DRIP R. Moskowitz Internet-Draft HTT Consulting Intended status: Standards Track S. Card Expires: 21 October 2021 A. Wiethuechter AX Enterprize 19 April 2021 UAS Operator Privacy for RemoteID Messages draft-moskowitz-drip-operator-privacy-07 Abstract This document describes a method of providing privacy for UAS Operator/Pilot information specified in the ASTM UAS Remote ID and Tracking messages. This is achieved by encrypting, in place, those fields containing Operator sensitive data using a hybrid ECIES. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on 21 October 2021. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Moskowitz, et al. Expires 21 October 2021 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Operator Privacy April 2021 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Requirements Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. The Operator - USS Security Relationship . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. ECIES Shared Secret Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. System Message Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Rules for encrypting System Message content . . . . . . . 5 4.2. Rules for decrypting System Message content . . . . . . . 6 5. Operator ID Message Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. Rules for encrypting Operator ID Message content . . . . 6 5.2. Rules for decrypting Operator ID Message content . . . . 7 6. Cipher choices for Operator PII encryption . . . . . . . . . 7 6.1. Using AES-CFB32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.2. Using a Feistel scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.3. Using AES-CTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. DRIP Requirements addressed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. ASTM Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.1. CFB32 Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.2. Crypto Agility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.3. Key Derivation vulnerabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.4. KMAC Security as a KDF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Appendix A. Feistel Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1. Introduction This document defines a mechanism to provide privacy in the ASTM Remote ID and Tracking messages [F3411-19] by encrypting, in place, those fields that contain sensitive UAS Operator/Pilot information. Encrypting in place means that the ciphertext is exactly the same length as the cleartext, and directly replaces it. An example of and an initial application of this mechanism is the 8 bytes of UAS Operator/Pilot (hereafter called simply Operator) longitude and latitude location in the ASTM System Message (Msg Type 0x4). This meets the Drip Requirements [drip-requirements], Priv-01. It is assumed that the Operator, via the UAS, registers an operation with its USS. During this operation registration, the UAS and USS exchange public keys to use in the hybrid ECIES. The USS key may be Moskowitz, et al. Expires 21 October 2021 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Operator Privacy April 2021 long lived, but the UAS key SHOULD be unique to a specific operation. This provides protection if the ECIES secret is exposed from prior operations. The actual Tracking message field encryption MUST be an "encrypt in place" cipher. There is rarely any room in the tracking messages for a cipher IV or encryption MAC (AEAD tag). There is rarely any data in the messages that can be used as an IV. The AES-CFB32 mode of operation proposed here can encrypt a multiple of 4 bytes. The System Message is not a simple, one-time, encrypt the PII with the ECIES derived key. The Operator may move during a operation and these fields change, correspondingly. Further, not all messages will be received by the USS, so each message's encryption must stand on its own and not be at risk of attack by the content of other messages. Another candidate message is the optional ASTM Operator ID Message (Msg Type 0x5) with its 20 character Operator ID field. The Operator ID does not change during an operation, so this is a one-time encryption operation for the operation. The same cipher SHOULD be used for all messages from the UAS and this will influence the cipher selection. Future applications of this mechanism may be provided. The content of the System Message may change to meet CAA requirements, requiring encrypting a different amount of data. At that time, they will be added to this document. Editor note: The Rules for allowing encryption need to be updated to handle the UA operating in Broadcast Remote ID only mode. That is conditions where the USS cannot notify the UAS to stop encrypting. 2. Terms and Definitions 2.1. Requirements Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 2.2. Definitions See Drip Requirements [drip-requirements] for common DRIP terms. Moskowitz, et al. Expires 21 October 2021 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Operator Privacy April 2021 ECIES Elliptic Curve Integrated Encryption Scheme. A hybrid encryption scheme which provides semantic security against an adversary who is allowed to use chosen-plaintext and chosen-ciphertext attacks. Keccak (KECCAK Message Authentication Code): The family of all sponge functions with a KECCAK-f permutation as the underlying function and multi-rate padding as the padding rule. KMAC (KECCAK Message Authentication Code): A PRF and keyed hash function based on KECCAK. 3. The Operator - USS Security Relationship All CAAs have rules defining which UAS must be registered to operate in their National Airspace. This includes UAS and Operator registration in a USS. Further, operator's are expected to report flight operations to their USS. This operation reporting provides a mechanism for the USS and operator to establish an operation security context. Here it will be used to exchange public keys for use in ECIES. The operator's ECIES public key SHOULD be unique for each operation. The USS ECIES public key may be unique for each operator and operation, but not required. For best post-compromise security (PCS), the USS ECIES public key should be changed over some operational window. The public key algorithm should be Curve25519 [RFC7748]. Correspondingly, the ECIES 128 bit shared secret should be generated using KMAC [NIST.SP.800-185]. 3.1. ECIES Shared Secret Generation The KMAC function provides a new, more efficient, key derivation function over HKDF [RFC5869]. This will be referred to as KKDF. HKDF needs a minimum of 4 hash functions (e.g. SHA256). KKDF does an equivalent shared secret generation in a single Keccak Sponge operation. When the USS - UAS Operation Security Context is established, the UAS provides a 20 Character USS ID and a 256 bit random nonce to the USS. These are inputs, along with the ECDH keys to produce the shared secret as follows. Per [NIST.SP.800-56Cr1], Section 4.1, Option 3: Moskowitz, et al. Expires 21 October 2021 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Operator Privacy April 2021 Shared Secret = KMAC128(salt, IKM, L, S) L is the derived key bit length. Since only a single key is needed, L=128. S is the byte string 01001011 || 01000100 || 01000110, which represents the sequence of characters "K", "D", and "F" in 8-bit ASCII. salt = Nonce-USS | Nonce-UAS There are special security considerations for IKM per [RFC7748]. The IKM as follows: IKM = Diffie-Hellman secret | USS-ID | RID 4. System Message Privacy The System Message contains 8 bytes of Operator specific information: Longitude and Latitude of the Remote Operator (Pilot in the field description) of the UA. The GCS MAY encrypt these as follows. The 8 bytes of Operator information are encrypted, using the ECIES derived 128 bit shared secret, with one of the cipher's specified below. The choice of cipher is based on USS policy and is agreed to as part of the operation registration. AES-CFB32 is the recommended default cipher. ASTM Remote ID and Tracking messages [F3411-19] SHOULD be updated to allow Bit 2 of the Flags byte in the System Message set to "1" to indicate the Operator information is encrypted. The USS similarly decrypts these 8 bytes and provides the information to authorized entities. 4.1. Rules for encrypting System Message content If the Operator location is encrypted the encrypted bit flag MUST be set to 1. The Operator MAY be notified by the USS that the operation has entered a location or time where privacy of Operator location is not allowed. In this case the Operator MUST disable this privacy feature and send the location unencrypted or land the UA or route around the restricted area. If the UAS looses connectivity to the USS, the privacy feature SHOULD be disabled or land the UA. Moskowitz, et al. Expires 21 October 2021 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Operator Privacy April 2021 If the operation is in an area or time with no Internet Connectivity, the privacy feature MUST NOT be used. 4.2. Rules for decrypting System Message content An Observer receives a System Message with the encrypt bit set to 1. The Observer sends a query to its USS Display Provider containing the UA's ID and the encrypted fields. The USS Display Provider MAY deny the request if the Observer does not have the proper authorization. The USS Display Provider MAY reply to the request with the decrypted fields if the Observer has the proper authorization. The USS Display Provider MAY reply to the request with the decrypting key if the Observer has the proper authorization. The Observer MAY notify the USS through its USS Display Provider that content privacy for a UAS in this location/time is not allowed. If the Observer has the proper authorization for this action, the USS notifies the Operator to disable this privacy feature. 5. Operator ID Message Privacy The Operator ID Message contains 20 bytes for Operator the ID. The GCS MAY encrypt these as follows. The 20 bytes Operator ID is encrypted, using the ECIES derived 128 bit shared secret, with one of the cipher's specified below. The choice of cipher is based on USS policy and is agreed to as part of the operation registration. AES-CFB32 is the recommended default cipher. ASTM Remote ID and Tracking messages [F3411-19] SHOULD be updated to allow Operator ID Type in the Operator ID Message set to "1" to indicate the Operator ID is encrypted. The USS similarly decrypts these 20 bytes and provides the information to authorized entities. 5.1. Rules for encrypting Operator ID Message content If the Operator ID is encrypted the Operator ID Type field MUST be set to 1. Moskowitz, et al. Expires 21 October 2021 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Operator Privacy April 2021 The Operator MAY be notified by the USS that the operation has entered a location or time where privacy of Operator ID is not allowed. In this case the Operator MUST disable this privacy feature and send the ID unencrypted or land the UA or route around the restricted area. If the UAS looses connectivity to the USS, the privacy feature SHOULD be disabled or land the UA. If the operation is in an area or time with no Internet Connectivity, the privacy feature MUST NOT be used. 5.2. Rules for decrypting Operator ID Message content An Observer receives a Operator ID Message with the Operator ID Type field set to 1. The Observer sends a query to its USS Display Provider containing the UA's ID and the encrypted fields. The USS Display Provider MAY deny the request if the Observer does not have the proper authorization. The USS Display Provider MAY reply to the request with the decrypted fields if the Observer has the proper authorization. The USS Display Provider MAY reply to the request with the decrypting key if the Observer has the proper authorization. The Observer MAY notify the USS through its USS Display Provider that content privacy for a UAS in this location/time is not allowed. If the Observer has the proper authorization for this action, the USS notifies the Operator to disable this privacy feature. 6. Cipher choices for Operator PII encryption 6.1. Using AES-CFB32 CFB32 is defined in [NIST.SP.800-38A], Section 6.3. This is the Cipher Feedback (CFB) mode operating on 32 bits at a time. This variant of CFB can be used to encrypt any multiple of 4 bytes of cleartext. The Operator includes a 64 bit UNIX timestamp for the operation time, along with its operation pubic key. The Operator also includes the UA MAC address (or multiple addresses if flying multiple UA). Moskowitz, et al. Expires 21 October 2021 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Operator Privacy April 2021 The 128 bit IV for AES-CFB32 is constructed by the Operator and USS as: SHAKE128(MAC|UTCTime|Message_Type, 128). Inclusion of the ASTM Message_Type ensures a unique IV for each Message type that contains PII to encrypt. AES-CFB32 would then be used to encrypt the Operator information. 6.2. Using a Feistel scheme If the encryption speed doesn't matter, we can use the following approach based on the Feistel scheme. This approach is already being used in format-preserving encryption (e.g. credit card numbers). The Feistal scheme is explained in Appendix A. 6.3. Using AES-CTR If 2 bytes of the Message can be set aside to contain a counter that is incremented each time the Operator information changes, AES-CTR can be used as follows. The Operator includes a 64 bit UNIX timestamp for the operation time, along with its operation pubic key. The Operator also includes the UA MAC address (or multiple addresses if flying multiple UA). The high order bits of an AES-CTR counter is constructed by the Operator and USS as: SHAKE128(MAC|UTCTime|Message_Type, 112). Inclusion of the ASTM Message_Type ensures a unique IV for each Message type that contains PII to encrypt. AES-CTR would then be used to encrypt the Operator information. 7. DRIP Requirements addressed This document provides solution to PRIV-1 for PII in the ASTM System Message. 8. ASTM Considerations ASTM will need to make the following changes to the "Flags" in the System Message (Msg Type 0x4): Bit 2: Value 1 for encrypted; 0 for cleartext (see Section 4). ASTM will need to make the following changes to the "Operator ID Type" in the Operator ID Message (Msg Type 0x5): Moskowitz, et al. Expires 21 October 2021 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Operator Privacy April 2021 Operator ID Type Value 1 for encrypted Operator ID (see Section 5). 9. IANA Considerations TBD 10. Security Considerations An attacker has no known text after decrypting to determine a successful attack. An attacker can make assumptions about the high order byte values for Operator Longitude and Latitude that may substitute for known cleartext. There is no knowledge of where the operator is in relation to the UA. Only if changing location values "make sense" might an attacker assume to have revealed the operator's location. 10.1. CFB32 Risks Using the same IV for different Operator information values with CFB32 presents a cyptoanalysis risk. Typically only the low order bits would change as the Operators position changes. The risk is mitigated due to the short-term value of the data. Further analysis is need to properly place risk. 10.2. Crypto Agility The ASTM Remote ID Messages do not provide any space for a crypto suite indicator or any other method to manage crypto agility. All crypto agility is left to the USS policy and the relation between the USS and operator/UAS. The selection of the ECIES public key algorithm, the shared secret key derivation function, and the actual symmetric cipher used for on the System Message are set by the USS which informs the operator what to do. 10.3. Key Derivation vulnerabilities [RFC7748] warns about using Curve25519 and Curve448 in Diffie-Hellman for key derivation: Designers using these curves should be aware that for each public key, there are several publicly computable public keys that are equivalent to it, i.e., they produce the same shared secrets. Thus using a public key as an identifier and knowledge of a shared secret as proof of ownership (without including the public keys in the key derivation) might lead to subtle vulnerabilities. Moskowitz, et al. Expires 21 October 2021 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Operator Privacy April 2021 This applies here, but may have broader consequences. Thus two endpoint IDs are included with the Diffie-Hellman secret. 10.4. KMAC Security as a KDF Section 4.1 of NIST SP 800-185 [NIST.SP.800-185] states: "The KECCAK Message Authentication Code (KMAC) algorithm is a PRF and keyed hash function based on KECCAK . It provides variable-length output" That is, the output of KMAC is indistinguishable from a random string, regardless of the length of the output. As such, the output of KMAC can be divided into multiple substrings, each with the strength of the function (KMAC128 or KMAC256) and provided that a long enough key is used, as discussed in Sec. 8.4.1 of SP 800-185. For example KMAC128(K, X, 512, S), where K is at least 128 bits, can produce 4 128 bit keys each with a strength of 128 bits. That is a single sponge operation is replacing perhaps 5 HMAC-SHA256 operations (each 2 SHA256 operations) in HKDF. 11. Normative References [NIST.SP.800-185] Kelsey, J., Change, S., and R. Perlner, "SHA-3 derived functions: cSHAKE, KMAC, TupleHash and ParallelHash", National Institute of Standards and Technology report, DOI 10.6028/nist.sp.800-185, December 2016, . [NIST.SP.800-38A] Dworkin, M., "Recommendation for block cipher modes of operation :: methods and techniques", National Institute of Standards and Technology report, DOI 10.6028/nist.sp.800-38a, 2001, . [NIST.SP.800-56Cr1] Barker, E., Chen, L., and R. Davis, "Recommendation for key-derivation methods in key-establishment schemes", National Institute of Standards and Technology report, DOI 10.6028/nist.sp.800-56cr1, April 2018, . Moskowitz, et al. Expires 21 October 2021 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Operator Privacy April 2021 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . 12. Informative References [drip-requirements] Card, S. W., Wiethuechter, A., Moskowitz, R., and A. Gurtov, "Drone Remote Identification Protocol (DRIP) Requirements", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft- ietf-drip-reqs-09, 17 February 2021, . [F3411-19] ASTM International, "Standard Specification for Remote ID and Tracking", February 2020, . [RFC5869] Krawczyk, H. and P. Eronen, "HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand Key Derivation Function (HKDF)", RFC 5869, DOI 10.17487/RFC5869, May 2010, . [RFC7748] Langley, A., Hamburg, M., and S. Turner, "Elliptic Curves for Security", RFC 7748, DOI 10.17487/RFC7748, January 2016, . Appendix A. Feistel Scheme This approach is already being used in format-preserving encryption. According to the theory, to provide CCA security guarantees (CCA = Chosen Ciphertext Attacks) for m-bit encryption X |-> Y, we should choose d >= 6. It seems very ineffective that when shortening the block length, we have to use 6 times more block encryptions. On the other hand, we preserve both the block cipher interface and security guarantees in a simple way. Moskowitz, et al. Expires 21 October 2021 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Operator Privacy April 2021 How to encrypt an m-bit plaintext X using an n-bit block cipher E = {E_K} for n > m? Enc(X, K): 1. Y <- X. 2. Split Y into 2 equal parts: Y = Y1 || Y2 (let us assume for simplicity that m is even). 3. For i = 1, 2, ..., d do: Y <- Y2 || (Y1 ^ first_m/2_bits(E_K(Y2 || Ci)), where Ci is a (n - m/2)-bit round constant. 4. Y <- Y2 || Y1. 5. Return Y. Dec(Y, K): 1. X <- Y. 2. Split X into 2 equal parts: X = X1 || X2. 3. For i = d, ..., 2, 1 do: X <- X2 || (X1 ^ first_m/2_bits(E_K(X2 || Ci)). 4. X <- X2 || X1. 5. Return X. Acknowledgments The recommended ciphers come from discussions on the IRTF CFRG mailing list. Authors' Addresses Robert Moskowitz HTT Consulting Oak Park, MI 48237 United States of America Email: rgm@labs.htt-consult.com Stuart W. Card AX Enterprize 4947 Commercial Drive Yorkville, NY 13495 United States of America Email: stu.card@axenterprize.com Adam Wiethuechter AX Enterprize 4947 Commercial Drive Moskowitz, et al. Expires 21 October 2021 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Operator Privacy April 2021 Yorkville, NY 13495 United States of America Email: adam.wiethuechter@axenterprize.com Moskowitz, et al. Expires 21 October 2021 [Page 13]