflex character (^)
represents the bit-wise exclusive-or operation applied to 64-bit
blocks.
When encrypting the first packet to be transmitted in the opened
state let C[0] be the result of applying E[k] to the Initial Nonce
received in the peer's ECP DESE option; otherwise let C[0] be the
final block of the previously transmitted packet.
The ciphertext for the packet is generated by the iterative process
C[i] = E[k](P[i] ^ C[i-1])
for i running between 1 and n.
6.3. Retrieval of the Plaintext
When decrypting the first packet received in the opened state, let
C[0] be the result of applying E[k] to the Initial Nonce transmitted
in the ECP DESE option. The first packet will have sequence number
zero. For subsequent packets, let C[0] be the final block of the
previous packet in sequence space. Decryption is then accomplished
by
P[i] = C[i-1] ^ D[k](C[i]),
for i running between 1 and n.
6.4. Recovery after Packet Loss
Packet loss is detected when there is a discontinuity in the sequence
numbers of consecutive packets. Suppose packet number N - 1 has an
unrecoverable error or is otherwise lost, but packets N and N + 1 are
received correctly.
Since the algorithm in the previous section requires C[0] for packet
N to be C[last] for packet N - 1, it will be impossible to decode
packet N. However, all packets N + 1 and following can be decoded in
the usual way, since all that is required is the last block of
ciphertext of the previous packet (in this case packet N, which WAS
received).
7. MRU Considerations
Because padding can occur, and because there is an additional
protocol field in effect, implementations should take into account
the growth of the packets. As an example, if PFC had been
negotiated, and if the MRU before had been exactly a multiple of 8,
then the plaintext resulting combining a full sized data packets with
a one byte protocol field would require an additional 7 bytes of
padding, and the sequence number would be an additional 2 bytes so
that the information field in the DESE protocol is now 10 bytes
larger than that in the original packet. Because the convention is
that PPP options are independent of each other, negotiation of DESE
does not, by itself, automatically increase the MRU value.
8. Differences from RFC1969
8.1. When to Pad
In RFC1969, the method of Self-Describing Padding was not applied to
all packets transmitted using DESE. Following the method of the SDP
option itself, only "specifically identified protocols", were to be
padded. Protocols with an explicit length identifier were exempt.
(Examples included non-VJ-compressed IP, XNS, CLNP).
In this speficiation, the method is applied to ALL packets.
Secondly, this specification is clarified as being completely
independent of the Self-Describing-Padding option for PPP, and fixes
the maximum number of padding octets as 8.
8.2. Assigned Numbers
Since this specification could theoretically cause misinterpretation
of a packet transmitted according to the previous specification, a
new type field number has been assigned for the DESE-bis protocol
8.3. Minor Editorial Changes
This specification has been designated a standards track document.
Some other language has been changed for greater clarity.
9. Security Considerations
This proposal is concerned with providing confidentiality solely. It
does not describe any mechanisms for integrity, authentication or
nonrepudiation. It does not guarantee that any message received has
not been modified in transit through replay, cut-and-paste or active
tampering. It does not provide authentication of the source of any
packet received, or protect against the sender of any packet denying
its authorship.
This proposal relies on exterior and unspecified methods for
authentication and retrieval of shared secrets. It proposes no new
technology for privacy, but merely describes a convention for the
application of the DES cipher to data transmission between PPP
implementation.
Any methodology for the protection and retrieval of shared secrets,
and any limitations of the DES cipher are relevant to the use
described here.
10. References
[1] Simpson, W., Editor, "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51,
RFC1661, July 1994.
[2] Meyer, G., "The PPP Encryption Protocol (ECP)", RFC1968, June
1996.
[3] Sklower, K., Lloyd, B., McGregor, G., Carr, D., and T. Coradetti,
"The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP)", RFC1990, August 1996.
[4] Simpson, W., Editor, "PPP LCP Extensions", RFC1570, January
1994.
[5] National Bureau of Standards, "Data Encryption Standard", FIPS
PUB 46 (January 1977).
[6] National Bureau of Standards, "DES Modes of Operation", FIPS PUB
81 (December 1980).
[7] Schneier, B., "Applied Cryptography - Protocols Algorithms, and
source code in C", John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1994. There is an
errata associated with the book, and people can get a copy by
sending e-mail to schneier@counterpane.com.
[8] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997.
11. Authors' Addresses
Keith Sklower
Computer Science Department
339 Soda Hall, Mail Stop 1776
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720-1776
Phone: (510) 642-9587
EMail: sklower@CS.Berkeley.EDU
Gerry M. Meyer
Cisco Systems Ltd.
Bothwell House, Pochard Way,
Strathclyde Business Park,
Bellshill, ML4 3HB
Scotland, UK
Phone: (UK) (pending)
Fax: (UK) (pending)
Email: gemeyer@cisco.com
12. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
