TLS
TLS (Transport Layer Security): protocol, extensions, deployment guidance
Within this page
TLS subjects:
- DTLS57 RFCs
TLS RFCs (171)
RFC 10024: Post-Quantum Traditional (PQ/T) Hybrid Key Agreement Mechanisms for TLS 1.3
Proposed Standard- K. Kwiatkowski
- P. Kampanakis
- B. E. Westerbaan
- D. Stebila
- August 2026
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document defines three hybrid key agreement mechanisms for TLS 1.3 -- X25519MLKEM768, SecP256r1MLKEM768, and SecP384r1MLKEM1024 -- that combine the post-quantum ML-KEM (Module-Lattice-Based Key Encapsulation Mechanism) with an ECDHE (Ephemeral Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman) exchange.
Abstract
This document defines three hybrid key agreement mechanisms for TLS 1.3 -- X25519MLKEM768, SecP256r1MLKEM768, and SecP384r1MLKEM1024 -- that combine the post-quantum ML-KEM (Module-Lattice-Based Key Encapsulation Mechanism) with an ECDHE (Ephemeral Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman) exchange.
RFC 9852: BCP 195: New Protocols Using TLS Must Require TLS 1.3
Best Current Practice- R. Salz
- N. Aviram
- July 2026
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
TLS 1.3 is widely used, has had comprehensive security proofs, and improves both security and privacy deficiencies in TLS 1.2. Therefore, new protocols that use TLS must require TLS 1.3. As DTLS 1.3 is not widely available or deployed, this prescription does not pertain to DTLS (in any DTLS version); it pertains to TLS only.
This document updates RFC 9325. It discusses post-quantum cryptography and the security and privacy improvements in TLS 1.3 as the rationale for the update.
Abstract
TLS 1.3 is widely used, has had comprehensive security proofs, and improves both security and privacy deficiencies in TLS 1.2. Therefore, new protocols that use TLS must require TLS 1.3. As DTLS 1.3 is not widely available or deployed, this prescription does not pertain to DTLS (in any DTLS version); it pertains to TLS only.
This document updates RFC 9325. It discusses post-quantum cryptography and the security and privacy improvements in TLS 1.3 as the rationale for the update.
RFC 9850: The SSLKEYLOGFILE Format for TLS
Informational- M. Thomson
- Y. Rosomakho
- H. Tschofenig
- July 2026
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document describes a format that supports logging information about the secrets used in a TLS connection. Recording secrets to a file in SSLKEYLOGFILE format allows diagnostic and logging tools that use this file to decrypt messages exchanged by TLS endpoints. This format is intended for use in systems where TLS only protects test data.
Abstract
This document describes a format that supports logging information about the secrets used in a TLS connection. Recording secrets to a file in SSLKEYLOGFILE format allows diagnostic and logging tools that use this file to decrypt messages exchanged by TLS endpoints. This format is intended for use in systems where TLS only protects test data.
RFC 9851: TLS 1.2 is in Feature Freeze
Proposed Standard- R. Salz
- N. Aviram
- July 2026
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
Use of TLS 1.3, which fixes some known deficiencies in TLS 1.2, is growing. This document specifies that no changes will be approved for TLS 1.2 outside of urgent security fixes (as determined by TLS Working Group consensus), new TLS Exporter Labels, and new Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs. This applies to TLS only; it does not apply to DTLS (in any DTLS version).
Abstract
Use of TLS 1.3, which fixes some known deficiencies in TLS 1.2, is growing. This document specifies that no changes will be approved for TLS 1.2 outside of urgent security fixes (as determined by TLS Working Group consensus), new TLS Exporter Labels, and new Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs. This applies to TLS only; it does not apply to DTLS (in any DTLS version).
RFC 9954: Hybrid Key Exchange in TLS 1.3
Informational- D. Stebila
- S. Fluhrer
- S. Gueron
- July 2026
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
Hybrid key exchange refers to using multiple key exchange algorithms simultaneously and combining the result with the goal of providing security even if a way is found to defeat the encryption for all but one of the component algorithms. It is motivated by the transition to post-quantum cryptography. This document provides a construction for hybrid key exchange in the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol version 1.3.
Abstract
Hybrid key exchange refers to using multiple key exchange algorithms simultaneously and combining the result with the goal of providing security even if a way is found to defeat the encryption for all but one of the component algorithms. It is motivated by the transition to post-quantum cryptography. This document provides a construction for hybrid key exchange in the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol version 1.3.
RFC 9973: TLS 1.3 Extension for Using Certificates with an External Pre-Shared Key
Proposed Standard- R. Housley
- July 2026
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document specifies a TLS 1.3 extension that allows TLS clients and servers to authenticate with certificates and provide confidentiality based on encryption with a symmetric key from the usual key agreement algorithm and an external pre-shared key (PSK). This Standards Track RFC obsoletes RFC 8773, which was an Experimental RFC.
Abstract
This document specifies a TLS 1.3 extension that allows TLS clients and servers to authenticate with certificates and provide confidentiality based on encryption with a symmetric key from the usual key agreement algorithm and an external pre-shared key (PSK). This Standards Track RFC obsoletes RFC 8773, which was an Experimental RFC.
RFC 9916: Updates to the Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Proposed Standard- D. Dhody
- S. Turner
- R. Housley
- July 2026
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Section 3.4 of RFC 8253 specifies TLS connection establishment restrictions for PCEPS; PCEPS refers to usage of TLS to provide a secure transport for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP). This document adds restrictions to specify what PCEPS implementations do if they support more than one version of the TLS protocol and to restrict the use of TLS 1.3's early data.
Abstract
Section 3.4 of RFC 8253 specifies TLS connection establishment restrictions for PCEPS; PCEPS refers to usage of TLS to provide a secure transport for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP). This document adds restrictions to specify what PCEPS implementations do if they support more than one version of the TLS protocol and to restrict the use of TLS 1.3's early data.
RFC 9918: Updates to Using the NETCONF Protocol over Transport Layer Security (TLS) with Mutual X.509 Authentication
Proposed Standard- S. Turner
- R. Housley
- July 2026
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
RFC 7589 defines how to protect Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) messages with TLS 1.2. This document updates RFC 7589 to update support requirements for TLS 1.2 and add TLS 1.3 support requirements, including restrictions on the use of TLS 1.3's early data.
Abstract
RFC 7589 defines how to protect Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) messages with TLS 1.2. This document updates RFC 7589 to update support requirements for TLS 1.2 and add TLS 1.3 support requirements, including restrictions on the use of TLS 1.3's early data.
RFC 9846: The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3
Proposed Standard- E. Rescorla
- July 2026
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document specifies version 1.3 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. TLS allows client/server applications to communicate over the Internet in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, and message forgery.
This document obsoletes RFC 8446, which specified TLS 1.3. This document obsoletes RFC 5246 (specifying TLS 1.2) and RFCs 5077, 6961, 7627, and 8422, all of which pertain to TLS 1.2 or earlier, and updates RFCs 5705 and 6066. This document also specifies new requirements for TLS 1.2 implementations.
Abstract
This document specifies version 1.3 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. TLS allows client/server applications to communicate over the Internet in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, and message forgery.
This document obsoletes RFC 8446, which specified TLS 1.3. This document obsoletes RFC 5246 (specifying TLS 1.2) and RFCs 5077, 6961, 7627, and 8422, all of which pertain to TLS 1.2 or earlier, and updates RFCs 5705 and 6066. This document also specifies new requirements for TLS 1.2 implementations.
RFC 9966: Bootstrapped TLS Authentication with Proof of Knowledge
Proposed Standard- O. Friel
- D. Harkins
- May 2026
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document defines a mechanism that enables a bootstrapping device to establish trust and mutually authenticate against a TLS server. Bootstrapping devices have a public/private key pair; this mechanism enables a TLS server to prove to the device that it knows the public key and enables the device to prove to the TLS server that it knows the private key. The mechanism leverages existing Device Provisioning Profile (DPP) and TLS standards and can be used in an Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) exchange with an EAP server.
Abstract
This document defines a mechanism that enables a bootstrapping device to establish trust and mutually authenticate against a TLS server. Bootstrapping devices have a public/private key pair; this mechanism enables a TLS server to prove to the device that it knows the public key and enables the device to prove to the TLS server that it knows the private key. The mechanism leverages existing Device Provisioning Profile (DPP) and TLS standards and can be used in an Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) exchange with an EAP server.
RFC 9963: Legacy RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 Code Points for TLS 1.3
Proposed Standard- D. Benjamin
- A. Popov
- April 2026
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document allocates code points for the use of RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 with client certificates in TLS 1.3. This removes an obstacle for some deployments to migrate to TLS 1.3.
Abstract
This document allocates code points for the use of RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 with client certificates in TLS 1.3. This removes an obstacle for some deployments to migrate to TLS 1.3.
RFC 9932: Mutually Authenticating TLS in the Context of Federations
Informational- S. Halén
- J. Schlyter
- April 2026
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
This Informational Independent Submission to the RFC Series describes a means to use TLS 1.3 to perform machine-to-machine mutual authentication within federations. This memo is not a standard. It does not modify the TLS protocol in any way, nor does it require changes to common TLS libraries. TLS is specified and standardized by the IETF's TLS Working Group.
The framework enables interoperable trust management for federated machine-to-machine communication. It introduces a centrally managed trust anchor and a controlled metadata publication process, ensuring that only authorized members are identifiable within the federation. These mechanisms support unambiguous entity identification and reduce the risk of impersonation, promoting secure and policy-aligned interaction across organizational boundaries.
Abstract
This Informational Independent Submission to the RFC Series describes a means to use TLS 1.3 to perform machine-to-machine mutual authentication within federations. This memo is not a standard. It does not modify the TLS protocol in any way, nor does it require changes to common TLS libraries. TLS is specified and standardized by the IETF's TLS Working Group.
The framework enables interoperable trust management for federated machine-to-machine communication. It introduces a centrally managed trust anchor and a controlled metadata publication process, ensuring that only authorized members are identifiable within the federation. These mechanisms support unambiguous entity identification and reduce the risk of impersonation, promoting secure and policy-aligned interaction across organizational boundaries.
RFC 9950: A YANG Data Model for Terminal Access Controller Access-Control System Plus (TACACS+)
Proposed Standard- M. Boucadair
- B. Wu
- March 2026
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document defines a Terminal Access Controller Access-Control
System Plus (TACACS+) client YANG module that augments the System
Management data model, defined in RFC 7317, to allow devices to make
use of TACACS+ servers for centralized Authentication, Authorization,
and Accounting (AAA). Specifically, the TACACS+ YANG module can be
used to manage TACACS+ over TLS.
This document obsoletes RFC 9105.
Abstract
This document defines a Terminal Access Controller Access-Control
System Plus (TACACS+) client YANG module that augments the System
Management data model, defined in RFC 7317, to allow devices to make
use of TACACS+ servers for centralized Authentication, Authorization,
and Accounting (AAA). Specifically, the TACACS+ YANG module can be
used to manage TACACS+ over TLS.
This document obsoletes RFC 9105.
RFC 9934: Privacy-Enhanced Mail (PEM) File Format for Encrypted ClientHello (ECH)
Proposed Standard- S. Farrell
- March 2026
- IETF publication
Abstract
Encrypted ClientHello (ECH) key pairs need to be configured into TLS servers, which can be built using different TLS libraries. This document specifies a standard file format for this purpose, similar to how RFC 7468 defines other Privacy-Enhanced Mail (PEM) file formats.
Abstract
Encrypted ClientHello (ECH) key pairs need to be configured into TLS servers, which can be built using different TLS libraries. This document specifies a standard file format for this purpose, similar to how RFC 7468 defines other Privacy-Enhanced Mail (PEM) file formats.
RFC 9848: Bootstrapping TLS Encrypted ClientHello with DNS Service Bindings
Proposed Standard- B. Schwartz
- M. Bishop
- E. Nygren
- March 2026
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
To use TLS Encrypted ClientHello (ECH), the client needs to learn the ECH configuration for a server before it attempts a connection to the server. This specification provides a mechanism for conveying the ECH configuration information via DNS, using a SVCB or HTTPS resource record (RR).
Abstract
To use TLS Encrypted ClientHello (ECH), the client needs to learn the ECH configuration for a server before it attempts a connection to the server. This specification provides a mechanism for conveying the ECH configuration information via DNS, using a SVCB or HTTPS resource record (RR).
RFC 9849: TLS Encrypted Client Hello
Proposed Standard- E. Rescorla
- K. Oku
- N. Sullivan
- C. A. Wood
- March 2026
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism in Transport Layer Security (TLS) for encrypting a message under a server public key.
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism in Transport Layer Security (TLS) for encrypting a message under a server public key.
RFC 9887: Terminal Access Controller Access-Control System Plus (TACACS+) over TLS 1.3
Proposed Standard- T. Dahm
- J. Heasley
- D.C. Medway Gash
- A. Ota
- December 2025
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document specifies the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) version 1.3 to secure the communication channel between a Terminal Access Controller Access-Control System Plus (TACACS+) client and server. TACACS+ is a protocol used for Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) in networked environments. The original TACACS+ protocol does not mandate the use of encryption or secure transport. This specification defines a profile for using TLS 1.3 with TACACS+, including guidance on authentication, connection establishment, and operational considerations. The goal is to enhance the confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity of TACACS+ traffic, aligning the protocol with modern security best practices.
This document updates RFC 8907.
Abstract
This document specifies the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) version 1.3 to secure the communication channel between a Terminal Access Controller Access-Control System Plus (TACACS+) client and server. TACACS+ is a protocol used for Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) in networked environments. The original TACACS+ protocol does not mandate the use of encryption or secure transport. This specification defines a profile for using TLS 1.3 with TACACS+, including guidance on authentication, connection establishment, and operational considerations. The goal is to enhance the confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity of TACACS+ traffic, aligning the protocol with modern security best practices.
This document updates RFC 8907.
RFC 9813: BCP 243: Operational Considerations for Using TLS Pre-Shared Keys (TLS-PSKs) with RADIUS
Best Current Practice- A. DeKok
- July 2025
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document provides implementation and operational considerations for using TLS Pre-Shared Keys (TLS-PSKs) with RADIUS/TLS (RFC 6614) and RADIUS/DTLS (RFC 7360). The purpose of the document is to help smooth the operational transition from the use of RADIUS/UDP to RADIUS/TLS.
Abstract
This document provides implementation and operational considerations for using TLS Pre-Shared Keys (TLS-PSKs) with RADIUS/TLS (RFC 6614) and RADIUS/DTLS (RFC 7360). The purpose of the document is to help smooth the operational transition from the use of RADIUS/UDP to RADIUS/TLS.
RFC 9765: RADIUS/1.1: Leveraging Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) to Remove MD5
Experimental- A. DeKok
- April 2025
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document defines Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) extensions for use with RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS. These extensions permit the negotiation of an application protocol variant of RADIUS called "RADIUS/1.1". No changes are made to RADIUS/UDP or RADIUS/TCP. The extensions allow the negotiation of a transport profile where the RADIUS shared secret is no longer used, and all MD5-based packet authentication and attribute obfuscation methods are removed.
This document updates RFCs 2865, 2866, 5176, 6613, 6614, and 7360.
Abstract
This document defines Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) extensions for use with RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS. These extensions permit the negotiation of an application protocol variant of RADIUS called "RADIUS/1.1". No changes are made to RADIUS/UDP or RADIUS/TCP. The extensions allow the negotiation of a transport profile where the RADIUS shared secret is no longer used, and all MD5-based packet authentication and attribute obfuscation methods are removed.
This document updates RFCs 2865, 2866, 5176, 6613, 6614, and 7360.
RFC 9645: YANG Groupings for TLS Clients and TLS Servers
Proposed Standard- K. Watsen
- October 2024
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document presents four YANG 1.1 modules -- three IETF modules and one supporting IANA module.
The three IETF modules are "ietf-tls-common", "ietf-tls-client", and "ietf-tls-server". The "ietf-tls-client" and "ietf-tls-server" modules are the primary productions of this work, supporting the configuration and monitoring of TLS clients and servers.
The IANA module is "iana-tls-cipher-suite-algs". This module defines YANG enumerations that provide support for an IANA-maintained algorithm registry.
Abstract
This document presents four YANG 1.1 modules -- three IETF modules and one supporting IANA module.
The three IETF modules are "ietf-tls-common", "ietf-tls-client", and "ietf-tls-server". The "ietf-tls-client" and "ietf-tls-server" modules are the primary productions of this work, supporting the configuration and monitoring of TLS clients and servers.
The IANA module is "iana-tls-cipher-suite-algs". This module defines YANG enumerations that provide support for an IANA-maintained algorithm registry.
RFC 9539: Unilateral Opportunistic Deployment of Encrypted Recursive-to-Authoritative DNS
Experimental- D. K. Gillmor
- J. Salazar
- P. Hoffman
- February 2024
- IETF publication
- Internet Area
Abstract
This document sets out steps that DNS servers (recursive resolvers and authoritative servers) can take unilaterally (without any coordination with other peers) to defend DNS query privacy against a passive network monitor. The protections provided by the guidance in this document can be defeated by an active attacker, but they should be simpler and less risky to deploy than more powerful defenses.
The goal of this document is to simplify and speed up deployment of opportunistic encrypted transport in the recursive-to-authoritative hop of the DNS ecosystem. Wider easy deployment of the underlying encrypted transport on an opportunistic basis may facilitate the future specification of stronger cryptographic protections against more-powerful attacks.
Abstract
This document sets out steps that DNS servers (recursive resolvers and authoritative servers) can take unilaterally (without any coordination with other peers) to defend DNS query privacy against a passive network monitor. The protections provided by the guidance in this document can be defeated by an active attacker, but they should be simpler and less risky to deploy than more powerful defenses.
The goal of this document is to simplify and speed up deployment of opportunistic encrypted transport in the recursive-to-authoritative hop of the DNS ecosystem. Wider easy deployment of the underlying encrypted transport on an opportunistic basis may facilitate the future specification of stronger cryptographic protections against more-powerful attacks.
RFC 9525: Service Identity in TLS
Proposed Standard- P. Saint-Andre
- R. Salz
- November 2023
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
Many application technologies enable secure communication between two entities by means of Transport Layer Security (TLS) with Internet Public Key Infrastructure using X.509 (PKIX) certificates. This document specifies procedures for representing and verifying the identity of application services in such interactions.
This document obsoletes RFC 6125.
Abstract
Many application technologies enable secure communication between two entities by means of Transport Layer Security (TLS) with Internet Public Key Infrastructure using X.509 (PKIX) certificates. This document specifies procedures for representing and verifying the identity of application services in such interactions.
This document obsoletes RFC 6125.
RFC 9431: Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT) and Transport Layer Security (TLS) Profile of Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) Framework
Proposed Standard- C. Sengul
- A. Kirby
- July 2023
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document specifies a profile for the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework to enable authorization in a publish-subscribe messaging system based on Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT). Proof-of-Possession keys, bound to OAuth 2.0 access tokens, are used to authenticate and authorize MQTT Clients. The protocol relies on TLS for confidentiality and MQTT server (Broker) authentication.
Abstract
This document specifies a profile for the Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) framework to enable authorization in a publish-subscribe messaging system based on Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT). Proof-of-Possession keys, bound to OAuth 2.0 access tokens, are used to authenticate and authorize MQTT Clients. The protocol relies on TLS for confidentiality and MQTT server (Broker) authentication.
RFC 9427: TLS-Based Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Types for Use with TLS 1.3
Proposed Standard- A. DeKok
- June 2023
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
The Extensible Authentication Protocol-TLS (EAP-TLS) (RFC 5216) has been updated for TLS 1.3 in RFC 9190. Many other EAP Types also depend on TLS, such as EAP-Flexible Authentication via Secure Tunneling (EAP-FAST) (RFC 4851), EAP-Tunneled TLS (EAP-TTLS) (RFC 5281), the Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol (TEAP) (RFC 7170). It is possible that many vendor-specific EAP methods, such as the Protected Extensible Authentication Protocol (PEAP), depend on TLS as well. This document updates those methods in order to use the new key derivation methods available in TLS 1.3. Additional changes necessitated by TLS 1.3 are also discussed.
Abstract
The Extensible Authentication Protocol-TLS (EAP-TLS) (RFC 5216) has been updated for TLS 1.3 in RFC 9190. Many other EAP Types also depend on TLS, such as EAP-Flexible Authentication via Secure Tunneling (EAP-FAST) (RFC 4851), EAP-Tunneled TLS (EAP-TTLS) (RFC 5281), the Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol (TEAP) (RFC 7170). It is possible that many vendor-specific EAP methods, such as the Protected Extensible Authentication Protocol (PEAP), depend on TLS as well. This document updates those methods in order to use the new key derivation methods available in TLS 1.3. Additional changes necessitated by TLS 1.3 are also discussed.
RFC 9368: Compatible Version Negotiation for QUIC
Proposed Standard- D. Schinazi
- E. Rescorla
- May 2023
- IETF publication
- Web and Internet Transport
Abstract
QUIC does not provide a complete version negotiation mechanism but instead only provides a way for the server to indicate that the version the client chose is unacceptable. This document describes a version negotiation mechanism that allows a client and server to select a mutually supported version. Optionally, if the client's chosen version and the negotiated version share a compatible first flight format, the negotiation can take place without incurring an extra round trip. This document updates RFC 8999.
Abstract
QUIC does not provide a complete version negotiation mechanism but instead only provides a way for the server to indicate that the version the client chose is unacceptable. This document describes a version negotiation mechanism that allows a client and server to select a mutually supported version. Optionally, if the client's chosen version and the negotiated version share a compatible first flight format, the negotiation can take place without incurring an extra round trip. This document updates RFC 8999.
RFC 9367: GOST Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3
Informational- S. Smyshlyaev
- E. Alekseev
- E. Griboedova
- A. Babueva
- L. Nikiforova
- February 2023
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
The purpose of this document is to make the Russian cryptographic standards available to the Internet community for their implementation in the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3.
This document defines the cipher suites, signature schemes, and key exchange mechanisms for using Russian cryptographic standards, called GOST algorithms, with TLS Version 1.3. Additionally, this document specifies a profile of TLS 1.3 with GOST algorithms to facilitate interoperable implementations. The IETF has not endorsed the cipher suites, signature schemes, or key exchange mechanisms described in this document.
Abstract
The purpose of this document is to make the Russian cryptographic standards available to the Internet community for their implementation in the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3.
This document defines the cipher suites, signature schemes, and key exchange mechanisms for using Russian cryptographic standards, called GOST algorithms, with TLS Version 1.3. Additionally, this document specifies a profile of TLS 1.3 with GOST algorithms to facilitate interoperable implementations. The IETF has not endorsed the cipher suites, signature schemes, or key exchange mechanisms described in this document.
RFC 9289: Towards Remote Procedure Call Encryption by Default
Proposed Standard- T. Myklebust
- C. Lever
- September 2022
- IETF publication
- Web and Internet Transport
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism that, through the use of opportunistic Transport Layer Security (TLS), enables encryption of Remote Procedure Call (RPC) transactions while they are in transit. The proposed mechanism interoperates with Open Network Computing (ONC) RPC implementations that do not support it. This document updates RFC 5531.
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism that, through the use of opportunistic Transport Layer Security (TLS), enables encryption of Remote Procedure Call (RPC) transactions while they are in transit. The proposed mechanism interoperates with Open Network Computing (ONC) RPC implementations that do not support it. This document updates RFC 5531.
RFC 9266: Channel Bindings for TLS 1.3
Proposed Standard- S. Whited
- July 2022
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document defines a channel binding type, tls-exporter, that is compatible with TLS 1.3 in accordance with RFC 5056, "On the Use of Channel Bindings to Secure Channels". Furthermore, it updates the default channel binding to the new binding for versions of TLS greater than 1.2. This document updates RFCs 5801, 5802, 5929, and 7677.
Abstract
This document defines a channel binding type, tls-exporter, that is compatible with TLS 1.3 in accordance with RFC 5056, "On the Use of Channel Bindings to Secure Channels". Furthermore, it updates the default channel binding to the new binding for versions of TLS greater than 1.2. This document updates RFCs 5801, 5802, 5929, and 7677.
RFC 9257: Guidance for External Pre-Shared Key (PSK) Usage in TLS
Informational- R. Housley
- J. Hoyland
- M. Sethi
- C. A. Wood
- July 2022
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document provides usage guidance for external Pre-Shared Keys (PSKs) in Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.3 as defined in RFC 8446. It lists TLS security properties provided by PSKs under certain assumptions, then it demonstrates how violations of these assumptions lead to attacks. Advice for applications to help meet these assumptions is provided. This document also discusses PSK use cases and provisioning processes. Finally, it lists the privacy and security properties that are not provided by TLS 1.3 when external PSKs are used.
Abstract
This document provides usage guidance for external Pre-Shared Keys (PSKs) in Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.3 as defined in RFC 8446. It lists TLS security properties provided by PSKs under certain assumptions, then it demonstrates how violations of these assumptions lead to attacks. Advice for applications to help meet these assumptions is provided. This document also discusses PSK use cases and provisioning processes. Finally, it lists the privacy and security properties that are not provided by TLS 1.3 when external PSKs are used.
RFC 9258: Importing External Pre-Shared Keys (PSKs) for TLS 1.3
Proposed Standard- D. Benjamin
- C. A. Wood
- July 2022
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document describes an interface for importing external Pre-Shared Keys (PSKs) into TLS 1.3.
Abstract
This document describes an interface for importing external Pre-Shared Keys (PSKs) into TLS 1.3.
RFC 9261: Exported Authenticators in TLS
Proposed Standard- N. Sullivan
- July 2022
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism that builds on Transport Layer Security (TLS) or Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) and enables peers to provide proof of ownership of an identity, such as an X.509 certificate. This proof can be exported by one peer, transmitted out of band to the other peer, and verified by the receiving peer.
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism that builds on Transport Layer Security (TLS) or Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) and enables peers to provide proof of ownership of an identity, such as an X.509 certificate. This proof can be exported by one peer, transmitted out of band to the other peer, and verified by the receiving peer.
RFC 9149: TLS Ticket Requests
Proposed Standard- T. Pauly
- D. Schinazi
- C.A. Wood
- April 2022
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
TLS session tickets enable stateless connection resumption for clients without server-side, per-client state. Servers vend an arbitrary number of session tickets to clients, at their discretion, upon connection establishment. Clients store and use tickets when resuming future connections. This document describes a mechanism by which clients can specify the desired number of tickets needed for future connections. This extension aims to provide a means for servers to determine the number of tickets to generate in order to reduce ticket waste while simultaneously priming clients for future connection attempts.
Abstract
TLS session tickets enable stateless connection resumption for clients without server-side, per-client state. Servers vend an arbitrary number of session tickets to clients, at their discretion, upon connection establishment. Clients store and use tickets when resuming future connections. This document describes a mechanism by which clients can specify the desired number of tickets needed for future connections. This extension aims to provide a means for servers to determine the number of tickets to generate in order to reduce ticket waste while simultaneously priming clients for future connection attempts.
RFC 9150: TLS 1.3 Authentication and Integrity-Only Cipher Suites
Informational- N. Cam-Winget
- J. Visoky
- April 2022
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
This document defines the use of cipher suites for TLS 1.3 based on Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC). Using these cipher suites provides server and, optionally, mutual authentication and data authenticity, but not data confidentiality. Cipher suites with these properties are not of general applicability, but there are use cases, specifically in Internet of Things (IoT) and constrained environments, that do not require confidentiality of exchanged messages while still requiring integrity protection, server authentication, and optional client authentication. This document gives examples of such use cases, with the caveat that prior to using these integrity-only cipher suites, a threat model for the situation at hand is needed, and a threat analysis must be performed within that model to determine whether the use of integrity-only cipher suites is appropriate. The approach described in this document is not endorsed by the IETF and does not have IETF consensus, but it is presented here to enable interoperable implementation of a reduced-security mechanism that provides authentication and message integrity without supporting confidentiality.
Abstract
This document defines the use of cipher suites for TLS 1.3 based on Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC). Using these cipher suites provides server and, optionally, mutual authentication and data authenticity, but not data confidentiality. Cipher suites with these properties are not of general applicability, but there are use cases, specifically in Internet of Things (IoT) and constrained environments, that do not require confidentiality of exchanged messages while still requiring integrity protection, server authentication, and optional client authentication. This document gives examples of such use cases, with the caveat that prior to using these integrity-only cipher suites, a threat model for the situation at hand is needed, and a threat analysis must be performed within that model to determine whether the use of integrity-only cipher suites is appropriate. The approach described in this document is not endorsed by the IETF and does not have IETF consensus, but it is presented here to enable interoperable implementation of a reduced-security mechanism that provides authentication and message integrity without supporting confidentiality.
RFC 9189: GOST Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2
Informational- S. Smyshlyaev
- D. Belyavsky
- E. Alekseev
- March 2022
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
This document specifies three new cipher suites, two new signature algorithms, seven new supported groups, and two new certificate types for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol version 1.2 to support the Russian cryptographic standard algorithms (called "GOST" algorithms). This document specifies a profile of TLS 1.2 with GOST algorithms so that implementers can produce interoperable implementations.
This specification facilitates implementations that aim to support the GOST algorithms. This document does not imply IETF endorsement of the cipher suites, signature algorithms, supported groups, and certificate types.
Abstract
This document specifies three new cipher suites, two new signature algorithms, seven new supported groups, and two new certificate types for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol version 1.2 to support the Russian cryptographic standard algorithms (called "GOST" algorithms). This document specifies a profile of TLS 1.2 with GOST algorithms so that implementers can produce interoperable implementations.
This specification facilitates implementations that aim to support the GOST algorithms. This document does not imply IETF endorsement of the cipher suites, signature algorithms, supported groups, and certificate types.
RFC 9190: EAP-TLS 1.3: Using the Extensible Authentication Protocol with TLS 1.3
Proposed Standard- J. Preuß Mattsson
- M. Sethi
- February 2022
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), defined in RFC 3748, provides a standard mechanism for support of multiple authentication methods. This document specifies the use of EAP-TLS with TLS 1.3 while remaining backwards compatible with existing implementations of EAP-TLS. TLS 1.3 provides significantly improved security and privacy, and reduced latency when compared to earlier versions of TLS. EAP-TLS with TLS 1.3 (EAP-TLS 1.3) further improves security and privacy by always providing forward secrecy, never disclosing the peer identity, and by mandating use of revocation checking when compared to EAP-TLS with earlier versions of TLS. This document also provides guidance on authentication, authorization, and resumption for EAP-TLS in general (regardless of the underlying TLS version used). This document updates RFC 5216.
Abstract
The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), defined in RFC 3748, provides a standard mechanism for support of multiple authentication methods. This document specifies the use of EAP-TLS with TLS 1.3 while remaining backwards compatible with existing implementations of EAP-TLS. TLS 1.3 provides significantly improved security and privacy, and reduced latency when compared to earlier versions of TLS. EAP-TLS with TLS 1.3 (EAP-TLS 1.3) further improves security and privacy by always providing forward secrecy, never disclosing the peer identity, and by mandating use of revocation checking when compared to EAP-TLS with earlier versions of TLS. This document also provides guidance on authentication, authorization, and resumption for EAP-TLS in general (regardless of the underlying TLS version used). This document updates RFC 5216.
RFC 9191: Handling Large Certificates and Long Certificate Chains in TLS-Based EAP Methods
Informational- M. Sethi
- J. Preuß Mattsson
- S. Turner
- February 2022
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), defined in RFC 3748, provides a standard mechanism for support of multiple authentication methods. EAP-TLS and other TLS-based EAP methods are widely deployed and used for network access authentication. Large certificates and long certificate chains combined with authenticators that drop an EAP session after only 40 - 50 round trips is a major deployment problem. This document looks at this problem in detail and describes the potential solutions available.
Abstract
The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), defined in RFC 3748, provides a standard mechanism for support of multiple authentication methods. EAP-TLS and other TLS-based EAP methods are widely deployed and used for network access authentication. Large certificates and long certificate chains combined with authenticators that drop an EAP session after only 40 - 50 round trips is a major deployment problem. This document looks at this problem in detail and describes the potential solutions available.
RFC 9162: Certificate Transparency Version 2.0
Experimental- B. Laurie
- E. Messeri
- R. Stradling
- December 2021
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document describes version 2.0 of the Certificate Transparency (CT) protocol for publicly logging the existence of Transport Layer Security (TLS) server certificates as they are issued or observed, in a manner that allows anyone to audit certification authority (CA) activity and notice the issuance of suspect certificates as well as to audit the certificate logs themselves. The intent is that eventually clients would refuse to honor certificates that do not appear in a log, effectively forcing CAs to add all issued certificates to the logs.
This document obsoletes RFC 6962. It also specifies a new TLS extension that is used to send various CT log artifacts.
Logs are network services that implement the protocol operations for submissions and queries that are defined in this document.
Abstract
This document describes version 2.0 of the Certificate Transparency (CT) protocol for publicly logging the existence of Transport Layer Security (TLS) server certificates as they are issued or observed, in a manner that allows anyone to audit certification authority (CA) activity and notice the issuance of suspect certificates as well as to audit the certificate logs themselves. The intent is that eventually clients would refuse to honor certificates that do not appear in a log, effectively forcing CAs to add all issued certificates to the logs.
This document obsoletes RFC 6962. It also specifies a new TLS extension that is used to send various CT log artifacts.
Logs are network services that implement the protocol operations for submissions and queries that are defined in this document.
RFC 9103: DNS Zone Transfer over TLS
Proposed Standard- W. Toorop
- S. Dickinson
- S. Sahib
- P. Aras
- A. Mankin
- August 2021
- IETF publication
- Internet Area
Abstract
DNS zone transfers are transmitted in cleartext, which gives attackers the opportunity to collect the content of a zone by eavesdropping on network connections. The DNS Transaction Signature (TSIG) mechanism is specified to restrict direct zone transfer to authorized clients only, but it does not add confidentiality. This document specifies the use of TLS, rather than cleartext, to prevent zone content collection via passive monitoring of zone transfers: XFR over TLS (XoT). Additionally, this specification updates RFC 1995 and RFC 5936 with respect to efficient use of TCP connections and RFC 7766 with respect to the recommended number of connections between a client and server for each transport.
Abstract
DNS zone transfers are transmitted in cleartext, which gives attackers the opportunity to collect the content of a zone by eavesdropping on network connections. The DNS Transaction Signature (TSIG) mechanism is specified to restrict direct zone transfer to authorized clients only, but it does not add confidentiality. This document specifies the use of TLS, rather than cleartext, to prevent zone content collection via passive monitoring of zone transfers: XFR over TLS (XoT). Additionally, this specification updates RFC 1995 and RFC 5936 with respect to efficient use of TCP connections and RFC 7766 with respect to the recommended number of connections between a client and server for each transport.
RFC 9102: TLS DNSSEC Chain Extension
Experimental- V. Dukhovni
- S. Huque
- W. Toorop
- P. Wouters
- M. Shore
- August 2021
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
This document describes an experimental TLS extension for the in-band transport of the complete set of records that can be validated by DNSSEC and that are needed to perform DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) of a TLS server. This extension obviates the need to perform separate, out-of-band DNS lookups. When the requisite DNS records do not exist, the extension conveys a denial-of-existence proof that can be validated.
This experimental extension is developed outside the IETF and is published here to guide implementation of the extension and to ensure interoperability among implementations.
Abstract
This document describes an experimental TLS extension for the in-band transport of the complete set of records that can be validated by DNSSEC and that are needed to perform DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) of a TLS server. This extension obviates the need to perform separate, out-of-band DNS lookups. When the requisite DNS records do not exist, the extension conveys a denial-of-existence proof that can be validated.
This experimental extension is developed outside the IETF and is published here to guide implementation of the extension and to ensure interoperability among implementations.
RFC 9001: Using TLS to Secure QUIC
Proposed Standard- M. Thomson
- S. Turner
- May 2021
- IETF publication
- Web and Internet Transport
Abstract
This document describes how Transport Layer Security (TLS) is used to secure QUIC.
Abstract
This document describes how Transport Layer Security (TLS) is used to secure QUIC.
RFC 8996: BCP 195: Deprecating TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1
Best Current Practice- K. Moriarty
- S. Farrell
- March 2021
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document formally deprecates Transport Layer Security (TLS) versions 1.0 (RFC 2246) and 1.1 (RFC 4346). Accordingly, those documents have been moved to Historic status. These versions lack support for current and recommended cryptographic algorithms and mechanisms, and various government and industry profiles of applications using TLS now mandate avoiding these old TLS versions. TLS version 1.2 became the recommended version for IETF protocols in 2008 (subsequently being obsoleted by TLS version 1.3 in 2018), providing sufficient time to transition away from older versions. Removing support for older versions from implementations reduces the attack surface, reduces opportunity for misconfiguration, and streamlines library and product maintenance.
This document also deprecates Datagram TLS (DTLS) version 1.0 (RFC 4347) but not DTLS version 1.2, and there is no DTLS version 1.1.
This document updates many RFCs that normatively refer to TLS version 1.0 or TLS version 1.1, as described herein. This document also updates the best practices for TLS usage in RFC 7525; hence, it is part of BCP 195.
Abstract
This document formally deprecates Transport Layer Security (TLS) versions 1.0 (RFC 2246) and 1.1 (RFC 4346). Accordingly, those documents have been moved to Historic status. These versions lack support for current and recommended cryptographic algorithms and mechanisms, and various government and industry profiles of applications using TLS now mandate avoiding these old TLS versions. TLS version 1.2 became the recommended version for IETF protocols in 2008 (subsequently being obsoleted by TLS version 1.3 in 2018), providing sufficient time to transition away from older versions. Removing support for older versions from implementations reduces the attack surface, reduces opportunity for misconfiguration, and streamlines library and product maintenance.
This document also deprecates Datagram TLS (DTLS) version 1.0 (RFC 4347) but not DTLS version 1.2, and there is no DTLS version 1.1.
This document updates many RFCs that normatively refer to TLS version 1.0 or TLS version 1.1, as described herein. This document also updates the best practices for TLS usage in RFC 7525; hence, it is part of BCP 195.
RFC 8997: Deprecation of TLS 1.1 for Email Submission and Access
Proposed Standard- L. Velvindron
- S. Farrell
- March 2021
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This specification updates the current recommendation for the use of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to provide confidentiality of email between a Mail User Agent (MUA) and a Mail Submission Server or Mail Access Server. This document updates RFC 8314.
Abstract
This specification updates the current recommendation for the use of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to provide confidentiality of email between a Mail User Agent (MUA) and a Mail Submission Server or Mail Access Server. This document updates RFC 8314.
RFC 8998: ShangMi (SM) Cipher Suites for TLS 1.3
Informational- P. Yang
- March 2021
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
This document specifies how to use the ShangMi (SM) cryptographic algorithms with Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol version 1.3.
The use of these algorithms with TLS 1.3 is not endorsed by the IETF. The SM algorithms are becoming mandatory in China, so this document provides a description of how to use the SM algorithms with TLS 1.3 and specifies a profile of TLS 1.3 so that implementers can produce interworking implementations.
Abstract
This document specifies how to use the ShangMi (SM) cryptographic algorithms with Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol version 1.3.
The use of these algorithms with TLS 1.3 is not endorsed by the IETF. The SM algorithms are becoming mandatory in China, so this document provides a description of how to use the SM algorithms with TLS 1.3 and specifies a profile of TLS 1.3 so that implementers can produce interworking implementations.
RFC 8879: TLS Certificate Compression
Proposed Standard- A. Ghedini
- V. Vasiliev
- December 2020
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
In TLS handshakes, certificate chains often take up the majority of the bytes transmitted.
This document describes how certificate chains can be compressed to reduce the amount of data transmitted and avoid some round trips.
Abstract
In TLS handshakes, certificate chains often take up the majority of the bytes transmitted.
This document describes how certificate chains can be compressed to reduce the amount of data transmitted and avoid some round trips.
RFC 8940: Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Session-Id Derivation for EAP Subscriber Identity Module (EAP-SIM), EAP Authentication and Key Agreement (EAP-AKA), and Protected EAP (PEAP)
Proposed Standard- A. DeKok
- October 2020
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
RFC 5247 is updated to define and clarify EAP Session-Id derivation for multiple Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) methods. The derivation of Session-Id was not given for EAP Subscriber Identity Module (EAP-SIM) or EAP Authentication and Key Agreement (EAP-AKA) when using the fast reconnect exchange instead of full authentication. The derivation of Session-Id for full authentication is clarified for both EAP-SIM and EAP-AKA. The derivation of Session-Id for Protected EAP (PEAP) is also given. The definition for PEAP follows the definition for other TLS-based EAP methods.
Abstract
RFC 5247 is updated to define and clarify EAP Session-Id derivation for multiple Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) methods. The derivation of Session-Id was not given for EAP Subscriber Identity Module (EAP-SIM) or EAP Authentication and Key Agreement (EAP-AKA) when using the fast reconnect exchange instead of full authentication. The derivation of Session-Id for full authentication is clarified for both EAP-SIM and EAP-AKA. The derivation of Session-Id for Protected EAP (PEAP) is also given. The definition for PEAP follows the definition for other TLS-based EAP methods.
RFC 8937: Randomness Improvements for Security Protocols
Informational- C. Cremers
- L. Garratt
- S. Smyshlyaev
- N. Sullivan
- C. Wood
- October 2020
- IRTF publication
Abstract
Randomness is a crucial ingredient for Transport Layer Security (TLS) and related security protocols. Weak or predictable "cryptographically secure" pseudorandom number generators (CSPRNGs) can be abused or exploited for malicious purposes. An initial entropy source that seeds a CSPRNG might be weak or broken as well, which can also lead to critical and systemic security problems. This document describes a way for security protocol implementations to augment their CSPRNGs using long-term private keys. This improves randomness from broken or otherwise subverted CSPRNGs.
This document is a product of the Crypto Forum Research Group (CFRG) in the IRTF.
Abstract
Randomness is a crucial ingredient for Transport Layer Security (TLS) and related security protocols. Weak or predictable "cryptographically secure" pseudorandom number generators (CSPRNGs) can be abused or exploited for malicious purposes. An initial entropy source that seeds a CSPRNG might be weak or broken as well, which can also lead to critical and systemic security problems. This document describes a way for security protocol implementations to augment their CSPRNGs using long-term private keys. This improves randomness from broken or otherwise subverted CSPRNGs.
This document is a product of the Crypto Forum Research Group (CFRG) in the IRTF.
RFC 8902: TLS Authentication Using Intelligent Transport System (ITS) Certificates
Experimental- M. Msahli
- N. Cam-Winget
- W. Whyte
- A. Serhrouchni
- H. Labiod
- September 2020
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
The IEEE and ETSI have specified a type of end-entity certificate. This document defines an experimental change to TLS to support IEEE/ETSI certificate types to authenticate TLS entities.
Abstract
The IEEE and ETSI have specified a type of end-entity certificate. This document defines an experimental change to TLS to support IEEE/ETSI certificate types to authenticate TLS entities.
RFC 8744: Issues and Requirements for Server Name Identification (SNI) Encryption in TLS
Informational- C. Huitema
- July 2020
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document describes the general problem of encrypting the Server Name Identification (SNI) TLS parameter. The proposed solutions hide a hidden service behind a fronting service, only disclosing the SNI of the fronting service to external observers. This document lists known attacks against SNI encryption, discusses the current "HTTP co-tenancy" solution, and presents requirements for future TLS-layer solutions.
In practice, it may well be that no solution can meet every requirement and that practical solutions will have to make some compromises.
Abstract
This document describes the general problem of encrypting the Server Name Identification (SNI) TLS parameter. The proposed solutions hide a hidden service behind a fronting service, only disclosing the SNI of the fronting service to external observers. This document lists known attacks against SNI encryption, discusses the current "HTTP co-tenancy" solution, and presents requirements for future TLS-layer solutions.
In practice, it may well be that no solution can meet every requirement and that practical solutions will have to make some compromises.
RFC 8773: TLS 1.3 Extension for Certificate-Based Authentication with an External Pre-Shared Key
Experimental- R. Housley
- March 2020
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document specifies a TLS 1.3 extension that allows a server to authenticate with a combination of a certificate and an external pre-shared key (PSK).
Obsoleted by RFC 9973
Abstract
This document specifies a TLS 1.3 extension that allows a server to authenticate with a combination of a certificate and an external pre-shared key (PSK).
RFC 8737: Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) TLS Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Challenge Extension
Proposed Standard- R.B. Shoemaker
- February 2020
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document specifies a new challenge for the Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) protocol that allows for domain control validation using TLS.
Abstract
This document specifies a new challenge for the Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) protocol that allows for domain control validation using TLS.
RFC 8705: OAuth 2.0 Mutual-TLS Client Authentication and Certificate-Bound Access Tokens
Proposed Standard- B. Campbell
- J. Bradley
- N. Sakimura
- T. Lodderstedt
- February 2020
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document describes OAuth client authentication and certificate-bound access and refresh tokens using mutual Transport Layer Security (TLS) authentication with X.509 certificates. OAuth clients are provided a mechanism for authentication to the authorization server using mutual TLS, based on either self-signed certificates or public key infrastructure (PKI). OAuth authorization servers are provided a mechanism for binding access tokens to a client's mutual-TLS certificate, and OAuth protected resources are provided a method for ensuring that such an access token presented to it was issued to the client presenting the token.
Abstract
This document describes OAuth client authentication and certificate-bound access and refresh tokens using mutual Transport Layer Security (TLS) authentication with X.509 certificates. OAuth clients are provided a mechanism for authentication to the authorization server using mutual TLS, based on either self-signed certificates or public key infrastructure (PKI). OAuth authorization servers are provided a mechanism for binding access tokens to a client's mutual-TLS certificate, and OAuth protected resources are provided a method for ensuring that such an access token presented to it was issued to the client presenting the token.
RFC 8740: Using TLS 1.3 with HTTP/2
Proposed Standard- D. Benjamin
- February 2020
- IETF publication
- Web and Internet Transport
Abstract
This document updates RFC 7540 by forbidding TLS 1.3 post-handshake authentication, as an analog to the existing TLS 1.2 renegotiation restriction.
Obsoleted by RFC 9113
Abstract
This document updates RFC 7540 by forbidding TLS 1.3 post-handshake authentication, as an analog to the existing TLS 1.2 renegotiation restriction.
RFC 8734: Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Brainpool Curves for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Version 1.3
Informational- L. Bruckert
- J. Merkle
- M. Lochter
- February 2020
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Brainpool curves were an option for authentication and key exchange in the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol version 1.2 but were deprecated by the IETF for use with TLS version 1.3 because they had little usage. However, these curves have not been shown to have significant cryptographical weaknesses, and there is some interest in using several of these curves in TLS 1.3.
This document provides the necessary protocol mechanisms for using ECC Brainpool curves in TLS 1.3. This approach is not endorsed by the IETF.
Abstract
Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Brainpool curves were an option for authentication and key exchange in the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol version 1.2 but were deprecated by the IETF for use with TLS version 1.3 because they had little usage. However, these curves have not been shown to have significant cryptographical weaknesses, and there is some interest in using several of these curves in TLS 1.3.
This document provides the necessary protocol mechanisms for using ECC Brainpool curves in TLS 1.3. This approach is not endorsed by the IETF.
RFC 8701: Applying Generate Random Extensions And Sustain Extensibility (GREASE) to TLS Extensibility
Informational- D. Benjamin
- January 2020
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document describes GREASE (Generate Random Extensions And Sustain Extensibility), a mechanism to prevent extensibility failures in the TLS ecosystem. It reserves a set of TLS protocol values that may be advertised to ensure peers correctly handle unknown values.
Abstract
This document describes GREASE (Generate Random Extensions And Sustain Extensibility), a mechanism to prevent extensibility failures in the TLS ecosystem. It reserves a set of TLS protocol values that may be advertised to ensure peers correctly handle unknown values.
RFC 8689: SMTP Require TLS Option
Proposed Standard- J. Fenton
- November 2019
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
The SMTP STARTTLS option, used in negotiating transport-level encryption of SMTP connections, is not as useful from a security standpoint as it might be because of its opportunistic nature; message delivery is, by default, prioritized over security. This document describes an SMTP service extension, REQUIRETLS, and a message header field, TLS-Required. If the REQUIRETLS option or TLS-Required message header field is used when sending a message, it asserts a request on the part of the message sender to override the default negotiation of TLS, either by requiring that TLS be negotiated when the message is relayed or by requesting that recipient-side policy mechanisms such as MTA-STS and DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) be ignored when relaying a message for which security is unimportant.
Abstract
The SMTP STARTTLS option, used in negotiating transport-level encryption of SMTP connections, is not as useful from a security standpoint as it might be because of its opportunistic nature; message delivery is, by default, prioritized over security. This document describes an SMTP service extension, REQUIRETLS, and a message header field, TLS-Required. If the REQUIRETLS option or TLS-Required message header field is used when sending a message, it asserts a request on the part of the message sender to override the default negotiation of TLS, either by requiring that TLS be negotiated when the message is relayed or by requesting that recipient-side policy mechanisms such as MTA-STS and DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) be ignored when relaying a message for which security is unimportant.
RFC 8672: TLS Server Identity Pinning with Tickets
Experimental- Y. Sheffer
- D. Migault
- October 2019
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
Misissued public-key certificates can prevent TLS clients from appropriately authenticating the TLS server. Several alternatives have been proposed to detect this situation and prevent a client from establishing a TLS session with a TLS end point authenticated with an illegitimate public-key certificate. These mechanisms are either not widely deployed or limited to public web browsing.
This document proposes experimental extensions to TLS with opaque pinning tickets as a way to pin the server's identity. During an initial TLS session, the server provides an original encrypted pinning ticket. In subsequent TLS session establishment, upon receipt of the pinning ticket, the server proves its ability to decrypt the pinning ticket and thus the ownership of the pinning protection key. The client can now safely conclude that the TLS session is established with the same TLS server as the original TLS session. One of the important properties of this proposal is that no manual management actions are required.
Abstract
Misissued public-key certificates can prevent TLS clients from appropriately authenticating the TLS server. Several alternatives have been proposed to detect this situation and prevent a client from establishing a TLS session with a TLS end point authenticated with an illegitimate public-key certificate. These mechanisms are either not widely deployed or limited to public web browsing.
This document proposes experimental extensions to TLS with opaque pinning tickets as a way to pin the server's identity. During an initial TLS session, the server provides an original encrypted pinning ticket. In subsequent TLS session establishment, upon receipt of the pinning ticket, the server proves its ability to decrypt the pinning ticket and thus the ownership of the pinning protection key. The client can now safely conclude that the TLS session is established with the same TLS server as the original TLS session. One of the important properties of this proposal is that no manual management actions are required.
RFC 8492: Secure Password Ciphersuites for Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Informational- D. Harkins
- February 2019
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
This memo defines several new ciphersuites for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to support certificateless, secure authentication using only a simple, low-entropy password. The exchange is called "TLS-PWD". The ciphersuites are all based on an authentication and key exchange protocol, named "dragonfly", that is resistant to offline dictionary attacks.
Abstract
This memo defines several new ciphersuites for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to support certificateless, secure authentication using only a simple, low-entropy password. The exchange is called "TLS-PWD". The ciphersuites are all based on an authentication and key exchange protocol, named "dragonfly", that is resistant to offline dictionary attacks.
RFC 8448: Example Handshake Traces for TLS 1.3
Informational- M. Thomson
- January 2019
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document includes examples of TLS 1.3 handshakes. Private keys and inputs are provided so that these handshakes might be reproduced. Intermediate values, including secrets, traffic keys, and IVs, are shown so that implementations might be checked incrementally against these values.
Abstract
This document includes examples of TLS 1.3 handshakes. Private keys and inputs are provided so that these handshakes might be reproduced. Intermediate values, including secrets, traffic keys, and IVs, are shown so that implementations might be checked incrementally against these values.
RFC 8471: The Token Binding Protocol Version 1.0
Proposed Standard- A. Popov
- M. Nystroem
- D. Balfanz
- J. Hodges
- October 2018
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document specifies version 1.0 of the Token Binding protocol. The Token Binding protocol allows client/server applications to create long-lived, uniquely identifiable TLS bindings spanning multiple TLS sessions and connections. Applications are then enabled to cryptographically bind security tokens to the TLS layer, preventing token export and replay attacks. To protect privacy, the Token Binding identifiers are only conveyed over TLS and can be reset by the user at any time.
Abstract
This document specifies version 1.0 of the Token Binding protocol. The Token Binding protocol allows client/server applications to create long-lived, uniquely identifiable TLS bindings spanning multiple TLS sessions and connections. Applications are then enabled to cryptographically bind security tokens to the TLS layer, preventing token export and replay attacks. To protect privacy, the Token Binding identifiers are only conveyed over TLS and can be reset by the user at any time.
RFC 8472: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extension for Token Binding Protocol Negotiation
Proposed Standard- A. Popov
- M. Nystroem
- D. Balfanz
- October 2018
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document specifies a Transport Layer Security (TLS) extension for the negotiation of Token Binding protocol version and key parameters. Negotiation of Token Binding in TLS 1.3 and later versions is beyond the scope of this document.
Abstract
This document specifies a Transport Layer Security (TLS) extension for the negotiation of Token Binding protocol version and key parameters. Negotiation of Token Binding in TLS 1.3 and later versions is beyond the scope of this document.
RFC 8473: Token Binding over HTTP
Proposed Standard- A. Popov
- M. Nystroem
- D. Balfanz
- N. Harper
- J. Hodges
- October 2018
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document describes a collection of mechanisms that allow HTTP servers to cryptographically bind security tokens (such as cookies and OAuth tokens) to TLS connections.
We describe both first-party and federated scenarios. In a first- party scenario, an HTTP server is able to cryptographically bind the security tokens that it issues to a client -- and that the client subsequently returns to the server -- to the TLS connection between the client and the server. Such bound security tokens are protected from misuse, since the server can generally detect if they are replayed inappropriately, e.g., over other TLS connections.
Federated Token Bindings, on the other hand, allow servers to cryptographically bind security tokens to a TLS connection that the client has with a different server than the one issuing the token.
This document is a companion document to "The Token Binding Protocol Version 1.0" (RFC 8471).
Abstract
This document describes a collection of mechanisms that allow HTTP servers to cryptographically bind security tokens (such as cookies and OAuth tokens) to TLS connections.
We describe both first-party and federated scenarios. In a first- party scenario, an HTTP server is able to cryptographically bind the security tokens that it issues to a client -- and that the client subsequently returns to the server -- to the TLS connection between the client and the server. Such bound security tokens are protected from misuse, since the server can generally detect if they are replayed inappropriately, e.g., over other TLS connections.
Federated Token Bindings, on the other hand, allow servers to cryptographically bind security tokens to a TLS connection that the client has with a different server than the one issuing the token.
This document is a companion document to "The Token Binding Protocol Version 1.0" (RFC 8471).
RFC 8460: SMTP TLS Reporting
Proposed Standard- D. Margolis
- A. Brotman
- B. Ramakrishnan
- J. Jones
- M. Risher
- September 2018
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
A number of protocols exist for establishing encrypted channels between SMTP Mail Transfer Agents (MTAs), including STARTTLS, DNS- Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) TLSA, and MTA Strict Transport Security (MTA-STS). These protocols can fail due to misconfiguration or active attack, leading to undelivered messages or delivery over unencrypted or unauthenticated channels. This document describes a reporting mechanism and format by which sending systems can share statistics and specific information about potential failures with recipient domains. Recipient domains can then use this information to both detect potential attacks and diagnose unintentional misconfigurations.
Abstract
A number of protocols exist for establishing encrypted channels between SMTP Mail Transfer Agents (MTAs), including STARTTLS, DNS- Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) TLSA, and MTA Strict Transport Security (MTA-STS). These protocols can fail due to misconfiguration or active attack, leading to undelivered messages or delivery over unencrypted or unauthenticated channels. This document describes a reporting mechanism and format by which sending systems can share statistics and specific information about potential failures with recipient domains. Recipient domains can then use this information to both detect potential attacks and diagnose unintentional misconfigurations.
RFC 8461: SMTP MTA Strict Transport Security (MTA-STS)
Proposed Standard- D. Margolis
- M. Risher
- B. Ramakrishnan
- A. Brotman
- J. Jones
- September 2018
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
SMTP MTA Strict Transport Security (MTA-STS) is a mechanism enabling mail service providers (SPs) to declare their ability to receive Transport Layer Security (TLS) secure SMTP connections and to specify whether sending SMTP servers should refuse to deliver to MX hosts that do not offer TLS with a trusted server certificate.
Abstract
SMTP MTA Strict Transport Security (MTA-STS) is a mechanism enabling mail service providers (SPs) to declare their ability to receive Transport Layer Security (TLS) secure SMTP connections and to specify whether sending SMTP servers should refuse to deliver to MX hosts that do not offer TLS with a trusted server certificate.
RFC 8470: Using Early Data in HTTP
Proposed Standard- M. Thomson
- M. Nottingham
- W. Tarreau
- September 2018
- IETF publication
- Web and Internet Transport
Abstract
Using TLS early data creates an exposure to the possibility of a replay attack. This document defines mechanisms that allow clients to communicate with servers about HTTP requests that are sent in early data. Techniques are described that use these mechanisms to mitigate the risk of replay.
Abstract
Using TLS early data creates an exposure to the possibility of a replay attack. This document defines mechanisms that allow clients to communicate with servers about HTTP requests that are sent in early data. Techniques are described that use these mechanisms to mitigate the risk of replay.
RFC 8446: The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3
Proposed Standard- E. Rescorla
- August 2018
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document specifies version 1.3 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. TLS allows client/server applications to communicate over the Internet in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, and message forgery.
This document updates RFCs 5705 and 6066, and obsoletes RFCs 5077, 5246, and 6961. This document also specifies new requirements for TLS 1.2 implementations.
Obsoleted by RFC 9846
Abstract
This document specifies version 1.3 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. TLS allows client/server applications to communicate over the Internet in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, and message forgery.
This document updates RFCs 5705 and 6066, and obsoletes RFCs 5077, 5246, and 6961. This document also specifies new requirements for TLS 1.2 implementations.
RFC 8449: Record Size Limit Extension for TLS
Proposed Standard- M. Thomson
- August 2018
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
An extension to Transport Layer Security (TLS) is defined that allows endpoints to negotiate the maximum size of protected records that each will send the other.
This replaces the maximum fragment length extension defined in RFC 6066.
Abstract
An extension to Transport Layer Security (TLS) is defined that allows endpoints to negotiate the maximum size of protected records that each will send the other.
This replaces the maximum fragment length extension defined in RFC 6066.
RFC 8422: Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Versions 1.2 and Earlier
Proposed Standard- Y. Nir
- S. Josefsson
- M. Pegourie-Gonnard
- August 2018
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document describes key exchange algorithms based on Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. In particular, it specifies the use of Ephemeral Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDHE) key agreement in a TLS handshake and the use of the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) and Edwards-curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA) as authentication mechanisms.
This document obsoletes RFC 4492.
Obsoleted by RFC 9846
Abstract
This document describes key exchange algorithms based on Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. In particular, it specifies the use of Ephemeral Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDHE) key agreement in a TLS handshake and the use of the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) and Edwards-curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA) as authentication mechanisms.
This document obsoletes RFC 4492.
RFC 8323: CoAP (Constrained Application Protocol) over TCP, TLS, and WebSockets
Proposed Standard- C. Bormann
- S. Lemay
- H. Tschofenig
- K. Hartke
- B. Silverajan
- B. Raymor
- February 2018
- IETF publication
- Web and Internet Transport
Abstract
The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP), although inspired by HTTP, was designed to use UDP instead of TCP. The message layer of CoAP over UDP includes support for reliable delivery, simple congestion control, and flow control.
Some environments benefit from the availability of CoAP carried over reliable transports such as TCP or Transport Layer Security (TLS). This document outlines the changes required to use CoAP over TCP, TLS, and WebSockets transports. It also formally updates RFC 7641 for use with these transports and RFC 7959 to enable the use of larger messages over a reliable transport.
Abstract
The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP), although inspired by HTTP, was designed to use UDP instead of TCP. The message layer of CoAP over UDP includes support for reliable delivery, simple congestion control, and flow control.
Some environments benefit from the availability of CoAP carried over reliable transports such as TCP or Transport Layer Security (TLS). This document outlines the changes required to use CoAP over TCP, TLS, and WebSockets transports. It also formally updates RFC 7641 for use with these transports and RFC 7959 to enable the use of larger messages over a reliable transport.
RFC 8314: Cleartext Considered Obsolete: Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) for Email Submission and Access
Proposed Standard- K. Moore
- C. Newman
- January 2018
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This specification outlines current recommendations for the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to provide confidentiality of email traffic between a Mail User Agent (MUA) and a Mail Submission Server or Mail Access Server. This document updates RFCs 1939, 2595, 3501, 5068, 6186, and 6409.
Abstract
This specification outlines current recommendations for the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to provide confidentiality of email traffic between a Mail User Agent (MUA) and a Mail Submission Server or Mail Access Server. This document updates RFCs 1939, 2595, 3501, 5068, 6186, and 6409.
RFC 8253: PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Proposed Standard- D. Lopez
- O. Gonzalez de Dios
- Q. Wu
- D. Dhody
- October 2017
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) defines the mechanisms for the communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or among PCEs. This document describes PCEPS -- the usage of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to provide a secure transport for PCEP. The additional security mechanisms are provided by the transport protocol supporting PCEP; therefore, they do not affect the flexibility and extensibility of PCEP.
This document updates RFC 5440 in regards to the PCEP initialization phase procedures.
Abstract
The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) defines the mechanisms for the communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or among PCEs. This document describes PCEPS -- the usage of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to provide a secure transport for PCEP. The additional security mechanisms are provided by the transport protocol supporting PCEP; therefore, they do not affect the flexibility and extensibility of PCEP.
This document updates RFC 5440 in regards to the PCEP initialization phase procedures.
RFC 8143: Using Transport Layer Security (TLS) with Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP)
Proposed Standard- J. Elie
- April 2017
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document provides recommendations for improving the security of the Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) when using Transport Layer Security (TLS). It modernizes the NNTP usage of TLS to be consistent with TLS best current practices. This document updates RFC 4642.
Abstract
This document provides recommendations for improving the security of the Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) when using Transport Layer Security (TLS). It modernizes the NNTP usage of TLS to be consistent with TLS best current practices. This document updates RFC 4642.
RFC 8122: Connection-Oriented Media Transport over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
Proposed Standard- J. Lennox
- C. Holmberg
- March 2017
- IETF publication
- Applications and Real-Time Area
Abstract
This document specifies how to establish secure connection-oriented media transport sessions over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol using the Session Description Protocol (SDP). It defines the SDP protocol identifier, 'TCP/TLS'. It also defines the syntax and semantics for an SDP 'fingerprint' attribute that identifies the certificate that will be presented for the TLS session. This mechanism allows media transport over TLS connections to be established securely, so long as the integrity of session descriptions is assured.
This document obsoletes RFC 4572 by clarifying the usage of multiple fingerprints.
Abstract
This document specifies how to establish secure connection-oriented media transport sessions over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol using the Session Description Protocol (SDP). It defines the SDP protocol identifier, 'TCP/TLS'. It also defines the syntax and semantics for an SDP 'fingerprint' attribute that identifies the certificate that will be presented for the TLS session. This mechanism allows media transport over TLS connections to be established securely, so long as the integrity of session descriptions is assured.
This document obsoletes RFC 4572 by clarifying the usage of multiple fingerprints.
RFC 7918: Transport Layer Security (TLS) False Start
Informational- A. Langley
- N. Modadugu
- B. Moeller
- August 2016
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document specifies an optional behavior of Transport Layer Security (TLS) client implementations, dubbed "False Start". It affects only protocol timing, not on-the-wire protocol data, and can be implemented unilaterally. A TLS False Start reduces handshake latency to one round trip.
Abstract
This document specifies an optional behavior of Transport Layer Security (TLS) client implementations, dubbed "False Start". It affects only protocol timing, not on-the-wire protocol data, and can be implemented unilaterally. A TLS False Start reduces handshake latency to one round trip.
RFC 7919: Negotiated Finite Field Diffie-Hellman Ephemeral Parameters for Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Proposed Standard- D. Gillmor
- August 2016
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
Traditional finite-field-based Diffie-Hellman (DH) key exchange during the Transport Layer Security (TLS) handshake suffers from a number of security, interoperability, and efficiency shortcomings. These shortcomings arise from lack of clarity about which DH group parameters TLS servers should offer and clients should accept. This document offers a solution to these shortcomings for compatible peers by using a section of the TLS "Supported Groups Registry" (renamed from "EC Named Curve Registry" by this document) to establish common finite field DH parameters with known structure and a mechanism for peers to negotiate support for these groups.
This document updates TLS versions 1.0 (RFC 2246), 1.1 (RFC 4346), and 1.2 (RFC 5246), as well as the TLS Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) extensions (RFC 4492).
Abstract
Traditional finite-field-based Diffie-Hellman (DH) key exchange during the Transport Layer Security (TLS) handshake suffers from a number of security, interoperability, and efficiency shortcomings. These shortcomings arise from lack of clarity about which DH group parameters TLS servers should offer and clients should accept. This document offers a solution to these shortcomings for compatible peers by using a section of the TLS "Supported Groups Registry" (renamed from "EC Named Curve Registry" by this document) to establish common finite field DH parameters with known structure and a mechanism for peers to negotiate support for these groups.
This document updates TLS versions 1.0 (RFC 2246), 1.1 (RFC 4346), and 1.2 (RFC 5246), as well as the TLS Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) extensions (RFC 4492).
RFC 7924: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Cached Information Extension
Proposed Standard- S. Santesson
- H. Tschofenig
- July 2016
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
Transport Layer Security (TLS) handshakes often include fairly static information, such as the server certificate and a list of trusted certification authorities (CAs). This information can be of considerable size, particularly if the server certificate is bundled with a complete certificate chain (i.e., the certificates of intermediate CAs up to the root CA).
This document defines an extension that allows a TLS client to inform a server of cached information, thereby enabling the server to omit already available information.
Abstract
Transport Layer Security (TLS) handshakes often include fairly static information, such as the server certificate and a list of trusted certification authorities (CAs). This information can be of considerable size, particularly if the server certificate is bundled with a complete certificate chain (i.e., the certificates of intermediate CAs up to the root CA).
This document defines an extension that allows a TLS client to inform a server of cached information, thereby enabling the server to omit already available information.
RFC 7858: Specification for DNS over Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Proposed Standard- Z. Hu
- L. Zhu
- J. Heidemann
- A. Mankin
- D. Wessels
- P. Hoffman
- May 2016
- IETF publication
- Internet Area
Abstract
This document describes the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to provide privacy for DNS. Encryption provided by TLS eliminates opportunities for eavesdropping and on-path tampering with DNS queries in the network, such as discussed in RFC 7626. In addition, this document specifies two usage profiles for DNS over TLS and provides advice on performance considerations to minimize overhead from using TCP and TLS with DNS.
This document focuses on securing stub-to-recursive traffic, as per the charter of the DPRIVE Working Group. It does not prevent future applications of the protocol to recursive-to-authoritative traffic.
Abstract
This document describes the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to provide privacy for DNS. Encryption provided by TLS eliminates opportunities for eavesdropping and on-path tampering with DNS queries in the network, such as discussed in RFC 7626. In addition, this document specifies two usage profiles for DNS over TLS and provides advice on performance considerations to minimize overhead from using TCP and TLS with DNS.
This document focuses on securing stub-to-recursive traffic, as per the charter of the DPRIVE Working Group. It does not prevent future applications of the protocol to recursive-to-authoritative traffic.
RFC 7836: Guidelines on the Cryptographic Algorithms to Accompany the Usage of Standards GOST R 34.10-2012 and GOST R 34.11-2012
Informational- S. Smyshlyaev
- E. Alekseev
- I. Oshkin
- V. Popov
- S. Leontiev
- V. Podobaev
- D. Belyavsky
- March 2016
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
The purpose of this document is to make the specifications of the cryptographic algorithms defined by the Russian national standards GOST R 34.10-2012 and GOST R 34.11-2012 available to the Internet community for their implementation in the cryptographic protocols based on the accompanying algorithms.
These specifications define the pseudorandom functions, the key agreement algorithm based on the Diffie-Hellman algorithm and a hash function, the parameters of elliptic curves, the key derivation functions, and the key export functions.
Abstract
The purpose of this document is to make the specifications of the cryptographic algorithms defined by the Russian national standards GOST R 34.10-2012 and GOST R 34.11-2012 available to the Internet community for their implementation in the cryptographic protocols based on the accompanying algorithms.
These specifications define the pseudorandom functions, the key agreement algorithm based on the Diffie-Hellman algorithm and a hash function, the parameters of elliptic curves, the key derivation functions, and the key export functions.
RFC 7817: Updated Transport Layer Security (TLS) Server Identity Check Procedure for Email-Related Protocols
Proposed Standard- A. Melnikov
- March 2016
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document describes the Transport Layer Security (TLS) server identity verification procedure for SMTP Submission, IMAP, POP, and ManageSieve clients. It replaces Section 2.4 (Server Identity Check) of RFC 2595 and updates Section 4.1 (Processing After the STARTTLS Command) of RFC 3207, Section 11.1 (STARTTLS Security Considerations) of RFC 3501, and Section 2.2.1 (Server Identity Check) of RFC 5804.
Abstract
This document describes the Transport Layer Security (TLS) server identity verification procedure for SMTP Submission, IMAP, POP, and ManageSieve clients. It replaces Section 2.4 (Server Identity Check) of RFC 2595 and updates Section 4.1 (Processing After the STARTTLS Command) of RFC 3207, Section 11.1 (STARTTLS Security Considerations) of RFC 3501, and Section 2.2.1 (Server Identity Check) of RFC 5804.
RFC 7685: A Transport Layer Security (TLS) ClientHello Padding Extension
Proposed Standard- A. Langley
- October 2015
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This memo describes a Transport Layer Security (TLS) extension that can be used to pad ClientHello messages to a desired size.
Abstract
This memo describes a Transport Layer Security (TLS) extension that can be used to pad ClientHello messages to a desired size.
RFC 7633: X.509v3 Transport Layer Security (TLS) Feature Extension
Proposed Standard- P. Hallam-Baker
- October 2015
- IETF publication
Abstract
The purpose of the TLS feature extension is to prevent downgrade attacks that are not otherwise prevented by the TLS protocol. In particular, the TLS feature extension may be used to mandate support for revocation checking features in the TLS protocol such as Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) stapling. Informing clients that an OCSP status response will always be stapled permits an immediate failure in the case that the response is not stapled. This in turn prevents a denial-of-service attack that might otherwise be possible.
Abstract
The purpose of the TLS feature extension is to prevent downgrade attacks that are not otherwise prevented by the TLS protocol. In particular, the TLS feature extension may be used to mandate support for revocation checking features in the TLS protocol such as Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) stapling. Informing clients that an OCSP status response will always be stapled permits an immediate failure in the case that the response is not stapled. This in turn prevents a denial-of-service attack that might otherwise be possible.
RFC 7672: SMTP Security via Opportunistic DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Proposed Standard- V. Dukhovni
- W. Hardaker
- October 2015
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This memo describes a downgrade-resistant protocol for SMTP transport security between Message Transfer Agents (MTAs), based on the DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) TLSA DNS record. Adoption of this protocol enables an incremental transition of the Internet email backbone to one using encrypted and authenticated Transport Layer Security (TLS).
Abstract
This memo describes a downgrade-resistant protocol for SMTP transport security between Message Transfer Agents (MTAs), based on the DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) TLSA DNS record. Adoption of this protocol enables an incremental transition of the Internet email backbone to one using encrypted and authenticated Transport Layer Security (TLS).
RFC 7627: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session Hash and Extended Master Secret Extension
Proposed Standard- K. Bhargavan
- A. Delignat-Lavaud
- A. Pironti
- A. Langley
- M. Ray
- September 2015
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
The Transport Layer Security (TLS) master secret is not cryptographically bound to important session parameters such as the server certificate. Consequently, it is possible for an active attacker to set up two sessions, one with a client and another with a server, such that the master secrets on the two sessions are the same. Thereafter, any mechanism that relies on the master secret for authentication, including session resumption, becomes vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack, where the attacker can simply forward messages back and forth between the client and server. This specification defines a TLS extension that contextually binds the master secret to a log of the full handshake that computes it, thus preventing such attacks.
Obsoleted by RFC 9846
Abstract
The Transport Layer Security (TLS) master secret is not cryptographically bound to important session parameters such as the server certificate. Consequently, it is possible for an active attacker to set up two sessions, one with a client and another with a server, such that the master secrets on the two sessions are the same. Thereafter, any mechanism that relies on the master secret for authentication, including session resumption, becomes vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack, where the attacker can simply forward messages back and forth between the client and server. This specification defines a TLS extension that contextually binds the master secret to a log of the full handshake that computes it, thus preventing such attacks.
RFC 7562: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authorization Using Digital Transmission Content Protection (DTCP) Certificates
Informational- D. Thakore
- July 2015
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
This document specifies the use of Digital Transmission Content Protection (DTCP) certificates as an authorization data type in the authorization extension for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. This is in accordance with the guidelines for authorization extensions as specified in RFC 5878. As with other TLS extensions, this authorization data can be included in the client and server hello messages to confirm that both parties support the desired authorization data types. If supported by both the client and the server, DTCP certificates are exchanged in the supplemental data TLS handshake message as specified in RFC 4680. This authorization data type extension is in support of devices containing DTCP certificates issued by the Digital Transmission Licensing Administrator (DTLA).
Abstract
This document specifies the use of Digital Transmission Content Protection (DTCP) certificates as an authorization data type in the authorization extension for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. This is in accordance with the guidelines for authorization extensions as specified in RFC 5878. As with other TLS extensions, this authorization data can be included in the client and server hello messages to confirm that both parties support the desired authorization data types. If supported by both the client and the server, DTCP certificates are exchanged in the supplemental data TLS handshake message as specified in RFC 4680. This authorization data type extension is in support of devices containing DTCP certificates issued by the Digital Transmission Licensing Administrator (DTLA).
RFC 7568: Deprecating Secure Sockets Layer Version 3.0
Proposed Standard- R. Barnes
- M. Thomson
- A. Pironti
- A. Langley
- June 2015
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
The Secure Sockets Layer version 3.0 (SSLv3), as specified in RFC 6101, is not sufficiently secure. This document requires that SSLv3 not be used. The replacement versions, in particular, Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.2 (RFC 5246), are considerably more secure and capable protocols.
This document updates the backward compatibility section of RFC 5246 and its predecessors to prohibit fallback to SSLv3.
Abstract
The Secure Sockets Layer version 3.0 (SSLv3), as specified in RFC 6101, is not sufficiently secure. This document requires that SSLv3 not be used. The replacement versions, in particular, Transport Layer Security (TLS) 1.2 (RFC 5246), are considerably more secure and capable protocols.
This document updates the backward compatibility section of RFC 5246 and its predecessors to prohibit fallback to SSLv3.
RFC 7589: Using the NETCONF Protocol over Transport Layer Security (TLS) with Mutual X.509 Authentication
Proposed Standard- M. Badra
- A. Luchuk
- J. Schoenwaelder
- June 2015
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) provides mechanisms to install, manipulate, and delete the configuration of network devices. This document describes how to use the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol with mutual X.509 authentication to secure the exchange of NETCONF messages. This revision of RFC 5539 documents the new message framing used by NETCONF 1.1 and it obsoletes RFC 5539.
Abstract
The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) provides mechanisms to install, manipulate, and delete the configuration of network devices. This document describes how to use the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol with mutual X.509 authentication to secure the exchange of NETCONF messages. This revision of RFC 5539 documents the new message framing used by NETCONF 1.1 and it obsoletes RFC 5539.
RFC 7590: Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP)
Proposed Standard- P. Saint-Andre
- T. Alkemade
- June 2015
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document provides recommendations for the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). This document updates RFC 6120.
Abstract
This document provides recommendations for the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). This document updates RFC 6120.
RFC 7507: TLS Fallback Signaling Cipher Suite Value (SCSV) for Preventing Protocol Downgrade Attacks
Proposed Standard- B. Moeller
- A. Langley
- April 2015
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document defines a Signaling Cipher Suite Value (SCSV) that prevents protocol downgrade attacks on the Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocols. It updates RFCs 2246, 4346, 4347, 5246, and 6347. Server update considerations are included.
Obsoleted by RFC 8996
Abstract
This document defines a Signaling Cipher Suite Value (SCSV) that prevents protocol downgrade attacks on the Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocols. It updates RFCs 2246, 4346, 4347, 5246, and 6347. Server update considerations are included.
RFC 7465: Prohibiting RC4 Cipher Suites
Proposed Standard- A. Popov
- February 2015
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document requires that Transport Layer Security (TLS) clients and servers never negotiate the use of RC4 cipher suites when they establish connections. This applies to all TLS versions. This document updates RFCs 5246, 4346, and 2246.
Abstract
This document requires that Transport Layer Security (TLS) clients and servers never negotiate the use of RC4 cipher suites when they establish connections. This applies to all TLS versions. This document updates RFCs 5246, 4346, and 2246.
RFC 7194: Default Port for Internet Relay Chat (IRC) via TLS/SSL
Informational- R. Hartmann
- August 2014
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
This document describes the commonly accepted practice of listening on TCP port 6697 for incoming Internet Relay Chat (IRC) connections encrypted via TLS/SSL.
Abstract
This document describes the commonly accepted practice of listening on TCP port 6697 for incoming Internet Relay Chat (IRC) connections encrypted via TLS/SSL.
RFC 7301: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation Extension
Proposed Standard- S. Friedl
- A. Popov
- A. Langley
- E. Stephan
- July 2014
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document describes a Transport Layer Security (TLS) extension for application-layer protocol negotiation within the TLS handshake. For instances in which multiple application protocols are supported on the same TCP or UDP port, this extension allows the application layer to negotiate which protocol will be used within the TLS connection.
Abstract
This document describes a Transport Layer Security (TLS) extension for application-layer protocol negotiation within the TLS handshake. For instances in which multiple application protocols are supported on the same TCP or UDP port, this extension allows the application layer to negotiate which protocol will be used within the TLS connection.
RFC 7251: AES-CCM Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites for TLS
Informational- D. McGrew
- D. Bailey
- M. Campagna
- R. Dugal
- June 2014
- IETF publication
Abstract
This memo describes the use of the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) in the Counter and CBC-MAC Mode (CCM) of operation within Transport Layer Security (TLS) to provide confidentiality and data-origin authentication. The AES-CCM algorithm is amenable to compact implementations, making it suitable for constrained environments, while at the same time providing a high level of security. The cipher suites defined in this document use Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) and are advantageous in networks with limited bandwidth.
Abstract
This memo describes the use of the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) in the Counter and CBC-MAC Mode (CCM) of operation within Transport Layer Security (TLS) to provide confidentiality and data-origin authentication. The AES-CCM algorithm is amenable to compact implementations, making it suitable for constrained environments, while at the same time providing a high level of security. The cipher suites defined in this document use Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) and are advantageous in networks with limited bandwidth.
RFC 7027: Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Brainpool Curves for Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Informational- J. Merkle
- M. Lochter
- October 2013
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document specifies the use of several Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Brainpool curves for authentication and key exchange in the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol.
Abstract
This document specifies the use of several Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Brainpool curves for authentication and key exchange in the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol.
RFC 6961: The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Multiple Certificate Status Request Extension
Proposed Standard- Y. Pettersen
- June 2013
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document defines the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Certificate Status Version 2 Extension to allow clients to specify and support several certificate status methods. (The use of the Certificate Status extension is commonly referred to as "OCSP stapling".) Also defined is a new method based on the Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) that servers can use to provide status information about not only the server's own certificate but also the status of intermediate certificates in the chain.
Abstract
This document defines the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Certificate Status Version 2 Extension to allow clients to specify and support several certificate status methods. (The use of the Certificate Status extension is commonly referred to as "OCSP stapling".) Also defined is a new method based on the Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) that servers can use to provide status information about not only the server's own certificate but also the status of intermediate certificates in the chain.
RFC 6962: Certificate Transparency
Experimental- B. Laurie
- A. Langley
- E. Kasper
- June 2013
- IETF publication
- General Area
Abstract
This document describes an experimental protocol for publicly logging the existence of Transport Layer Security (TLS) certificates as they are issued or observed, in a manner that allows anyone to audit certificate authority (CA) activity and notice the issuance of suspect certificates as well as to audit the certificate logs themselves. The intent is that eventually clients would refuse to honor certificates that do not appear in a log, effectively forcing CAs to add all issued certificates to the logs.
Logs are network services that implement the protocol operations for submissions and queries that are defined in this document.
Obsoleted by RFC 9162
Abstract
This document describes an experimental protocol for publicly logging the existence of Transport Layer Security (TLS) certificates as they are issued or observed, in a manner that allows anyone to audit certificate authority (CA) activity and notice the issuance of suspect certificates as well as to audit the certificate logs themselves. The intent is that eventually clients would refuse to honor certificates that do not appear in a log, effectively forcing CAs to add all issued certificates to the logs.
Logs are network services that implement the protocol operations for submissions and queries that are defined in this document.
RFC 6876: A Posture Transport Protocol over TLS (PT-TLS)
Proposed Standard- P. Sangster
- N. Cam-Winget
- J. Salowey
- February 2013
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document specifies PT-TLS, a TLS-based Posture Transport (PT) protocol. The PT-TLS protocol carries the Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA) message exchange under the protection of a Transport Layer Security (TLS) secured tunnel.
Abstract
This document specifies PT-TLS, a TLS-based Posture Transport (PT) protocol. The PT-TLS protocol carries the Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA) message exchange under the protection of a Transport Layer Security (TLS) secured tunnel.
RFC 6797: HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS)
Proposed Standard- J. Hodges
- C. Jackson
- A. Barth
- November 2012
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
This specification defines a mechanism enabling web sites to declare themselves accessible only via secure connections and/or for users to be able to direct their user agent(s) to interact with given sites only over secure connections. This overall policy is referred to as HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS). The policy is declared by web sites via the Strict-Transport-Security HTTP response header field and/or by other means, such as user agent configuration, for example. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This specification defines a mechanism enabling web sites to declare themselves accessible only via secure connections and/or for users to be able to direct their user agent(s) to interact with given sites only over secure connections. This overall policy is referred to as HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS). The policy is declared by web sites via the Strict-Transport-Security HTTP response header field and/or by other means, such as user agent configuration, for example. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6698: The DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol: TLSA
Proposed Standard- P. Hoffman
- J. Schlyter
- August 2012
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
Encrypted communication on the Internet often uses Transport Layer Security (TLS), which depends on third parties to certify the keys used. This document improves on that situation by enabling the administrators of domain names to specify the keys used in that domain's TLS servers. This requires matching improvements in TLS client software, but no change in TLS server software. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
Encrypted communication on the Internet often uses Transport Layer Security (TLS), which depends on third parties to certify the keys used. This document improves on that situation by enabling the administrators of domain names to specify the keys used in that domain's TLS servers. This requires matching improvements in TLS client software, but no change in TLS server software. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6655: AES-CCM Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Proposed Standard- D. McGrew
- D. Bailey
- July 2012
- IETF publication
Abstract
This memo describes the use of the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) in the Counter with Cipher Block Chaining - Message Authentication Code (CBC-MAC) Mode (CCM) of operation within Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram TLS (DTLS) to provide confidentiality and data origin authentication. The AES-CCM algorithm is amenable to compact implementations, making it suitable for constrained environments. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This memo describes the use of the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) in the Counter with Cipher Block Chaining - Message Authentication Code (CBC-MAC) Mode (CCM) of operation within Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram TLS (DTLS) to provide confidentiality and data origin authentication. The AES-CCM algorithm is amenable to compact implementations, making it suitable for constrained environments. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6614: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Encryption for RADIUS
Experimental- S. Winter
- M. McCauley
- S. Venaas
- K. Wierenga
- May 2012
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document specifies a transport profile for RADIUS using Transport Layer Security (TLS) over TCP as the transport protocol. This enables dynamic trust relationships between RADIUS servers. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document specifies a transport profile for RADIUS using Transport Layer Security (TLS) over TCP as the transport protocol. This enables dynamic trust relationships between RADIUS servers. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6618: Mobile IPv6 Security Framework Using Transport Layer Security for Communication between the Mobile Node and Home Agent
Experimental- J. Korhonen
- B. Patil
- H. Tschofenig
- D. Kroeselberg
- May 2012
- IETF publication
- Internet Area
Abstract
Mobile IPv6 signaling between a Mobile Node (MN) and its Home Agent (HA) is secured using IPsec. The security association (SA) between an MN and the HA is established using Internet Key Exchange Protocol (IKE) version 1 or 2. The security model specified for Mobile IPv6, which relies on IKE/IPsec, requires interaction between the Mobile IPv6 protocol component and the IKE/IPsec module of the IP stack. This document proposes an alternate security framework for Mobile IPv6 and Dual-Stack Mobile IPv6, which relies on Transport Layer Security for establishing keying material and other bootstrapping parameters required to protect Mobile IPv6 signaling and data traffic between the MN and HA. This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
Abstract
Mobile IPv6 signaling between a Mobile Node (MN) and its Home Agent (HA) is secured using IPsec. The security association (SA) between an MN and the HA is established using Internet Key Exchange Protocol (IKE) version 1 or 2. The security model specified for Mobile IPv6, which relies on IKE/IPsec, requires interaction between the Mobile IPv6 protocol component and the IKE/IPsec module of the IP stack. This document proposes an alternate security framework for Mobile IPv6 and Dual-Stack Mobile IPv6, which relies on Transport Layer Security for establishing keying material and other bootstrapping parameters required to protect Mobile IPv6 signaling and data traffic between the MN and HA. This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
RFC 6546: Transport of Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID) Messages over HTTP/TLS
Proposed Standard- B. Trammell
- April 2012
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
The Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) defines a common XML format for document exchange, and Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID) defines extensions to IODEF intended for the cooperative handling of security incidents within consortia of network operators and enterprises. This document specifies an application-layer protocol for RID based upon the passing of RID messages over HTTP/TLS. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
The Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) defines a common XML format for document exchange, and Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID) defines extensions to IODEF intended for the cooperative handling of security incidents within consortia of network operators and enterprises. This document specifies an application-layer protocol for RID based upon the passing of RID messages over HTTP/TLS. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6460: Suite B Profile for Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Historic- M. Salter
- R. Housley
- January 2012
- IETF publication
Abstract
The United States government has published guidelines for "NSA Suite B Cryptography" that define cryptographic algorithm policy for national security applications. This document defines a profile of Transport Layer Security (TLS) version 1.2 that is fully compliant with Suite B. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
The United States government has published guidelines for "NSA Suite B Cryptography" that define cryptographic algorithm policy for national security applications. This document defines a profile of Transport Layer Security (TLS) version 1.2 that is fully compliant with Suite B. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 6394: Use Cases and Requirements for DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE)
Informational- R. Barnes
- October 2011
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
Many current applications use the certificate-based authentication features in Transport Layer Security (TLS) to allow clients to verify that a connected server properly represents a desired domain name. Typically, this authentication has been based on PKIX certificate chains rooted in well-known certificate authorities (CAs), but additional information can be provided via the DNS itself. This document describes a set of use cases in which the DNS and DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) could be used to make assertions that support the TLS authentication process. The main focus of this document is TLS server authentication, but it also covers TLS client authentication for applications where TLS clients are identified by domain names. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
Many current applications use the certificate-based authentication features in Transport Layer Security (TLS) to allow clients to verify that a connected server properly represents a desired domain name. Typically, this authentication has been based on PKIX certificate chains rooted in well-known certificate authorities (CAs), but additional information can be provided via the DNS itself. This document describes a set of use cases in which the DNS and DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) could be used to make assertions that support the TLS authentication process. The main focus of this document is TLS server authentication, but it also covers TLS client authentication for applications where TLS clients are identified by domain names. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6367: Addition of the Camellia Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Informational- S. Kanno
- M. Kanda
- September 2011
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document specifies forty-two cipher suites for the Transport Security Layer (TLS) protocol to support the Camellia encryption algorithm as a block cipher. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
This document specifies forty-two cipher suites for the Transport Security Layer (TLS) protocol to support the Camellia encryption algorithm as a block cipher. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 6101: The Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) Protocol Version 3.0
Historic- A. Freier
- P. Karlton
- P. Kocher
- August 2011
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document is published as a historical record of the SSL 3.0 protocol. The original Abstract follows.
This document specifies version 3.0 of the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL 3.0) protocol, a security protocol that provides communications privacy over the Internet. The protocol allows client/server applications to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery. This document defines a Historic Document for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document is published as a historical record of the SSL 3.0 protocol. The original Abstract follows.
This document specifies version 3.0 of the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL 3.0) protocol, a security protocol that provides communications privacy over the Internet. The protocol allows client/server applications to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery. This document defines a Historic Document for the Internet community.
RFC 6251: Using Kerberos Version 5 over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Informational- S. Josefsson
- May 2011
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document specifies how the Kerberos V5 protocol can be transported over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol in order to provide additional security features. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
This document specifies how the Kerberos V5 protocol can be transported over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol in order to provide additional security features. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 6209: Addition of the ARIA Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Informational- W. Kim
- J. Lee
- J. Park
- D. Kwon
- April 2011
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document specifies a set of cipher suites for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to support the ARIA encryption algorithm as a block cipher. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
This document specifies a set of cipher suites for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to support the ARIA encryption algorithm as a block cipher. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 6125: Representation and Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Proposed Standard- P. Saint-Andre
- J. Hodges
- March 2011
- IETF publication
Abstract
Many application technologies enable secure communication between two entities by means of Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX) certificates in the context of Transport Layer Security (TLS). This document specifies procedures for representing and verifying the identity of application services in such interactions. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 9525
Abstract
Many application technologies enable secure communication between two entities by means of Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX) certificates in the context of Transport Layer Security (TLS). This document specifies procedures for representing and verifying the identity of application services in such interactions. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6176: Prohibiting Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) Version 2.0
Proposed Standard- S. Turner
- T. Polk
- March 2011
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document requires that when Transport Layer Security (TLS) clients and servers establish connections, they never negotiate the use of Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) version 2.0. This document updates the backward compatibility sections found in the Transport Layer Security (TLS). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document requires that when Transport Layer Security (TLS) clients and servers establish connections, they never negotiate the use of Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) version 2.0. This document updates the backward compatibility sections found in the Transport Layer Security (TLS). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6135: An Alternative Connection Model for the Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP)
Proposed Standard- C. Holmberg
- S. Blau
- February 2011
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document defines an alternative connection model for Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) User Agents (UAs); this model uses the connection-oriented media (COMEDIA) mechanism in order to create the MSRP transport connection. The model allows MSRP UAs behind Network Address Translators (NATs) to negotiate which endpoint initiates the establishment of the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection, in order for MSRP messages to traverse the NAT. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document defines an alternative connection model for Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) User Agents (UAs); this model uses the connection-oriented media (COMEDIA) mechanism in order to create the MSRP transport connection. The model allows MSRP UAs behind Network Address Translators (NATs) to negotiate which endpoint initiates the establishment of the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection, in order for MSRP messages to traverse the NAT. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6091: Using OpenPGP Keys for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authentication
Informational- N. Mavrogiannopoulos
- D. Gillmor
- February 2011
- IETF publication
Abstract
This memo defines Transport Layer Security (TLS) extensions and associated semantics that allow clients and servers to negotiate the use of OpenPGP certificates for a TLS session, and specifies how to transport OpenPGP certificates via TLS. It also defines the registry for non-X.509 certificate types. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
This memo defines Transport Layer Security (TLS) extensions and associated semantics that allow clients and servers to negotiate the use of OpenPGP certificates for a TLS session, and specifies how to transport OpenPGP certificates via TLS. It also defines the registry for non-X.509 certificate types. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 6066: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions: Extension Definitions
Proposed Standard- D. Eastlake 3rd
- January 2011
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document provides specifications for existing TLS extensions. It is a companion document for RFC 5246, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2". The extensions specified are server_name, max_fragment_length, client_certificate_url, trusted_ca_keys, truncated_hmac, and status_request. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document provides specifications for existing TLS extensions. It is a companion document for RFC 5246, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2". The extensions specified are server_name, max_fragment_length, client_certificate_url, trusted_ca_keys, truncated_hmac, and status_request. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6042: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authorization Using KeyNote
Informational- A. Keromytis
- October 2010
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
This document specifies the use of the KeyNote trust-management system as an authorization extension in the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Handshake Protocol, according to guidelines in RFC 5878. Extensions carried in the client and server hello messages confirm that both parties support the desired authorization data types. Then, if supported by both the client and the server, KeyNote credentials are exchanged in the supplemental data handshake message. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
This document specifies the use of the KeyNote trust-management system as an authorization extension in the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Handshake Protocol, according to guidelines in RFC 5878. Extensions carried in the client and server hello messages confirm that both parties support the desired authorization data types. Then, if supported by both the client and the server, KeyNote credentials are exchanged in the supplemental data handshake message. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 5929: Channel Bindings for TLS
Proposed Standard- J. Altman
- N. Williams
- L. Zhu
- July 2010
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document defines three channel binding types for Transport Layer Security (TLS), tls-unique, tls-server-end-point, and tls-unique-for-telnet, in accordance with RFC 5056 (On Channel Binding).
Note that based on implementation experience, this document changes the original definition of 'tls-unique' channel binding type in the channel binding type IANA registry. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document defines three channel binding types for Transport Layer Security (TLS), tls-unique, tls-server-end-point, and tls-unique-for-telnet, in accordance with RFC 5056 (On Channel Binding).
Note that based on implementation experience, this document changes the original definition of 'tls-unique' channel binding type in the channel binding type IANA registry. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5932: Camellia Cipher Suites for TLS
Proposed Standard- A. Kato
- M. Kanda
- S. Kanno
- June 2010
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document specifies a set of cipher suites for the Transport Security Layer (TLS) protocol to support the Camellia encryption algorithm as a block cipher. It amends the cipher suites originally specified in RFC 4132 by introducing counterparts using the newer cryptographic hash algorithms from the SHA-2 family. This document obsoletes RFC 4132. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document specifies a set of cipher suites for the Transport Security Layer (TLS) protocol to support the Camellia encryption algorithm as a block cipher. It amends the cipher suites originally specified in RFC 4132 by introducing counterparts using the newer cryptographic hash algorithms from the SHA-2 family. This document obsoletes RFC 4132. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5922: Domain Certificates in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Proposed Standard- V. Gurbani
- S. Lawrence
- A. Jeffrey
- June 2010
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document describes how to construct and interpret certain information in a PKIX-compliant (Public Key Infrastructure using X.509) certificate for use in a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) over Transport Layer Security (TLS) connection. More specifically, this document describes how to encode and extract the identity of a SIP domain in a certificate and how to use that identity for SIP domain authentication. As such, this document is relevant both to implementors of SIP and to issuers of certificates. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes how to construct and interpret certain information in a PKIX-compliant (Public Key Infrastructure using X.509) certificate for use in a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) over Transport Layer Security (TLS) connection. More specifically, this document describes how to encode and extract the identity of a SIP domain in a certificate and how to use that identity for SIP domain authentication. As such, this document is relevant both to implementors of SIP and to issuers of certificates. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5923: Connection Reuse in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Proposed Standard- V. Gurbani
- R. Mahy
- B. Tate
- June 2010
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document enables a pair of communicating proxies to reuse a congestion-controlled connection between themselves for sending requests in the forwards and backwards direction. Because the connection is essentially aliased for requests going in the backwards direction, reuse is predicated upon both the communicating endpoints authenticating themselves using X.509 certificates through Transport Layer Security (TLS). For this reason, we only consider connection reuse for TLS over TCP and TLS over Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP). This document also provides guidelines on connection reuse and virtual SIP servers and the interaction of connection reuse and DNS SRV lookups in SIP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document enables a pair of communicating proxies to reuse a congestion-controlled connection between themselves for sending requests in the forwards and backwards direction. Because the connection is essentially aliased for requests going in the backwards direction, reuse is predicated upon both the communicating endpoints authenticating themselves using X.509 certificates through Transport Layer Security (TLS). For this reason, we only consider connection reuse for TLS over TCP and TLS over Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP). This document also provides guidelines on connection reuse and virtual SIP servers and the interaction of connection reuse and DNS SRV lookups in SIP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5878: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authorization Extensions
Experimental- M. Brown
- R. Housley
- May 2010
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document specifies authorization extensions to the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Handshake Protocol. Extensions are carried in the client and server hello messages to confirm that both parties support the desired authorization data types. Then, if supported by both the client and the server, authorization information, such as attribute certificates (ACs) or Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) assertions, is exchanged in the supplemental data handshake message. This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document specifies authorization extensions to the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Handshake Protocol. Extensions are carried in the client and server hello messages to confirm that both parties support the desired authorization data types. Then, if supported by both the client and the server, authorization information, such as attribute certificates (ACs) or Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) assertions, is exchanged in the supplemental data handshake message. This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
RFC 5705: Keying Material Exporters for Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Proposed Standard- E. Rescorla
- March 2010
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
A number of protocols wish to leverage Transport Layer Security (TLS) to perform key establishment but then use some of the keying material for their own purposes. This document describes a general mechanism for allowing that. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
A number of protocols wish to leverage Transport Layer Security (TLS) to perform key establishment but then use some of the keying material for their own purposes. This document describes a general mechanism for allowing that. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5746: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Renegotiation Indication Extension
Proposed Standard- E. Rescorla
- M. Ray
- S. Dispensa
- N. Oskov
- February 2010
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
Secure Socket Layer (SSL) and Transport Layer Security (TLS) renegotiation are vulnerable to an attack in which the attacker forms a TLS connection with the target server, injects content of his choice, and then splices in a new TLS connection from a client. The server treats the client's initial TLS handshake as a renegotiation and thus believes that the initial data transmitted by the attacker is from the same entity as the subsequent client data. This specification defines a TLS extension to cryptographically tie renegotiations to the TLS connections they are being performed over, thus preventing this attack. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
Secure Socket Layer (SSL) and Transport Layer Security (TLS) renegotiation are vulnerable to an attack in which the attacker forms a TLS connection with the target server, injects content of his choice, and then splices in a new TLS connection from a client. The server treats the client's initial TLS handshake as a renegotiation and thus believes that the initial data transmitted by the attacker is from the same entity as the subsequent client data. This specification defines a TLS extension to cryptographically tie renegotiations to the TLS connections they are being performed over, thus preventing this attack. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5630: The Use of the SIPS URI Scheme in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Proposed Standard- F. Audet
- October 2009
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document provides clarifications and guidelines concerning the use of the SIPS URI scheme in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). It also makes normative changes to SIP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document provides clarifications and guidelines concerning the use of the SIPS URI scheme in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). It also makes normative changes to SIP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5734: STD 69: Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Transport over TCP
Internet Standard- S. Hollenbeck
- August 2009
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document describes how an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) session is mapped onto a single Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection. This mapping requires use of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to protect information exchanged between an EPP client and an EPP server. This document obsoletes RFC 4934. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes how an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) session is mapped onto a single Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection. This mapping requires use of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to protect information exchanged between an EPP client and an EPP server. This document obsoletes RFC 4934. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5539: NETCONF over Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Proposed Standard- M. Badra
- May 2009
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) provides mechanisms to install, manipulate, and delete the configuration of network devices. This document describes how to use the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to secure NETCONF exchanges. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 7589
Abstract
The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) provides mechanisms to install, manipulate, and delete the configuration of network devices. This document describes how to use the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to secure NETCONF exchanges. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5430: Suite B Profile for Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Historic- M. Salter
- E. Rescorla
- R. Housley
- March 2009
- IETF publication
Abstract
The United States government has published guidelines for "NSA Suite B Cryptography", which defines cryptographic algorithm policy for national security applications. This document defines a profile of Transport Layer Security (TLS) version 1.2 that is fully conformant with Suite B. This document also defines a transitional profile for use with TLS version 1.0 and TLS version 1.1 which employs Suite B algorithms to the greatest extent possible. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Obsoleted by RFC 6460
Abstract
The United States government has published guidelines for "NSA Suite B Cryptography", which defines cryptographic algorithm policy for national security applications. This document defines a profile of Transport Layer Security (TLS) version 1.2 that is fully conformant with Suite B. This document also defines a transitional profile for use with TLS version 1.0 and TLS version 1.1 which employs Suite B algorithms to the greatest extent possible. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 5489: ECDHE_PSK Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Informational- M. Badra
- I. Hajjeh
- March 2009
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document extends RFC 4279, RFC 4492, and RFC 4785 and specifies a set of cipher suites that use a pre-shared key (PSK) to authenticate an Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman exchange with Ephemeral keys (ECDHE). These cipher suites provide Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS). This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document extends RFC 4279, RFC 4492, and RFC 4785 and specifies a set of cipher suites that use a pre-shared key (PSK) to authenticate an Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman exchange with Ephemeral keys (ECDHE). These cipher suites provide Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS). This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 5425: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Mapping for Syslog
Proposed Standard- F. Miao
- Y. Ma
- J. Salowey
- March 2009
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document describes the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to provide a secure connection for the transport of syslog messages. This document describes the security threats to syslog and how TLS can be used to counter such threats.
Abstract
This document describes the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to provide a secure connection for the transport of syslog messages. This document describes the security threats to syslog and how TLS can be used to counter such threats.
RFC 5487: Pre-Shared Key Cipher Suites for TLS with SHA-256/384 and AES Galois Counter Mode
Proposed Standard- M. Badra
- March 2009
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
RFC 4279 and RFC 4785 describe pre-shared key cipher suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS). However, all those cipher suites use SHA-1 in their Message Authentication Code (MAC) algorithm. This document describes a set of pre-shared key cipher suites for TLS that uses stronger digest algorithms (i.e., SHA-256 or SHA-384) and another set that uses the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) in Galois Counter Mode (GCM). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
RFC 4279 and RFC 4785 describe pre-shared key cipher suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS). However, all those cipher suites use SHA-1 in their Message Authentication Code (MAC) algorithm. This document describes a set of pre-shared key cipher suites for TLS that uses stronger digest algorithms (i.e., SHA-256 or SHA-384) and another set that uses the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) in Galois Counter Mode (GCM). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5469: DES and IDEA Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Historic- P. Eronen
- February 2009
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
Transport Layer Security (TLS) versions 1.0 (RFC 2246) and 1.1 (RFC 4346) include cipher suites based on DES (Data Encryption Standard) and IDEA (International Data Encryption Algorithm) algorithms. DES (when used in single-DES mode) and IDEA are no longer recommended for general use in TLS, and have been removed from TLS version 1.2 (RFC 5246). This document specifies these cipher suites for completeness and discusses reasons why their use is no longer recommended. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Obsoleted by RFC 8996
Abstract
Transport Layer Security (TLS) versions 1.0 (RFC 2246) and 1.1 (RFC 4346) include cipher suites based on DES (Data Encryption Standard) and IDEA (International Data Encryption Algorithm) algorithms. DES (when used in single-DES mode) and IDEA are no longer recommended for general use in TLS, and have been removed from TLS version 1.2 (RFC 5246). This document specifies these cipher suites for completeness and discusses reasons why their use is no longer recommended. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 5288: AES Galois Counter Mode (GCM) Cipher Suites for TLS
Proposed Standard- J. Salowey
- A. Choudhury
- D. McGrew
- August 2008
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This memo describes the use of the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) in Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) as a Transport Layer Security (TLS) authenticated encryption operation. GCM provides both confidentiality and data origin authentication, can be efficiently implemented in hardware for speeds of 10 gigabits per second and above, and is also well-suited to software implementations. This memo defines TLS cipher suites that use AES-GCM with RSA, DSA, and Diffie-Hellman-based key exchange mechanisms. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This memo describes the use of the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) in Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) as a Transport Layer Security (TLS) authenticated encryption operation. GCM provides both confidentiality and data origin authentication, can be efficiently implemented in hardware for speeds of 10 gigabits per second and above, and is also well-suited to software implementations. This memo defines TLS cipher suites that use AES-GCM with RSA, DSA, and Diffie-Hellman-based key exchange mechanisms. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5289: TLS Elliptic Curve Cipher Suites with SHA-256/384 and AES Galois Counter Mode (GCM)
Proposed Standard- E. Rescorla
- August 2008
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
RFC 4492 describes elliptic curve cipher suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS). However, all those cipher suites use HMAC-SHA-1 as their Message Authentication Code (MAC) algorithm. This document describes sixteen new cipher suites for TLS that specify stronger MAC algorithms. Eight use Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC) with SHA-256 or SHA-384, and eight use AES in Galois Counter Mode (GCM). This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
RFC 4492 describes elliptic curve cipher suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS). However, all those cipher suites use HMAC-SHA-1 as their Message Authentication Code (MAC) algorithm. This document describes sixteen new cipher suites for TLS that specify stronger MAC algorithms. Eight use Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC) with SHA-256 or SHA-384, and eight use AES in Galois Counter Mode (GCM). This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 5246: The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2
Proposed Standard- T. Dierks
- E. Rescorla
- August 2008
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document specifies Version 1.2 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. The TLS protocol provides communications security over the Internet. The protocol allows client/server applications to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document specifies Version 1.2 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. The TLS protocol provides communications security over the Internet. The protocol allows client/server applications to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5281: Extensible Authentication Protocol Tunneled Transport Layer Security Authenticated Protocol Version 0 (EAP-TTLSv0)
Informational- P. Funk
- S. Blake-Wilson
- August 2008
- IETF publication
Abstract
EAP-TTLS is an EAP (Extensible Authentication Protocol) method that encapsulates a TLS (Transport Layer Security) session, consisting of a handshake phase and a data phase. During the handshake phase, the server is authenticated to the client (or client and server are mutually authenticated) using standard TLS procedures, and keying material is generated in order to create a cryptographically secure tunnel for information exchange in the subsequent data phase. During the data phase, the client is authenticated to the server (or client and server are mutually authenticated) using an arbitrary authentication mechanism encapsulated within the secure tunnel. The encapsulated authentication mechanism may itself be EAP, or it may be another authentication protocol such as PAP, CHAP, MS-CHAP, or MS-CHAP-V2. Thus, EAP-TTLS allows legacy password-based authentication protocols to be used against existing authentication databases, while protecting the security of these legacy protocols against eavesdropping, man-in-the-middle, and other attacks. The data phase may also be used for additional, arbitrary data exchange. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
EAP-TTLS is an EAP (Extensible Authentication Protocol) method that encapsulates a TLS (Transport Layer Security) session, consisting of a handshake phase and a data phase. During the handshake phase, the server is authenticated to the client (or client and server are mutually authenticated) using standard TLS procedures, and keying material is generated in order to create a cryptographically secure tunnel for information exchange in the subsequent data phase. During the data phase, the client is authenticated to the server (or client and server are mutually authenticated) using an arbitrary authentication mechanism encapsulated within the secure tunnel. The encapsulated authentication mechanism may itself be EAP, or it may be another authentication protocol such as PAP, CHAP, MS-CHAP, or MS-CHAP-V2. Thus, EAP-TTLS allows legacy password-based authentication protocols to be used against existing authentication databases, while protecting the security of these legacy protocols against eavesdropping, man-in-the-middle, and other attacks. The data phase may also be used for additional, arbitrary data exchange. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 5216: The EAP-TLS Authentication Protocol
Proposed Standard- D. Simon
- B. Aboba
- R. Hurst
- March 2008
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), defined in RFC 3748, provides support for multiple authentication methods. Transport Layer Security (TLS) provides for mutual authentication, integrity-protected ciphersuite negotiation, and key exchange between two endpoints. This document defines EAP-TLS, which includes support for certificate-based mutual authentication and key derivation.
This document obsoletes RFC 2716. A summary of the changes between this document and RFC 2716 is available in Appendix A. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), defined in RFC 3748, provides support for multiple authentication methods. Transport Layer Security (TLS) provides for mutual authentication, integrity-protected ciphersuite negotiation, and key exchange between two endpoints. This document defines EAP-TLS, which includes support for certificate-based mutual authentication and key derivation.
This document obsoletes RFC 2716. A summary of the changes between this document and RFC 2716 is available in Appendix A. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5077: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session Resumption without Server-Side State
Proposed Standard- J. Salowey
- H. Zhou
- P. Eronen
- H. Tschofenig
- January 2008
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism that enables the Transport Layer Security (TLS) server to resume sessions and avoid keeping per-client session state. The TLS server encapsulates the session state into a ticket and forwards it to the client. The client can subsequently resume a session using the obtained ticket. This document obsoletes RFC 4507. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism that enables the Transport Layer Security (TLS) server to resume sessions and avoid keeping per-client session state. The TLS server encapsulates the session state into a ticket and forwards it to the client. The client can subsequently resume a session using the obtained ticket. This document obsoletes RFC 4507. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5114: Additional Diffie-Hellman Groups for Use with IETF Standards
Informational- M. Lepinski
- S. Kent
- January 2008
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document describes eight Diffie-Hellman groups that can be used in conjunction with IETF protocols to provide security for Internet communications. The groups allow implementers to use the same groups with a variety of security protocols, e.g., SMIME, Secure SHell (SSH), Transport Layer Security (TLS), and Internet Key Exchange (IKE).
All of these groups comply in form and structure with relevant standards from ISO, ANSI, NIST, and the IEEE. These groups are compatible with all IETF standards that make use of Diffie-Hellman or Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman cryptography.
These groups and the associated test data are defined by NIST on their web site [EX80056A], but have not yet (as of this writing) been published in a formal NIST document. Publication of these groups and associated test data, as well as describing how to use Diffie-Hellman and Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman for key agreement in all of the protocols cited below, in one RFC, will facilitate development of interoperable implementations and support the Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) validation of implementations that make use of these groups. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document describes eight Diffie-Hellman groups that can be used in conjunction with IETF protocols to provide security for Internet communications. The groups allow implementers to use the same groups with a variety of security protocols, e.g., SMIME, Secure SHell (SSH), Transport Layer Security (TLS), and Internet Key Exchange (IKE).
All of these groups comply in form and structure with relevant standards from ISO, ANSI, NIST, and the IEEE. These groups are compatible with all IETF standards that make use of Diffie-Hellman or Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman cryptography.
These groups and the associated test data are defined by NIST on their web site [EX80056A], but have not yet (as of this writing) been published in a formal NIST document. Publication of these groups and associated test data, as well as describing how to use Diffie-Hellman and Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman for key agreement in all of the protocols cited below, in one RFC, will facilitate development of interoperable implementations and support the Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) validation of implementations that make use of these groups. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 5054: Using the Secure Remote Password (SRP) Protocol for TLS Authentication
Informational- D. Taylor
- T. Wu
- N. Mavrogiannopoulos
- T. Perrin
- November 2007
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This memo presents a technique for using the Secure Remote Password protocol as an authentication method for the Transport Layer Security protocol. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This memo presents a technique for using the Secure Remote Password protocol as an authentication method for the Transport Layer Security protocol. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 5081: Using OpenPGP Keys for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authentication
Experimental- N. Mavrogiannopoulos
- November 2007
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This memo proposes extensions to the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to support the OpenPGP key format. The extensions discussed here include a certificate type negotiation mechanism, and the required modifications to the TLS Handshake Protocol. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
Obsoleted by RFC 6091
Abstract
This memo proposes extensions to the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to support the OpenPGP key format. The extensions discussed here include a certificate type negotiation mechanism, and the required modifications to the TLS Handshake Protocol. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
RFC 5018: Connection Establishment in the Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP)
Proposed Standard- G. Camarillo
- September 2007
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This document specifies how a Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) client establishes a connection to a BFCP floor control server outside the context of an offer/answer exchange. Client and server authentication are based on Transport Layer Security (TLS). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document specifies how a Binary Floor Control Protocol (BFCP) client establishes a connection to a BFCP floor control server outside the context of an offer/answer exchange. Client and server authentication are based on Transport Layer Security (TLS). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4934: Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Transport Over TCP
Draft Standard- S. Hollenbeck
- May 2007
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document describes how an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) session is mapped onto a single Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection. This mapping requires use of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to protect information exchanged between an EPP client and an EPP server. This document obsoletes RFC 3734. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 5734
Abstract
This document describes how an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) session is mapped onto a single Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection. This mapping requires use of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to protect information exchanged between an EPP client and an EPP server. This document obsoletes RFC 3734. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4785: Pre-Shared Key (PSK) Ciphersuites with NULL Encryption for Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Proposed Standard- U. Blumenthal
- P. Goel
- January 2007
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document specifies authentication-only ciphersuites (with no encryption) for the Pre-Shared Key (PSK) based Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. These ciphersuites are useful when authentication and integrity protection is desired, but confidentiality is not needed or not permitted. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document specifies authentication-only ciphersuites (with no encryption) for the Pre-Shared Key (PSK) based Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. These ciphersuites are useful when authentication and integrity protection is desired, but confidentiality is not needed or not permitted. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4642: Using Transport Layer Security (TLS) with Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP)
Proposed Standard- K. Murchison
- J. Vinocur
- C. Newman
- October 2006
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
This memo defines an extension to the Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) that allows an NNTP client and server to use Transport Layer Security (TLS). The primary goal is to provide encryption for single-link confidentiality purposes, but data integrity, (optional) certificate-based peer entity authentication, and (optional) data compression are also possible. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This memo defines an extension to the Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) that allows an NNTP client and server to use Transport Layer Security (TLS). The primary goal is to provide encryption for single-link confidentiality purposes, but data integrity, (optional) certificate-based peer entity authentication, and (optional) data compression are also possible. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4680: TLS Handshake Message for Supplemental Data
Proposed Standard- S. Santesson
- October 2006
- IETF publication
Abstract
This specification defines a TLS handshake message for exchange of supplemental application data. TLS hello message extensions are used to determine which supplemental data types are supported by both the TLS client and the TLS server. Then, the supplemental data handshake message is used to exchange the data. Other documents will define the syntax of these extensions and the syntax of the associated supplemental data types. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This specification defines a TLS handshake message for exchange of supplemental application data. TLS hello message extensions are used to determine which supplemental data types are supported by both the TLS client and the TLS server. Then, the supplemental data handshake message is used to exchange the data. Other documents will define the syntax of these extensions and the syntax of the associated supplemental data types. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4681: TLS User Mapping Extension
Proposed Standard- S. Santesson
- A. Medvinsky
- J. Ball
- October 2006
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document specifies a TLS extension that enables clients to send generic user mapping hints in a supplemental data handshake message defined in RFC 4680. One such mapping hint is defined in an informative section, the UpnDomainHint, which may be used by a server to locate a user in a directory database. Other mapping hints may be defined in other documents in the future. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document specifies a TLS extension that enables clients to send generic user mapping hints in a supplemental data handshake message defined in RFC 4680. One such mapping hint is defined in an informative section, the UpnDomainHint, which may be used by a server to locate a user in a directory database. Other mapping hints may be defined in other documents in the future. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4572: Connection-Oriented Media Transport over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
Proposed Standard- J. Lennox
- July 2006
- IETF publication
- Applications and Real-Time Area
Abstract
This document specifies how to establish secure connection-oriented media transport sessions over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol using the Session Description Protocol (SDP). It defines a new SDP protocol identifier, 'TCP/TLS'. It also defines the syntax and semantics for an SDP 'fingerprint' attribute that identifies the certificate that will be presented for the TLS session. This mechanism allows media transport over TLS connections to be established securely, so long as the integrity of session descriptions is assured.
This document extends and updates RFC 4145. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 8122
Abstract
This document specifies how to establish secure connection-oriented media transport sessions over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol using the Session Description Protocol (SDP). It defines a new SDP protocol identifier, 'TCP/TLS'. It also defines the syntax and semantics for an SDP 'fingerprint' attribute that identifies the certificate that will be presented for the TLS session. This mechanism allows media transport over TLS connections to be established securely, so long as the integrity of session descriptions is assured.
This document extends and updates RFC 4145. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4511: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): The Protocol
Proposed Standard- J. Sermersheim
- June 2006
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
This document describes the protocol elements, along with their semantics and encodings, of the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP). LDAP provides access to distributed directory services that act in accordance with X.500 data and service models. These protocol elements are based on those described in the X.500 Directory Access Protocol (DAP). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes the protocol elements, along with their semantics and encodings, of the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP). LDAP provides access to distributed directory services that act in accordance with X.500 data and service models. These protocol elements are based on those described in the X.500 Directory Access Protocol (DAP). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4513: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): Authentication Methods and Security Mechanisms
Proposed Standard- R. Harrison
- June 2006
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
This document describes authentication methods and security mechanisms of the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP). This document details establishment of Transport Layer Security (TLS) using the StartTLS operation.
This document details the simple Bind authentication method including anonymous, unauthenticated, and name/password mechanisms and the Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) Bind authentication method including the EXTERNAL mechanism.
This document discusses various authentication and authorization states through which a session to an LDAP server may pass and the actions that trigger these state changes.
This document, together with other documents in the LDAP Technical Specification (see Section 1 of the specification's road map), obsoletes RFC 2251, RFC 2829, and RFC 2830. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes authentication methods and security mechanisms of the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP). This document details establishment of Transport Layer Security (TLS) using the StartTLS operation.
This document details the simple Bind authentication method including anonymous, unauthenticated, and name/password mechanisms and the Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) Bind authentication method including the EXTERNAL mechanism.
This document discusses various authentication and authorization states through which a session to an LDAP server may pass and the actions that trigger these state changes.
This document, together with other documents in the LDAP Technical Specification (see Section 1 of the specification's road map), obsoletes RFC 2251, RFC 2829, and RFC 2830. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4492: Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Informational- S. Blake-Wilson
- N. Bolyard
- V. Gupta
- C. Hawk
- B. Moeller
- May 2006
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document describes new key exchange algorithms based on Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. In particular, it specifies the use of Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) key agreement in a TLS handshake and the use of Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) as a new authentication mechanism. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Obsoleted by RFC 8422
Abstract
This document describes new key exchange algorithms based on Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. In particular, it specifies the use of Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) key agreement in a TLS handshake and the use of Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) as a new authentication mechanism. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4507: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session Resumption without Server-Side State
Proposed Standard- J. Salowey
- H. Zhou
- P. Eronen
- H. Tschofenig
- May 2006
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism that enables the Transport Layer Security (TLS) server to resume sessions and avoid keeping \%per-client session state. The TLS server encapsulates the session state into a ticket and forwards it to the client. The client can subsequently resume a session using the obtained ticket. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 5077
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism that enables the Transport Layer Security (TLS) server to resume sessions and avoid keeping \%per-client session state. The TLS server encapsulates the session state into a ticket and forwards it to the client. The client can subsequently resume a session using the obtained ticket. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4366: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions
Proposed Standard- S. Blake-Wilson
- M. Nystrom
- D. Hopwood
- J. Mikkelsen
- T. Wright
- April 2006
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document describes extensions that may be used to add functionality to Transport Layer Security (TLS). It provides both generic extension mechanisms for the TLS handshake client and server hellos, and specific extensions using these generic mechanisms.
The extensions may be used by TLS clients and servers. The extensions are backwards compatible: communication is possible between TLS clients that support the extensions and TLS servers that do not support the extensions, and vice versa. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes extensions that may be used to add functionality to Transport Layer Security (TLS). It provides both generic extension mechanisms for the TLS handshake client and server hellos, and specific extensions using these generic mechanisms.
The extensions may be used by TLS clients and servers. The extensions are backwards compatible: communication is possible between TLS clients that support the extensions and TLS servers that do not support the extensions, and vice versa. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4346: The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.1
Historic- T. Dierks
- E. Rescorla
- April 2006
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document specifies Version 1.1 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. The TLS protocol provides communications security over the Internet. The protocol allows client/server applications to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery.
Obsoleted by RFC 5246
Abstract
This document specifies Version 1.1 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. The TLS protocol provides communications security over the Internet. The protocol allows client/server applications to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery.
RFC 4261: Common Open Policy Service (COPS) Over Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Proposed Standard- J. Walker
- A. Kulkarni
- December 2005
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document describes how to use Transport Layer Security (TLS) to secure Common Open Policy Service (COPS) connections over the Internet.
This document also updates RFC 2748 by modifying the contents of the Client-Accept message. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes how to use Transport Layer Security (TLS) to secure Common Open Policy Service (COPS) connections over the Internet.
This document also updates RFC 2748 by modifying the contents of the Client-Accept message. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4279: Pre-Shared Key Ciphersuites for Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Proposed Standard- P. Eronen
- H. Tschofenig
- December 2005
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document specifies three sets of new ciphersuites for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to support authentication based on pre-shared keys (PSKs). These pre-shared keys are symmetric keys, shared in advance among the communicating parties. The first set of ciphersuites uses only symmetric key operations for authentication. The second set uses a Diffie-Hellman exchange authenticated with a pre-shared key, and the third set combines public key authentication of the server with pre-shared key authentication of the client. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document specifies three sets of new ciphersuites for the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to support authentication based on pre-shared keys (PSKs). These pre-shared keys are symmetric keys, shared in advance among the communicating parties. The first set of ciphersuites uses only symmetric key operations for authentication. The second set uses a Diffie-Hellman exchange authenticated with a pre-shared key, and the third set combines public key authentication of the server with pre-shared key authentication of the client. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4169: Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Digest Authentication Using Authentication and Key Agreement (AKA) Version-2
Informational- V. Torvinen
- J. Arkko
- M. Naslund
- November 2005
- IETF publication
Abstract
HTTP Digest, as specified in RFC 2617, is known to be vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks if the client fails to authenticate the server in TLS, or if the same passwords are used for authentication in some other context without TLS. This is a general problem that exists not just with HTTP Digest, but also with other IETF protocols that use tunneled authentication. This document specifies version 2 of the HTTP Digest AKA algorithm (RFC 3310). This algorithm can be implemented in a way that it is resistant to the man-in-the-middle attack. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
HTTP Digest, as specified in RFC 2617, is known to be vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks if the client fails to authenticate the server in TLS, or if the same passwords are used for authentication in some other context without TLS. This is a general problem that exists not just with HTTP Digest, but also with other IETF protocols that use tunneled authentication. This document specifies version 2 of the HTTP Digest AKA algorithm (RFC 3310). This algorithm can be implemented in a way that it is resistant to the man-in-the-middle attack. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4217: Securing FTP with TLS
Proposed Standard- P. Ford-Hutchinson
- October 2005
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism that can be used by FTP clients and servers to implement security and authentication using the TLS protocol defined by RFC 2246, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0.", and the extensions to the FTP protocol defined by RFC 2228, "FTP Security Extensions". It describes the subset of the extensions that are required and the parameters to be used, discusses some of the policy issues that clients and servers will need to take, considers some of the implications of those policies, and discusses some expected behaviours of implementations to allow interoperation. This document is intended to provide TLS support for FTP in a similar way to that provided for SMTP in RFC 2487, "SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over Transport Layer Security", and HTTP in RFC 2817, "Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1.".
This specification is in accordance with RFC 959, "File Transfer Protocol". It relies on RFC 2246, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0.", and RFC 2228, "FTP Security Extensions". [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism that can be used by FTP clients and servers to implement security and authentication using the TLS protocol defined by RFC 2246, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0.", and the extensions to the FTP protocol defined by RFC 2228, "FTP Security Extensions". It describes the subset of the extensions that are required and the parameters to be used, discusses some of the policy issues that clients and servers will need to take, considers some of the implications of those policies, and discusses some expected behaviours of implementations to allow interoperation. This document is intended to provide TLS support for FTP in a similar way to that provided for SMTP in RFC 2487, "SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over Transport Layer Security", and HTTP in RFC 2817, "Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1.".
This specification is in accordance with RFC 959, "File Transfer Protocol". It relies on RFC 2246, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0.", and RFC 2228, "FTP Security Extensions". [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4162: Addition of SEED Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Proposed Standard- H.J. Lee
- J.H. Yoon
- J.I. Lee
- September 2005
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document proposes the addition of new cipher suites to the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to support the SEED encryption algorithm as a bulk cipher algorithm. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document proposes the addition of new cipher suites to the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to support the SEED encryption algorithm as a bulk cipher algorithm. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4132: Addition of Camellia Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Proposed Standard- S. Moriai
- A. Kato
- M. Kanda
- July 2005
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document proposes the addition of new cipher suites to the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to support the Camellia encryption algorithm as a bulk cipher algorithm. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 5932
Abstract
This document proposes the addition of new cipher suites to the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to support the Camellia encryption algorithm as a bulk cipher algorithm. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3943: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Compression Using Lempel-Ziv-Stac (LZS)
Informational- R. Friend
- November 2004
- IETF publication
Abstract
The Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol (RFC 2246) includes features to negotiate selection of a lossless data compression method as part of the TLS Handshake Protocol and then to apply the algorithm associated with the selected method as part of the TLS Record Protocol. TLS defines one standard compression method, which specifies that data exchanged via the record protocol will not be compressed. This document describes an additional compression method associated with the Lempel-Ziv-Stac (LZS) lossless data compression algorithm for use with TLS. This document also defines the application of the LZS algorithm to the TLS Record Protocol. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
The Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol (RFC 2246) includes features to negotiate selection of a lossless data compression method as part of the TLS Handshake Protocol and then to apply the algorithm associated with the selected method as part of the TLS Record Protocol. TLS defines one standard compression method, which specifies that data exchanged via the record protocol will not be compressed. This document describes an additional compression method associated with the Lempel-Ziv-Stac (LZS) lossless data compression algorithm for use with TLS. This document also defines the application of the LZS algorithm to the TLS Record Protocol. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 3749: Transport Layer Security Protocol Compression Methods
Proposed Standard- S. Hollenbeck
- May 2004
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
The Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol (RFC 2246) includes features to negotiate selection of a lossless data compression method as part of the TLS Handshake Protocol and to then apply the algorithm associated with the selected method as part of the TLS Record Protocol. TLS defines one standard compression method which specifies that data exchanged via the record protocol will not be compressed. This document describes an additional compression method associated with a lossless data compression algorithm for use with TLS, and it describes a method for the specification of additional TLS compression methods. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
The Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol (RFC 2246) includes features to negotiate selection of a lossless data compression method as part of the TLS Handshake Protocol and to then apply the algorithm associated with the selected method as part of the TLS Record Protocol. TLS defines one standard compression method which specifies that data exchanged via the record protocol will not be compressed. This document describes an additional compression method associated with a lossless data compression algorithm for use with TLS, and it describes a method for the specification of additional TLS compression methods. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3734: Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Transport Over TCP
Proposed Standard- S. Hollenbeck
- March 2004
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
This document describes how an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) session is mapped onto a single Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection. This mapping requires use of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to protect information exchanged between an EPP client and an EPP server. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 4934
Abstract
This document describes how an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) session is mapped onto a single Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection. This mapping requires use of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol to protect information exchanged between an EPP client and an EPP server. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3546: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions
Proposed Standard- S. Blake-Wilson
- M. Nystrom
- D. Hopwood
- J. Mikkelsen
- T. Wright
- June 2003
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document describes extensions that may be used to add functionality to Transport Layer Security (TLS). It provides both generic extension mechanisms for the TLS handshake client and server hellos, and specific extensions using these generic mechanisms. The extensions may be used by TLS clients and servers. The extensions are backwards compatible - communication is possible between TLS 1.0 clients that support the extensions and TLS 1.0 servers that do not support the extensions, and vice versa. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 4366
Abstract
This document describes extensions that may be used to add functionality to Transport Layer Security (TLS). It provides both generic extension mechanisms for the TLS handshake client and server hellos, and specific extensions using these generic mechanisms. The extensions may be used by TLS clients and servers. The extensions are backwards compatible - communication is possible between TLS 1.0 clients that support the extensions and TLS 1.0 servers that do not support the extensions, and vice versa. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3436: Transport Layer Security over Stream Control Transmission Protocol
Proposed Standard- A. Jungmaier
- E. Rescorla
- M. Tuexen
- December 2002
- IETF publication
- Web and Internet Transport
Abstract
This document describes the usage of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol, as defined in RFC 2246, over the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP), as defined in RFC 2960 and RFC 3309. The user of TLS can take advantage of the features provided by SCTP, namely the support of multiple streams to avoid head of line blocking and the support of multi-homing to provide network level fault tolerance. Additionally, discussions of extensions of SCTP are also supported, meaning especially the support of dynamic reconfiguration of IP- addresses. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes the usage of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol, as defined in RFC 2246, over the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP), as defined in RFC 2960 and RFC 3309. The user of TLS can take advantage of the features provided by SCTP, namely the support of multiple streams to avoid head of line blocking and the support of multi-homing to provide network level fault tolerance. Additionally, discussions of extensions of SCTP are also supported, meaning especially the support of dynamic reconfiguration of IP- addresses. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3268: Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Ciphersuites for Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Proposed Standard- P. Chown
- July 2002
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document proposes several new ciphersuites. At present, the symmetric ciphers supported by Transport Layer Security (TLS) are RC2, RC4, International Data Encryption Algorithm (IDEA), Data Encryption Standard (DES), and triple DES. The protocol would be enhanced by the addition of Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) ciphersuites. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 5246
Abstract
This document proposes several new ciphersuites. At present, the symmetric ciphers supported by Transport Layer Security (TLS) are RC2, RC4, International Data Encryption Algorithm (IDEA), Data Encryption Standard (DES), and triple DES. The protocol would be enhanced by the addition of Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) ciphersuites. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3207: SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over Transport Layer Security
Proposed Standard- P. Hoffman
- February 2002
- Legacy publication
Abstract
This document describes an extension to the SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) service that allows an SMTP server and client to use TLS (Transport Layer Security) to provide private, authenticated communication over the Internet. This gives SMTP agents the ability to protect some or all of their communications from eavesdroppers and attackers. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes an extension to the SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) service that allows an SMTP server and client to use TLS (Transport Layer Security) to provide private, authenticated communication over the Internet. This gives SMTP agents the ability to protect some or all of their communications from eavesdroppers and attackers. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 2817: Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1
Proposed Standard- R. Khare
- S. Lawrence
- May 2000
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This memo explains how to use the Upgrade mechanism in HTTP/1.1 to initiate Transport Layer Security (TLS) over an existing TCP connection. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This memo explains how to use the Upgrade mechanism in HTTP/1.1 to initiate Transport Layer Security (TLS) over an existing TCP connection. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 2818: HTTP Over TLS
Informational- E. Rescorla
- May 2000
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This memo describes how to use Transport Layer Security (TLS) to secure Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) connections over the Internet. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Obsoleted by RFC 9110
Abstract
This memo describes how to use Transport Layer Security (TLS) to secure Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) connections over the Internet. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 2830: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Extension for Transport Layer Security
Proposed Standard- J. Hodges
- R. Morgan
- M. Wahl
- May 2000
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
This document defines the "Start Transport Layer Security (TLS) Operation" for LDAP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document defines the "Start Transport Layer Security (TLS) Operation" for LDAP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 2712: Addition of Kerberos Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Proposed Standard- A. Medvinsky
- M. Hur
- October 1999
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document proposes the addition of new cipher suites to the TLS protocol to support Kerberos-based authentication. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document proposes the addition of new cipher suites to the TLS protocol to support Kerberos-based authentication. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 2716: PPP EAP TLS Authentication Protocol
Experimental- B. Aboba
- D. Simon
- October 1999
- IETF publication
- Internet Area
Abstract
The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) provides a standard method for transporting multi-protocol datagrams over point-to-point links.The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) is a PPP extension that provides support for additional authentication methods within PPP. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
Obsoleted by RFC 5216
Abstract
The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) provides a standard method for transporting multi-protocol datagrams over point-to-point links.The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) is a PPP extension that provides support for additional authentication methods within PPP. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
RFC 2595: Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP
Proposed Standard- C. Newman
- June 1999
- Legacy publication
Abstract
Recognizing that such sites will desire simple password authentication in combination with TLS encryption, this specification defines the PLAIN SASL mechanism for use with protocols which lack a simple password authentication command such as ACAP and SMTP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
Recognizing that such sites will desire simple password authentication in combination with TLS encryption, this specification defines the PLAIN SASL mechanism for use with protocols which lack a simple password authentication command such as ACAP and SMTP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 2246: The TLS Protocol Version 1.0
Historic- T. Dierks
- C. Allen
- January 1999
- IETF publication
- Security Area
Abstract
This document specifies Version 1.0 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. The TLS protocol provides communications privacy over the Internet. The protocol allows client/server applications to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery.
Obsoleted by RFC 4346
Abstract
This document specifies Version 1.0 of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol. The TLS protocol provides communications privacy over the Internet. The protocol allows client/server applications to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery.
RFC 2487: SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over TLS
Proposed Standard- P. Hoffman
- January 1999
- Legacy publication
Abstract
This document describes an extension to the SMTP service that allows an SMTP server and client to use transport-layer security to provide private, authenticated communication over the Internet. This gives SMTP agents the ability to protect some or all of their communications from eavesdroppers and attackers. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 3207
Abstract
This document describes an extension to the SMTP service that allows an SMTP server and client to use transport-layer security to provide private, authenticated communication over the Internet. This gives SMTP agents the ability to protect some or all of their communications from eavesdroppers and attackers. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Subscribe to TLS
Get notified when:
- RFC changes to status, obsoleted by, updates, updated by, or subseries.
- New RFC added to this subject or below
- The subject was merged into another.