Re: More on KEKIdentifiers, and a suggested addition to CMS

["Rich Ankney" <[e-mail]>]

If we're going to add another recipient type, I'd like to see it be an
open type (OID and ANY DEFINED BY), of which this would be
the first case.  ANSI X9F3 would like to add another recipient type,
as well (the Tecsec CKM stuff from X9.69).  So we would have:

Key transport
KEK
Key agreement
Other
	Password-based
	CKM

Regards,
Rich

----------
> From: Russ Housley <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: More on KEKIdentifiers, and a suggested addition to CMS
> Date: Monday, March 08, 1999 4:43 AM
> 
> Peter:
> 
> I stayed silent to see if anyone would support your suggestion.  No one
> spoke for it, but no one spke against it either.  I would like to heard
> from the list members regarding this suggestion.  I do not consider
silence
> a reason to make an additional recipient type....
> 
> Russ
> 
> At 04:19 AM 2/21/99 +0000, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> >I don't know what the final resolution on optional vs mandatory
> KEKIdentifiers 
> >was, but I note that PKCS #15, which AFAIK is the first non-S/MIME use
of CMS 
> >KEK encryption, already has to explicitly state that KEKIdentifiers are
null 
> >strings wherever they occur because they're not useful for anything
(actually 
> >there's a "not recommended" special-case use for them, see below).  I
think 
> >this proves my earlier point that there's going to be very little use
for a 
> >KEKIdentifier outside S/MIME, so that making it optional would be a good
idea.
> > 
> >Looking at the way KEKRecipientInfo is being used in PKCS #15, there's a

> >rather obvious recipient type missing from CMS: Password-based
encryption.  
> >PKCS #15 has a hack for this which puts the key derivation information
into 
> >the KEKIdentifier (this being the special-case use mentioned above), but
I'm 
> >sure this isn't what it was intended for because it isn't a key
identifier at 
> >all but contains the AlgorithmIdentifier for the password processing. 
What's 
> >really needed is a new recipient type, PasswordRecipientInfo.  Included
below 
> >is a suggestion for this which could drop directly into the CMS draft.
> > 
> >Peter.
> > 
> >-- Snip --
> > 
> >6.2.4  PasswordRecipientInfo Type
> > 
> >   Recipient information using a user-supplied password is represented
in the
> >   type PasswordRecipientInfo.  Each instance of PasswordRecipientInfo
will
> >   transfer the content-encryption key to one or more recipients who
have the
> >   previously agreed-upon password.
> > 
> >      PasswordRecipientInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
> >        version CMSVersion,  -- always set to 0
> >        keyDerivationAlgorithm KeyDerivationAlgorithmIdentifier,
> >        keyEncryptionAlgorithm ContentEncryptionAlgorithmIdentifier,
> >        encryptedKey EncryptedKey }
> > 
> >   The fields of type PasswordRecipientInfo have the following meanings:
> > 
> >      version is the syntax version number.  It shall always be 0.
> > 
> >      keyDerivationAlgorithm identifies the key-derivation algorithm,
and any
> >      associated parameters, used to derive the key-encryption key from
the
> >      user-supplied password.
> > 
> >      keyEncryptionAlgorithm identifies the content-encryption
algorithm, and
> >      any associated parameters, used to encrypt the content-encryption
key
> >      with the password-derived key-encryption key.
> > 
> >      encryptedKey is the result of encrypting the content-encryption
key with
> >      the password-derived key-encryption key.
> > 
> >   The key derivation algorithms are:
> > 
> >      KeyDerivationAlgorithmIdentifer ALGORITHM-IDENTIFIER ::= {
> >        { IDENTIFIED BY id-PBKDF2 },
> >        ...
> >        }
> > 
> >    For key derivation, CMS implementations must include PBKDF2
[PKCS5v2].
> >                        
> >    For content (= key) encryption, CMS implementations must include 
> >Triple-DES 
> >    in CBC mode, should include RC2 in CBC mode, and may include other 
> >    algorithms (CAST-128, RC5, IDEA, Skipjack) and modes as required. 
CMS 
> >    implementations should not include any KSG ciphers such as RC4.
> > 
> >-- Snip --
> > 
> >Comments:
> > 
> >The ContentEncryptionAlgorithmIdentifier is something like:
> > 
> >      ContentEncryptionAlgorithmIdentifier ::= {
> >        { IDENTIFIED BY des-ede3-cbc },
> >        { IDENTIFIED BY rc2CBC },
> >        { IDENTIFIED BY cast5CBC },
> >        { IDENTIFIED BY rc5CBC },
> >        { IDENTIFIED BY ideaCBC },
> >        { IDENTIFIED BY desCBC },
> >        ... -- ... and anything else you can think of, eg Skipjack
> >        }
> > 
> >but enumerating every possible one is superfluous as they're specified 
> >elsewhere.
> > 
> >The content is encrypted is as per the KEK algorithm, but using the IV
given 
> >in the ContentEncryptionAlgorithmIdentifier instead of a fixed IV - this
is 
> >just standard CMS content encryption.  The advantage of using standard
> OIDs is 
> >that it doesn't require defining a completely new set of OIDs which
parallel 
> >all of the existing ones just to show that you're encrypting a key. 
Another 
> >way to handle this is as EncryptedContentInfo (which just adds an extra 
> >SEQUENCE around the existing ContentEncryptionAlgorithmIdentifier + 
> >EncryptedContent (=EncryptedKey)), but this is probably going overboard.
> > 
> >(I'm prepared to accept a 'kekid [0] KEKIdentifier OPTIONAL' after the
> version 
> > number if that's what's required to get people's grunt of approval for
the 
> > thing).
> > 
> >(Before people complain that you can't change the key wrap algorithm, if
it 
> > ever does become necessary to change it (and I thought the point of the

> > current key wrap design process was to build a solution once and for
all), 
> > all you need to do is increment the RecipientInfo version number and
add 
> > whatever you feel like).
> > 
> >Peter.
> > 
> >