Archived NIST Technical Series Publication 

The attached publication has been archived (withdrawn), and is provided solely for historical purposes. 

It may have been superseded by another publication (indicated below). 

Archived Publication 

Series/Number: 

Title: 

Publication Date(s): 

Withdrawal Date: 

Withdrawal Note: 

Superseding Publication(s) 

The attached publication has been superseded by the following publication(s): 

Series/Number: 

Title: 

Author(s): 

Publication Date(s): 

URL/DOI: 

 

Additional Information (if applicable) 

Contact:

Latest revision of the 

attached publication: 

Related information: 

Withdrawal 

announcement (link): 

Date updated: JuůLJϭρ, 2015 

NIST Special Publication 800-57 Part 3

Recommendation for Key Management – Part 3:

Application-Specific Key Management Guidance

December 2009

January 2015

SP 800-57 Part 3 is superseded in its entirety by the publication of

SP 800-57 Part 3 Revision 1 (January 2015).

NIST Special Publication 800-57 Part 3 Revision 1

Recommendation for Key Management – Part 3: Application-Specific

Key Management Guidance

Elaine Barker and Quynh Dang

January 2015

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-57pt3r1

Computer Security Division (Information Technology Lab)

SP 800-53 Part 3 Revision 1 (as of July 15, 2015)

http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/toolkit/key_management.html

N/A
NIST Special Publication 800-57

 

RECOMMENDATION FOR KEY 

MANAGEMENT 

Part 3: Application-Specific Key 

Management Guidance 

Elaine Barker 

William Burr 

Alicia Jones 

Timothy Polk 

Scott Rose 

Miles Smid 

Quynh Dang 

1
NIST Special Publication 800-57 

RECOMMENDATION FOR KEY 

MANAGEMENT 

Part 3: Application-Specific Key 

Management Guidance 

Elaine Barker 

William Burr 

Alicia Jones 

Timothy Polk 

Scott Rose 

Quynh Dang 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Miles Smid 

Orion Security Solutions

December 2009 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Gary Locke, Secretary 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Dr. Patrick D. Gallagher, Director

2
Abstract 

Special Publication 800-57 provides cryptographic key management guidance. It consists 

of three parts. Part 1 provides general guidance and best practices for the management of 

cryptographic keying material. Part 2 provides guidance on policy and security planning 

requirements for U.S. government agencies. Finally, Part 3 provides guidance when using 

the cryptographic features of current systems. 

KEY WORDS: accreditation; assurances; authentication; authorization; availability; 

backup; certification; compromise; confidentiality; cryptanalysis; cryptographic key; 

cryptographic module; digital signature; key management; key management policy; key 

recovery; private key; public key; public key infrastructure; security plan; trust anchor; 

validation. 

3
Acknowledgements 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) gratefully acknowledges and 

appreciates contributions by Sheila Frankel of NIST and Chris Bean of the National 

Security Agency. NIST also thanks the many contributions by the public and private 

sectors whose thoughtful and constructive comments improved the quality and usefulness 

of this publication. 

4
Authority 

This document has been developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) in furtherance of its statutory responsibilities under the Federal Information 

Security Management Act (FISMA) of 2002, Public Law 107-347. 

NIST is responsible for developing standards and guidelines, including minimum 

requirements, for providing adequate information security for all agency operations and 

assets, but such standards and guidelines shall not apply to national security systems. 

This guideline is consistent with the requirements of the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, Section 8b(3), Securing Agency Information Systems, as 

analyzed in A-130, Appendix IV: Analysis of Key Sections. Supplemental information is 

provided in A-130, Appendix III. 

This guideline has been prepared for use by Federal agencies. It may be used by 

nongovernmental organizations on a voluntary basis and is not subject to copyright. 

(Attribution would be appreciated by NIST.) 

Nothing in this document should be taken to contradict standards and guidelines made 

mandatory and binding on Federal agencies by the Secretary of Commerce under 

statutory authority. Nor should these guidelines be interpreted as altering or superseding 

the existing authorities of the Secretary of Commerce, Director of the OMB, or any other 

Federal official. 

Conformance testing for implementations of key management as specified in this 

Recommendation will be conducted within the framework of the Cryptographic Module 

Validation Program (CMVP), a joint effort of NIST and the Communications Security 

Establishment of the Government of Canada. Cryptographic implementations must 

adhere to the requirements in this Recommendation in order to be validated under the 

CMVP. The requirements of this Recommendation are indicated by the word “shall.” 

5
Overview 

“Application-Specific Key Management Guidance”, Part 3 of the Recommendation for 

Key Management is intended primarily to help system administrators and system 

installers adequately secure applications based on product availability and organizational 

needs and to support organizational decisions about future procurements. The guide also 

provides information for end users regarding application options left under their control 

in normal use of the application. Recommendations are given for a select set of 

applications, namely: 

Section 2 - Public Key Infrastructures (PKI) 

Section 3 - Internet Protocol Security (IPsec) 

Section 4 – Transport Layer Security (TLS) 

Section 5 - Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) 

Section 6 – Kerberos 

Section 7 - Over-the-Air Rekeying of Digital Radios (OTAR) 

Section 8 - Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) 

Section 9 – Encrypted File Systems (EFS) 

The following is provided for each topic: 

• A brief description of the system under discussion that is intended to provide 

context for the security guidance, 

• Recommended algorithm suites and key sizes and associated security and 

compliance issues, 

• Recommendations concerning the use of the mechanism in its current form for the 

protection of Federal government information, 

• Security considerations that may affect the security effectiveness of key 

management processes, 

• General recommendations for purchase decision makers, system installers, system 

administrators and end users. 

Following Section 9 are four appendices with a glossary, an explanation of acronyms, a 

word to novice end users with basic information on obtaining and using keys and finally 

references for documents cited herein. 

This document does not reflect a comprehensive view of current products and technical 

specifications. Future versions of this document will include updates to the topics 

covered, additional subjects such as Secure Shell (SSH), IEEE 802.1x Port Based 

Network Access Control, Physical Access Control Systems (PACS) and other focus areas 

as new techniques are widely implemented. 

6
NIST Commercial Disclaimer 

Certain commercial equipment, instruments, or materials (or suppliers, or software,...) 

are identified in this paper to foster understanding. Such identification does not imply 

recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

nor does it imply that the materials or equipment identified are necessarily the best 

available for the purpose. 

7
RECOMMENDATION FOR KEY MANAGEMENT 

Part 3: Application-Specific Key Management Guidance 

Table of Contents 

1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 11

1.1 Purpose.............................................................................................................................. 11

1.2 Requirement Terms........................................................................................................... 12

1.3 General Protocol Considerations...................................................................................... 13

1.3.1 Mandatory-to-Implement versus Optional-to-Implement................................................. 13

1.3.2 Cryptographic Negotiation................................................................................................ 14

1.3.3 Single or Multi-Use Keys................................................................................................. 15

1.3.4 Algorithm and Key Size Transition .................................................................................. 16

2 Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) ........................................................ 17

2.1 Description........................................................................................................................ 17

2.2 Security and Compliance Issues ....................................................................................... 20

2.2.1 Recommended Key Sizes and Algorithms ....................................................................... 20

2.3 Procurement Guidance...................................................................................................... 23

2.3.1 CA/RA Software and Hardware: ...................................................................................... 23

2.3.2 OCSP Responders:............................................................................................................ 24

2.3.3 Cryptographic Modules .................................................................................................... 25

2.3.4 Key Recovery Servers....................................................................................................... 25

2.3.5 Relying Party Software ..................................................................................................... 25

2.3.6 Client Software ................................................................................................................. 26

2.4 Recommendations for System Installers/Administrators.................................................. 26

2.4.1 Certificate Issuance........................................................................................................... 26

2.4.2 Certificate Revocation Requests....................................................................................... 28

2.4.3 Certificate Revocation List Generation ............................................................................ 28

2.4.4 PKI Repositories for the Distribution of Certificates and CRLs ...................................... 29

2.4.5 OCSP Responders............................................................................................................. 29

2.4.6 Backup and Archive.......................................................................................................... 29

2.4.7 Relying Party Integration and Configuration.................................................................... 30

2.5 User Guidance (Subscribers) ............................................................................................ 30

3 Internet Protocol Security (IPsec).................................................... 32

3.1 Description........................................................................................................................ 32

3.2 Security and Compliance Issues ....................................................................................... 34

3.2.1 Cryptographic Algorithms................................................................................................ 34

3.2.2 Additional Recommendations........................................................................................... 38

3.3 Procurement Guidance...................................................................................................... 38

3.4 Recommendations for System Installers........................................................................... 38

3.5 Recommendations for System Administrators................................................................. 39

3.6 Recommendations for End Users...................................................................................... 39

4 Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Secure Socket Layer 

(SSL)......................................................................................................... 40

4.1 Description........................................................................................................................ 40

4.2 Security and Compliance Issues ....................................................................................... 41

4.2.1 General.............................................................................................................................. 41

8
4.2.2 Recommended Cipher Suites for Federal Government Use ............................................. 43

4.3 Procurement Guidance...................................................................................................... 48

4.4 Recommendations for System Installers........................................................................... 49

4.5 Recommendations for System Administrators................................................................. 50

4.6 Recommendations for End Users...................................................................................... 50

5 Secure/Multipart Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME)...................... 52

5.1 Description........................................................................................................................ 52

5.2 Security and Compliance Issues ....................................................................................... 52

5.3 Procurement Guidance...................................................................................................... 56

5.4 Recommendations for System Installers........................................................................... 56

5.5 Recommendations for System Administrators................................................................. 57

5.6 Recommendations for End Users...................................................................................... 58

6 Kerberos............................................................................................. 59

6.1 Description........................................................................................................................ 59

6.2 Security and Compliance Issues ....................................................................................... 61

6.3 Procurement Guidance...................................................................................................... 62

6.4 Recommendations for System Installers........................................................................... 63

6.5 Recommendations for System Administrators................................................................. 64

6.6 Recommendations for End Users...................................................................................... 65

7 Over-The-Air Rekeying (OTAR) Key Management Messages 

(KMMs) ..................................................................................................... 66

7.1 Description........................................................................................................................ 66

7.2 Security and Compliance Issues ....................................................................................... 67

7.2.1 Cryptographic Algorithms................................................................................................ 67

7.2.2 Message Authentication and Cryptoperiods..................................................................... 67

7.2.3 Key Usage......................................................................................................................... 68

7.2.4 Backup .............................................................................................................................. 68

7.2.5 Rekeying ........................................................................................................................... 68

7.2.6 Random bit generators...................................................................................................... 68

7.3 Procurement Guidance...................................................................................................... 68

7.4 Recommendations for System Installers........................................................................... 69

7.5 Recommendations for System Administrators................................................................. 69

7.6 Recommendations for End Users...................................................................................... 70

8 Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC)................. 71

8.1 Description........................................................................................................................ 71

8.1.1 DNS Data Authentication ................................................................................................. 72

8.1.2 DNS Transaction Authentication...................................................................................... 72

8.1.3 DNS Cryptographic Algorithms/Schemes, Modes and Combinations............................. 73

8.1.4 Special Considerations for Key Sizes............................................................................... 74

8.1.5 Special Considerations for NSEC3................................................................................... 75

8.2 Security/Compliance Issues.............................................................................................. 75

8.3 Procurement Guidance...................................................................................................... 76

8.4 Recommendations for System Installers........................................................................... 76

8.4.1 Recommendations for System Installers (Authoritative Servers)..................................... 76

8.4.2 Recommendations for System Installers (Caching Recursive Servers)............................ 77

8.4.3 Recommendations for System Installers (Client Systems)............................................... 77

8.5 Recommendations for System Administrators................................................................. 77

9
8.5.1 Recommendations for System Administrators (Authoritative Server)............................. 77

8.5.2 Recommendations for System Administrators (Caching Recursive Servers) .................. 78

8.5.3 Recommendations for System Administrators (Client Systems)...................................... 78

8.6 Recommendations for End Users...................................................................................... 78

9 Encrypted File Systems (EFS) ......................................................... 79

9.1 Description........................................................................................................................ 79

9.1.1 Number of Keys Required ................................................................................................ 79

9.1.2 Access to Symmetric Keys used in File Encryption......................................................... 81

9.2 Security and Compliance Issues ....................................................................................... 83

9.3 Recommendations for Procurement Officials................................................................... 83

9.4 Recommendations for System Installers........................................................................... 84

9.5 Recommendations for System Administrators................................................................. 84

9.6 Recommendations for End Users...................................................................................... 84

Appendix A: Glossary............................................................................ 86

Appendix B: Acronyms.......................................................................... 93

Appendix C: A Word to Novice End Users........................................... 95

Appendix D: References........................................................................ 97

10
RECOMMENDATION FOR KEY MANAGEMENT 

Part 3: Application-Specific Key Management Guidance

1 Introduction 

1.1 Purpose 

Part 3 of the Recommendation for Key Management, Application-Specific Key 

Management Guidance, is intended to address the key management issues associated 

with currently available cryptographic mechanisms. General Guidance, Part 1 of the 

Recommendation for Key Management, contains basic key management guidance for 

users, developers and system managers regarding the "best practices" associated with the 

generation and use of the various classes of cryptographic keying material. General 

Organization and Management Requirements, Part 2 of the Recommendation, provides a 

framework and general guidance to support establishing cryptographic key management 

within an organization, and a basis for satisfying the key management aspects of statutory 

and policy-based security planning requirements for Federal government organizations. 

This document, Part 3 of the Recommendation, is designed for system installers, system 

administrators and end users of existing key management infrastructures, protocols, and 

other applications, as well as the people making purchasing decisions1

 for new systems 

using currently available technology. Note that end users who act as their own system 

installers, administrators and purchasing agents may find the guidance intended for 

administrators, installers and purchasers to be beneficial. In centrally managed 

organizations, the organization’s management must establish a security policy that acts as 

a foundation for all end user guidance. 

Recommendations are made for mechanisms designed to protect stored data and data in 

transit. This document will not provide a complete restatement of existing standards or 

implementation directives. Standards and guidelines with this level of detail are 

referenced where appropriate. 

 

For each of the key management infrastructures, protocols, and applications addressed in 

Part 3, the following is provided: 

• A brief description of the system under discussion that is intended to provide 

context for the security guidance, 

• Recommended algorithm suites and key sizes and associated security and 

compliance issues, 

• Recommendations concerning the use of the mechanism in its current form for the 

protection of Federal government information, 

• Security considerations that may affect the security effectiveness of key 

management processes, 

 

1

 This is not necessarily a procurement officer but likely a person making the decision on the IT product to 

be used. 

11
• General recommendations for purchase decision makers, system installers, system 

administrators and end users. 

The logistics of how one should obtain, store or transfer keys or key pairs within a given 

application or system are application and implementation-specific and beyond the scope 

of this document. In large Federal systems, these functions are frequently handled by 

system administrators or completed with direct guidance from system administrators. For 

end users faced with these tasks on their own, an informative appendix has been included 

with general information intended to point the end user in the right direction. 

Since some of the infrastructures, protocols and applications addressed in this 

Recommendation will be refined or replaced over the next few years, the guidance 

provided herein will become obsolete. Similarly, it is anticipated that new infrastructures, 

protocols, and applications will be developed. Although this document will be updated as 

mechanisms and techniques evolve, it may not always reflect a comprehensive view of 

current products and technical specifications. Hence, references to version numbers or 

other implementation status information are provided to enable an evaluation of the 

applicability of particular elements of guidance to the specific version of an 

infrastructure, protocol, or application into which a mechanism is integrated. 

Note that many of the applications described in Part 3 are currently in use by U.S. 

government agencies. Some of these applications were developed and implemented prior 

to the release of Part 1 of this Recommendation, and therefore, may not follow all of the 

principles identified in Part 1. The use of current implementations of these applications 

may be necessary until more carefully designed applications are available. It is very 

important that each implementation that does not comply with NIST standards and 

guidelines be evaluated for associated risks and that steps be taken to mitigate those risks 

as discussed in this Recommendation. 

1.2 Requirement Terms 

This Recommendation often uses “requirement” terms; these terms have the following 

meaning in this document: 

1. shall: This term is used to indicate a requirement of a Federal Information 

Processing Standard (FIPS) or a requirement that must be fulfilled to claim 

conformance to this Recommendation. Note that shall may be coupled with not to 

become shall not. 

2. should: This term is used to indicate an important recommendation. Ignoring the 

recommendation could result in undesirable results. Ignoring recommendations to 

accommodate the acceptance of messages protected with commonly used, 

unapproved ciphers may create interoperability issues. Ignoring 

recommendations to select new products with approved, seldom used 

cryptographic mechanisms may leave an organization ill-prepared to migrate 

away from mechanisms that will soon be inappropriate for the protection of 

Federal systems. Note that should may be coupled with not to become should 

not. 

12
1.3 General Protocol Considerations 

There are a number of general issues associated with the protocols discussed in Part 3. 

Four of these issues are briefly discussed in order to familiarize the reader with concepts 

that will be repeated throughout the document and to help frame the upcoming 

discussions: 

• Mandatory-to-implement vs. optional-to-implement, 

• Cryptographic negotiation, 

• Single or multi-use keys, and 

• Algorithm and key size transitions. 

1.3.1 Mandatory-to-Implement versus Optional-to-Implement 

Many of the cryptographic security services described in this document are based on 

public standards (e.g., IETF RFCs, American National Standards, etc.). In these 

standards, algorithms are frequently described as mandatory-to-implement or optional-toimplement. Neither of these terms provides information about the security of the 

algorithm. 

Mandatory-to-implement algorithms will be in any product that meets the public 

standards, allowing interoperability between products. 

Optional-to-implement algorithms tend to be next-generation algorithms that may 

become mandatory-to-implement algorithms in a future version of the standard. There 

could be considerable delay in the widespread use of these new algorithms for a variety 

of reasons, ranging from a need for supporting hardware or software upgrades, to issues 

of interoperability. For example, an algorithm that is optional-to-implement within an 

S/MIME protocol may not currently be supported by the system’s cryptographic module. 

However, these algorithms often offer improved security that could significantly increase 

the longevity of the system. Therefore, one may want to consider buying products that 

support the optional-to-implement algorithms, even if those algorithms will not be 

available to all end users immediately. 

As previously defined, the terms shall and should are used to provide information about 

whether algorithms have adequate security for use on Federal computer networks. As 

such, there may be mandatory-to-implement algorithms (e.g., Data Encryption Standard 

(DES) or RC2) that do not provide adequate security, and this document will say they 

shall not be used. Similarly, there may be optional-to-implement algorithms that have 

greater security (e.g., AES) and which this document may say should or shall be used in 

a given situation. 

The distinction between mandatory-to-implement and optional-to-implement is important 

when two users on different systems desire to communicate or when different levels of 

security may be required for different applications running on the same system. This is 

further discussed in the next section on cryptographic negotiation. 

13
1.3.2 Cryptographic Negotiation 

Parts 1 and 2 of this Recommendation establish a sound basis for selecting appropriate 

cryptographic algorithms and managing the corresponding cryptographic keys. However, 

enforcing these guidelines can be problematic for a number of reasons, including the 

unavailability of certain algorithms or key sizes, the preferences of the parties in 

communication or other system limitations. When servers dictate the algorithms used, 

the server may select the algorithms that optimize overall system performance rather than 

the algorithms that provide the highest level of security. 

In some multi-party protocols where multiple algorithms are supported for the same 

purpose, a client can enforce the rules in Parts 1 and 2 through negotiation within the 

protocol. Some protocols (e.g., S/MIME) allow the initiating client to select the 

cryptographic algorithms without negotiating with the receiving client. In this case, as in 

the case where applications do not permit negotiation, a receiving client may be presented 

with information that has been inadequately protected. For example, a receiving client 

may receive a signed and encrypted S/MIME email message that was encrypted using 

DES and signed with a 512-bit RSA key2. Rejecting such messages does not necessarily 

enhance security (in this case, the message has already been sent over the Internet), but 

the receiving user should be aware that the security services purportedly provided by the 

digital signature and content encryption are suspect and cannot be depended upon. It may 

be appropriate to reject the message or terminate the protocol. A risk assessment and 

subsequent organizational policy may be required to determine the appropriate course of 

action. 

In other protocols (e.g., TLS), the client proposes a set of options, and the server chooses 

from the proposed list during a negotiation phase of the protocol. Where negotiation is 

supported, protocols may be designed to negotiate cipher suites or to negotiate each 

algorithm independently. In either case, a client or server may be faced with a situation 

where the preferred algorithms of the client or server and the proposed algorithms of the 

other party are not of the same security strength, or where approved algorithms are not 

available. 

Another issue may arise when a protocol is designed to negotiate algorithms, but not key 

sizes. In such a case, the clients may find themselves communicating with approved 

algorithms, but inadequate key sizes. For example, after negotiating for RSA signatures, 

the client might get a message signed with a 512-bit RSA key3

. 

Enforcing the recommendations from Parts 1 and 2 may also be complicated by system or 

application design decisions. Systems may have application-specific controls for 

cryptographic algorithms, or they may have system-wide controls. For example, a user 

may wish to restrict one application to using AES, and another to using TDEA, while the 

system design may only allow the use of TDEA. Often the only limitation on public key 

sizes is an indirect limitation through the choice of root CA keys. (See Section 2.1). 

 

2

 The DES algorithm and the 512-bit RSA key size do not provide adequate security (see Part 1). 

3

 A 512-bit RSA key does not provide an acceptable security strength (see Part 1). 

14
When there are a variety of algorithms or key sizes available for a given communication 

protocol, the following questions need to be addressed: 

• Is negotiation mandatory, optional or unsupported? 

• When negotiation is supported, who proposes the cryptographic mechanisms to be 

used, who selects the mechanisms, and what are the selection criteria? 

• Is negotiation based on predefined cipher suites, or is each algorithm proposed 

independently? 

• What is the granularity for the negotiation: just algorithms, both algorithms and 

key sizes, combinations of algorithms and/or key sizes, or protocol versions? 

• What cannot be specified? 

A good start at ensuring communication security in a multi-algorithm setting would be to: 

• Limit the list of algorithms available to the application to those best suited for 

users of the system and those needed for interoperability, 

• Adopt a policy that disallows sending messages using an inadequate level of 

protection, 

• Adopt a policy explaining how to respond to messages received without adequate 

protection, and 

• Adopt a policy explaining what to do when faced with a need for secure 

communications with a party using un-approved algorithms or inadequate key 

sizes. 

1.3.3 Single or Multi-Use Keys 

A major thrust from Part 1 of this Recommendation is that, in general, keys should not

be used for multiple cryptographic purposes. For example, in most cases, the same keys 

should not be used to generate a digital signature and to establish other keying material 

(see Part 1, Section 8.1.5.1.1.2 for the rare exceptions to this guidance). It is less clear as 

to whether a digital signature key, for example, can be used only for a specific 

application (e.g., signing e-mail) or for multiple applications (e.g., for both signing e-mail 

and signing documents). In some cases, it may be acceptable for an application to share 

keys with other applications. In other cases, sharing keys may not be desirable. For 

example, best practices indicate that a server’s TLS keys should not be used to support 

other applications. Even where keys are used to perform the same cryptographic 

operation (e.g., digital signatures), sharing keys may be inappropriate because one 

application could be providing one service (e.g., authentication), while a second 

application could be providing a different service (e.g., non-repudiation). It is important 

to remember that it may be a bad idea to use keys for multiple applications. 

An agency should perform a risk assessment when considering the use of the same key 

for multiple applications. 

15
1.3.4 Algorithm and Key Size Transition 

Part 1 of this Recommendation provides timeframes for transitioning from algorithms 

and key sizes currently in use by many applications and protocols in order to increase the 

strength of the security mechanisms in the future. In many cases, the algorithms and key 

sizes required to provide adequate security are not available within the current 

implementations or are unavailable uniformly across the community of users that need to 

interoperate. Transitions to new algorithms or key sizes will not necessarily occur 

instantaneously, but will require gradual upgrades across a system. For example, a system 

owner may have the need to upgrade his system’s email package before upgrading the 

cryptographic module. Hence, for a period of time, the system may be running with an 

email package capable of TDEA and AES 128 encryption, but a cryptographic module 

that can only handle TDEA. There will be a need to upgrade components of a system 

with new capabilities, while continuing to support the old capabilities, until all 

components have been upgraded. 

During this transition period, interaction between components can proceed in one of the 

following ways: 

1. Some means is provided to determine when the new security mechanism is 

available to all parties in a given transaction so that it can be used instead of the 

old security mechanism (e.g., using a protocol that negotiates the security 

mechanisms to be used). When the new security mechanism is not available to all 

parties involved in a transaction, the old security mechanism can be used. This 

approach has the advantage that when a set of parties have the newer mechanism, 

their transactions are protected at a higher security level. The disadvantage is that 

those transactions using the old security mechanism are not as well protected; this 

also raises the possibility that the same information could be sent in different 

transactions between two or more sets of parties using security mechanisms of 

different strengths – in effect, nullifying the higher security strength provided by 

the new security mechanism4

. 

2. All components use the old security mechanism until all components have been 

updated; at that time, the system immediately transitions to the new capability. 

This approach has the potential problem that all components would not be 

updated by the deadline, thus providing inadequate protections for all information 

during the period following the deadline until such time as all components have 

been upgraded. However, this approach has the advantage that the same data will 

not be sent at two different security levels.5

Most of the applications and protocols discussed in Part 3 require an upgrade of the 

available security mechanisms to be compliant with Part 1. The following sections 

provide guidance on how the existing mechanisms may best be used until appropriate 

upgrades can be made. Organizations and system administrators must determine the 

approach for transitioning to stronger security mechanisms within a system. 

 

4

 This becomes an issue when higher security level users are unaware that others may be using a lower 

security level mechanism to protect the same information. 

5

 Assuming that data sent before the transition is not also sent after the transition. 

16
2 Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) 

2.1 Description 

A PKI is the most common key management approach for the distribution of public keys. 

As described in SP 800-57, Part 1, public keys are used to establish security services after 

obtaining a variety of assurances: assurance of integrity, assurance of domain parameter 

validity, assurance of public key validity, and assurance of private key possession. In 

most cases, applications must also establish the identity of the user associated with this 

key pair. In a PKI, the infrastructure establishes the user’s identity and the required 

assurances to provide a strong foundation for security services in PKI-enabled 

applications and protocols, including IPsec (Section 3), Transport Layer Security (Section 

4), S/MIME secure mail (Section 5) and some versions of Kerberos (Section 6). This 

section presents basic guidance for PKI-based key management. For broader and more 

detailed information on PKI, see SP 800-32 [SP 800-32]. 

Public key certificates bind two names to a public key, the user’s name and the issuer’s 

name, using a digital signature generated by the issuer. The user is the party authorized to 

use the private key associated with the public key in the certificate. The issuer is a trusted 

third party that generates and signs the certificate after verifying: the identity of the user; 

the validity of the public key, associated algorithms and any relevant parameters; and the 

user’s possession of the corresponding private key. The issuer is known as a Certificate 

Authority (CA). In many cases, the CA will delegate responsibility for the verification of 

the subject’s identity to a Registration Authority (RA). The certificate is used to 

distribute the user’s public key to other interested parties, known as relying parties, since 

they rely on the assurances provided by the PKI and the certificate creation process. 

CAs generally issue a self-signed certificate called a root certificate (sometimes also 

called a trust anchor); this is used by applications and protocols to validate the 

certificates issued by a CA. CA certificates play a key role in many protocols and 

applications, and are generally kept in what is often called a root certificate store. Much 

of the business of properly configuring applications and protocols consists of ensuring 

that only appropriate root certificates are loaded into the root certificate store. In 

Microsoft Windows operating systems, there are root certificate stores that are 

maintained by the operating system for various purposes that are shared by various 

Microsoft protocols and applications, and by other applications that may choose to use 

them. There is a similar “Keychain” facility in the Apple operating systems. Some 

applications, intended to be portable between operating systems, maintain their own root 

certificate stores.6

 

Certificates are generally issued in accordance with a certificate policy. Generally that 

policy can be found on the issuing CA’s website. If an organization’s policy, for 

example, is to accept only certificates that use at least 2048-bit RSA, 2048-bit DSA or 

 

6

 The various Mozilla browsers and E-mail clients, and the Apache web servers are examples. Microsoft 

Internet Explorer, Outlook and Internet Information Server all use the Windows root certificate store; 

Apple Safari and Mail use the Keychain; and Mozilla Firefox, Thunderbird and SeaMonkey all use root 

certificate stores associated specifically with the application. 

17
224-bit elliptic curve cryptography, and either SHA-1, SHA-224 or SHA-256, then the 

only practical way to ensure that public key sizes meet the requirements is usually to 

ensure that the root certificate store contains only root certificates with a certificate policy 

that requires these algorithms and key sizes in its subordinate certificates. Current 

applications that use PKI will check to ensure that a certificate has been issued under the 

root certificate in the application’s root store, and that it has not been subsequently 

revoked, but will not otherwise check the suitability of the public key or hash algorithms 

used in the certificate – the application will simply use the specified keys to compute the 

mathematically correct results. So, correctly configuring root certificate stores is a critical 

step in key management. 

The specifics of where the root certificate store is located and how it is managed for each 

application and protocol are beyond the scope of this Recommendation. Typically, 

however, there are menus for viewing and managing certificate stores in the browser 

applications, but this is subject to change with each product update. There may also be 

utilities and features in the operating system or application for centralized management 

by the system administrator. When a browser or other application encounters an 

unrecognized CA certificate, end users may be prompted to add that certificate to their 

permanent trusted certificate store, temporarily trust the certificate, or reject the 

certificate and close the application. 

The most common certificate format is the X.509 version 3 (X.509v3) certificate; see 

RFC 5280 [RFC 5280]. In addition to the user and issuer names and the public key, all 

X.509 certificates also include a digital signature, an issuance and expiration date, and 

identifiers that specify the cryptographic algorithm(s) to be used with the public key and 

signature. X.509v3 certificates include an extensibility feature; CAs usually include 

standard extensions in their certificates to indicate which cryptographic operations the 

public key was intended to support, the policy that governed certificate issuance, and 

where to find out if the certificate has been revoked (i.e., an authoritative source for 

certificate status information). CAs may also include “private” extensions in their 

certificates that contain information particular to an application or domain of users. 

A relying party is an individual or organization that relies on the certificate and the CA 

that issued the certificate to provide valid information (see Appendix A). Before a relying 

party uses the public key in a certificate, he must determine whether the key used by the 

issuer to sign this certificate can be trusted. In the simplest case, the relying party knows 

about the issuer, and has already decided to trust certificates issued by that CA. CAs that 

a relying party trusts directly are called trust anchors. When multiple trust anchors are 

recognized, the set of trust anchors is referred to as the trust list. 

In most cases, a relying party will wish to process user certificates that were signed by 

issuers other than a CA in its trust list. To support this goal, CAs issue cross certificates 

that bind another issuer’s name to that issuer’s public key. Cross certificates are an 

assertion that a public key may be used to verify signatures on other certificates. A 

relying party may be able to develop a certification path – a sequence of certificates – 

demonstrating that a user’s public key certificate can be trusted, even though it was 

issued by a CA that is not in the relying party’s trust list. All certification paths begin 

with a trust anchor, include zero or more intermediate certificates, and end with the 

18
certificate that contains the user’s public key. This can be an iterative process, and 

finding the appropriate intermediate certificates (a.k.a., path discovery) is one of PKI’s 

challenges. 

The entire path must be examined to ensure that the certificates have not been revoked, 

were issued under appropriate policies, and that each public key is suitable for the use to 

which it has been put. This process is known as path validation. 

As noted above, the certificate itself will usually include a pointer to an authoritative 

source for certificate status information. Certificate status information may be provided 

using one of two standard mechanisms: 

• The most common source is a certificate revocation list, or CRL. An X.509 CRL 

contains a list of certificates issued by that CA that have been revoked, indicates 

when they were revoked, and may include the reason for revocation (see RFC 

5280). If the serial number of an unexpired certificate does not appear on the 

CRL, then it is still valid. CRLs are digitally signed, like a certificate, so they can 

be distributed through untrusted systems. Most commonly, CRLs are distributed 

via LDAP7

 directories or web servers. 

• An alternative source for this information is an Online Certificate Status Protocol 

(OCSP) responder (see RFC 2560 [RFC 2560]). An OCSP responder is a trusted 

system, and provides signed status information, on a per certificate basis, in 

response to a request from a relying party. Relying parties can authenticate the 

response by verifying the OCSP responder’s digital signature. As the OCSP 

responder is providing authoritative status information, there is generally a formal 

(e.g., contractual) relationship between the CA and OCSP responder. 

In many cases, PKIs will also provide key recovery services (using Recovery Servers) to 

support business continuity. Key recovery services store private keys that support key 

establishment to ensure that the plaintext of encrypted data may be recovered in the 

future. These services can provide the private key to the user in the event of loss or 

failure of their cryptographic module, or to the user’s management when policy or legal 

requirements exist. When supported, this service removes a key management burden 

from PKI-enabled applications. 

 

This section provides guidance for general purpose PKIs when users from different 

organizations need to support a variety of applications. For large, general purpose PKIs, 

interoperability is an important consideration. Less commonly, PKIs may be deployed to 

support a small, closed community of users or for a single application, where wider 

interoperability is less important. The requirements within this section are focused on 

large, general purpose PKIs, such as the Federal PKI. For PKIs requiring less 

interoperability, these requirements should be evaluated for appropriateness within their 

 

7 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) is a software protocol for enabling anyone to locate 

organizations, individuals, and other resources, such as files and devices in a network, whether on the 

Internet or on a corporate intranet. See [RFC 4511] Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): The 

Protocol and [RFC 4512] Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): Directory Information Models. 

19
systems. In general, cryptographic algorithm and key size standards should be met by all 

PKIs. 

2.2 Security and Compliance Issues 

2.2.1 Recommended Key Sizes and Algorithms 

Table 2-1 below summarizes the recommended key sizes for key pairs used by PKI users 

and infrastructure components. The PKI uses the term digital signature key to refer to a 

private signature key or public signature verification key (as defined in Part 1) that 

provides a non-repudiation service. The term authentication key is used by the PKI to 

refer to a private authentication key or public authentication key as defined in Part 1. 

Note that both a digital signature key and an authentication key are used with a digital 

signature algorithm. 

The dates in this table are consistent with those that appear in Part 1, where: 

• A digital signature key for a user is an asymmetric key pair (i.e., a private 

signature key and public signature verification key) used with a digital signature 

algorithm. A digital signature may be used to provide either an authentication or a 

non-repudiation service. 

• A key establishment key is an asymmetric key pair used to provide key agreement 

or key transport, and 

• A CA and OCSP responder signing key is an asymmetric key pair used to sign 

and verify certificates. 

Note that the dates in Table 2-1 describe the period of use for the key pair, rather than the 

expiration date of a certificate. In the case of a digital signature certificate, if the use of 

the public key is expected to continue after certificate expiration (e.g., the public key 

used to verify signed data), then the certificate should expire at an earlier date than 

specified in the table (i.e., the certificate is used, in practice, to indicate the expiration of 

the private key associated with the public key in the certificate). For example, Federal 

PKI policy required 1024 bit RSA signature certificates to expire at the end of 2008, even 

though this key size was considered secure through 2010, since the signature on digitally 

signed documents needed to be valid for two years after the signature was applied (i.e., 

the signature on a document signed at the end of 2008 needed to be valid until the end of 

2010). The dates in the Table may be considered to be the latest expiration date for a 

given key type and size. 

20
Table 2-1 Recommended Key Sizes 

Key Type Time Period for 

Use 

Algorithms and Key Sizes 

Through 

12/31/2010 

RSA (1024 or 2048 bits) 

ECDSA (Curve P-256) 

Digital Signature 

keys used for 

authentication and 

non-repudiation (for 

Users or Devices) 

After 12/31/2010 RSA (2048 bits) 

ECDSA (Curve P-256) 

CA and OCSP 

Responder Signing 

Keys 

 N/A RSA: (2048, 3072, or 4096 bits) 

ECDSA: (Curves P-256 or P-384) 

Through 

12/31/2010 

RSA (1024 or 2048 bits) 

Diffie-Hellman (1024 or 2048 bits) 

ECDH (Curve P-256) 

Key Establishment 

keys (for Users or 

Devices) 

After 12/31/2010 RSA (2048 bits) 

Diffie-Hellman (2048 bits) 

ECDH (Curves P-256 or P-384) 

Note that some approved algorithms and key sizes, such as DSA (1024 or 2048), are 

omitted to enhance interoperability. RSA and ECDSA, which are included in Table 2-1 

above, have been widely deployed in PKIs. Therefore, they are recommended for use to 

enhance interoperability. However, DSA (1024 and 2048) as specified in FIPS 186-3 

may be used as long as the required security strength is satisfied. For ECDSA, only the 

two elliptic curves listed in Table 2-1 above of the elliptic curves are recommended for 

use in PKIs for digital signatures [FIPS 186-3]. Similarly, Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman 

is recommended to support key establishment, rather than Elliptic Curve MQV. As 

stated above in Section 2.1, other approved algorithms may be used where PKIs are 

deployed to support a small, closed community of users or a single application. 

While Table 2-1 is focused on the strength of the public key contained in a certificate, the 

strength of the digital signature on a certificate itself is equally important. The signature 

security strength reflects the security strength of the hash algorithm, and possibly the 

padding scheme8

, in addition to the strength of the private key used to generate the 

signature. Table 2-2 below summarizes the recommended algorithms, key sizes, hash 

functions, and padding schemes for signing certificates and CRLs by CAs, and OCSP 

status messages by OCSP responders. In Table 2-2, the dates correspond to the signature 

generation date for non-repudiation (e.g., the date that a certificate, CRL, or OCSP status 

message was created and signed). 

 

8

 RSA has two padding schemes used in the PKI: PKCS #1 v1.5, and PSS. The security strength of a digital 

signature generated using ECDSA is not affected by a padding scheme. 

21
Table 2-2 Digital Signature Recommendations for CAs and OCSP Responders 

Signature 

Generation Date 

Public Key Algorithms 

and Key Sizes Hash Algorithms Padding Scheme 

RSA (2048, 3072, or 4096 bits) SHA-1 PKCS #1 v1.5 

SHA-256 PKCS #1 v1.5 

ECDSA (Curve P-256) SHA-256 N/A 

Through 

12/31/2009 

ECDSA (Curve P-384) SHA-384 N/A 

SHA-1 PKCS #1 v1.5 

RSA (2048, 3072, or 4096 bits) SHA-256 PKCS #1 v1.5, 

PSS 

ECDSA (Curve P-256) SHA-256 N/A 

1/1/2010 through 

12/31/2010 

ECDSA (Curve P-384) SHA-384 N/A 

RSA (2048, 3072, or 4096 bits) SHA-256 PKCS #1 v1.5, 

PSS 

ECDSA (Curve P-256) SHA-256 N/A After 12/31/2010 

ECDSA (Curve P-384) SHA-384 N/A 

User certificates containing RSA or finite field Diffie-Hellman public keys should be 

signed using the RSA signature algorithm. User certificates containing elliptic curve 

public keys should be signed using ECDSA. 

Not all combinations of algorithms and key sizes are appropriate for the protection of 

Federal government information. To enhance interoperability, users should obtain 

authentication, signature, and key establishment certificates with complementary 

algorithms for all public keys.9 For most users, signature and key establishment keys 

should provide consistent cryptographic strength. Table 2-3 below shows preferred 

combinations for user keys; periods of use for these combinations should be calculated 

using the most conservative dates specified in Table 2-1. 

While symmetric key cryptography is not strictly required, block ciphers are used in 

practically all PKI implementations and PKI-enabled applications. All components using 

block ciphers shall support the AES-128 algorithm. To support legacy implementations, 

components that process RSA keys should support three key Triple-DEA (see [SP 800-

 

9

 In general, protocols and applications are designed to use cryptographic algorithms from one 

mathematical family. For example, applications that encounter certificates with ECDSA digital signatures 

would expect to use elliptic curve Diffie-Hellman for key establishment services. Users that obtain an 

ECDSA certificate (i.e., a certificate containing an ECDSA public key to be used for verifying digital 

signatures), and an RSA key establishment certificate (i.e., a certificate containing an RSA public key to be 

used for key establishment), for example, may find they cannot use the keys together in a single 

application. Other combinations of certificates are commonly used (see Table 2-3). It is advisable that 

users obtain authentication, signature, and key establishment certificates that are complementary to ensure 

that the keys can be used together in applications and protocols. 

22
67]). Components that support P-384 elliptic curve keys and the SHA-384 algorithm 

shall support AES-256. 

Table 2-3 Recommended Combinations of Algorithms and Key Sizes 

Authentication Key 

Type 

Signature Key Key Establishment Key 

RSA 1024 RSA 2048 RSA 2048 

RSA 1024 RSA 2048 Diffie-Hellman 2048 

RSA 2048 RSA 2048 RSA 2048 

RSA 2048 RSA 2048 Diffie-Hellman 2048 

ECDSA P-256 ECDSA P-256 ECDH P-256 

ECDSA P-256 ECDSA P-384 ECDH P-384 

ECDSA P-384 ECDSA P-384 ECDH P-384 

2.3 Procurement Guidance 

The following provides guidance for those responsible for making decisions on which 

products to purchase in support of a PKI. 

2.3.1 CA/RA Software and Hardware: 

1. CA and RA software shall support the Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) [RFC 

4210] or Certificate Management Using CMS (CMC); see RFC 5272 [RFC 5272]. 

CA software should also generate and process certificate requests using PKCS #7, 

[PKCS-7] and PKCS # 10 [PKCS-10]. 

2. All CAs shall support the generation of certificates and CRLs that conform to RFC 

5280. (Specific requirements with respect to certificate and CRL extensions are 

detailed below.) 

3. CAs shall be capable of issuing multiple certificates to users, and for all said 

certificates, asserting the key usage extension, including the Extended Key Usage 

extension and the “anyExtendedKeyUsage” value. 

4. CAs shall be capable of including the CRL distribution points extension. At a 

minimum, CAs shall support the inclusion of LDAP and HTTP URLs to specify the 

location of CRLs. CAs shall be capable of specifying an authoritative OCSP 

responder in the Authority Information Access extension. 

5. Each PKI has its own certificate profile, identifying certificate extensions that appear 

in the certificates and CRLs it issues.10 CAs shall be able to generate all mandatory 

 

10 This profile is often documented explicitly, but may be implicitly specified through the certificate policy. 

23
extensions in the appropriate profiles. For CAs owned or operated on behalf of 

Federal agencies, the following specific guidance applies: 

a) CAs that implement Federal agency-specific policies shall be able to generate 

certificates and CRLs that meet the agency profile and the Federal PKI Certificate 

Profile [FPKI PROF]. 

b) CAs that implement the Common Policy Framework [COMMON] shall be able 

to generate certificates and CRLs meeting the Shared Services Certificate and 

CRL Profile [COMMON PROF]. 

6. CAs should support the inclusion of “private” extensions in certificates and CRLs.11

7. CAs shall support at least one of the following algorithms for digitally signing 

certificates and CRLs: RSA with PKCS#1 v1.5 padding; RSA with PSS Padding 

[RFC 3447], or ECDSA. To maximize flexibility, CAs should support all of the 

above algorithms.12

8. CAs shall include backup and archive capabilities to support reconstitution of the CA 

in the event of a disaster (e.g., fire, earthquake).13 CAs should include backup and 

archive capabilities in order to establish when certificates were issued and revoked, 

and under whose authority. 

9. CA/RA components shall be shipped or delivered via controlled methods that provide 

a continuous chain of accountability, from the purchase location to the CA’s or RA's 

physical location. 

2.3.2 OCSP Responders: 

1. OCSP responders shall conform to RFC 2560, Online Certificate Status Protocol. 

2. OCSP responders shall be capable of processing both signed and unsigned requests 

and shall be capable of processing requests that either include or omit the name of the 

relying party making the request. However, OCSP responders may ignore signatures 

and requester names, if present. 

3. OCSP responders shall be capable of processing certificate status requests and 

generating responses for non-error conditions as specified in RFC 5019 [RFC 5019]. 

 

11 Private extensions are defined by an organization to meet their own unique requirements. Note that 

noncritical private extensions do not impact the interoperability of certificates or CRLs. 

12 The algorithm used to sign certificates and CRLs in an operational CA is dependent upon both the 

cryptographic module in use and the CA’s software. The selected algorithm must appear in both sets of 

supported algorithms. 

13 In cases where the root key has been compromised, destroyed or lost, it is necessary to rebuild the CA 

using a backup root key, rather than simply recover the lost state of the CA. 

24
4. Where supported, the OCSP responder should sign the OCSP response with the 

algorithm used to sign the certificate. OCSP responders shall support at least one of 

the following algorithms for digitally signing response messages: RSA with PKCS#1 

v1.5 padding; RSA with PSS Padding, or ECDSA. The supported algorithms should

include the algorithm(s) used by the corresponding CA when signing the certificate 

whose status is in question. To support future algorithm transitions by the CA, OCSP 

responders should support all of the aforementioned algorithms.14

2.3.3 Cryptographic Modules 

1. Cryptographic modules for CAs, Key Recovery Servers, and OCSP responders shall

be hardware modules validated as meeting FIPS 140-2 Level 3 or higher. 

2. Cryptographic modules for RAs should be hardware cryptographic modules validated 

as meeting FIPS 140-2 Level 2 or higher. 

3. Relying party and user cryptographic modules shall be validated as meeting FIPS 

140-2 Level 1 or higher. 

2.3.4 Key Recovery Servers 

1. If the PKI supports key establishment (i.e., certificates will include key transport or 

key agreement keys), the PKI should include a key recovery mechanism. 

2. Implementations should support automated, user-initiated key recovery; key recovery 

by the organization should also be supported.15 

2.3.5 Relying Party Software 

1. Relying party path validation 

a) Relying party implementations shall implement RFC 5280-conformant path 

validation; see RFC 5280. 

b) Where interoperability outside a single organization (e.g., a single Federal 

agency) is required, path validation modules should conform to requirements for 

an Enterprise PVM, as specified in NIST Recommendation for X.509 Path 

Validation.16 

 

14 As with CAs, the algorithm used to sign responses in an operational OCSP responder is dependent upon 

both the cryptographic module in use and the OCSP responder’s software. The selected algorithm must 

appear in both sets of supported algorithms. 

15 Organizational key recovery should emphasize security and privacy, rather than performance. Dual 

control for recovery of a user’s keys by the organization is strongly recommended. 

16 This document is available in draft form and can be found at 

http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/crypto_apps_infra/documents/NIST_Recommendation_for_X509_PVMs.pdf

. 

25
c) Where interoperability across organizations is required, path validation modules 

should conform to requirements for a Bridge-Enabled PVM, as specified in NIST 

Recommendation for X.509 path validation. 

d) Relying party implementations shall support CRLs for certificate status, and 

should support OCSP for certificate status. 

2. Building certificate paths 

a) Relying party implementations shall be able to build certification paths. 

b) At a minimum, relying party implementations should be able to obtain CA 

certificates and CRLs using LDAP from an organizationally-designated local 

directory, as well as locations specified within a user certificate. 

c) Implementations should support http-based certificate retrieval. 

3. Relying parties that work within a single organizational PKI (e.g., a PKI that supports 

a company or agency) should be able to discover paths for user certificates issued by 

CAs that are hierarchically subordinate to the trust anchor CA. 

4. Relying parties that accept certificates from other organizations should be able to 

discover paths in non-hierarchical PKIs. 

2.3.6 Client Software 

1. Client implementations shall support multiple private keys and certificates for each 

end user to support different cryptographic services. For example, the client 

implementation should support and differentiate between private keys associated 

with public keys in certificates supporting digital signatures, and private keys 

associated with public keys in certificates supporting key establishment. 

2. Client cryptographic modules shall be validated at FIPS 140-2 Level 1 or higher. 

3. Client implementations should support the certificate management protocol 

supported by the organization’s CA.17

2.4 Recommendations for System Installers/Administrators 

The system installer and administrator is the person (or people) who are responsible for 

establishing the PKI and who are responsible for the tasks associated with its day-to-day 

operation. The system administrator shall ensure that end users are trained and that the 

organization’s security policy is enforced. 

2.4.1 Certificate Issuance 

1. CAs shall be configured to ensure that certificates specify public keys with approved 

key sizes, valid domain parameters, and approved algorithms. 

 

17 Where keys and certificates are stored on smart cards, and all updates are performed at the RA, user 

implementations need not support the certificate management protocol. 

26
2. For maximum interoperability, CAs and users should use RSA key pairs for digital 

signatures and key transport. 

3. For maximum security and performance, CAs and users should use elliptic curve key 

pairs for digital signatures and key agreement. 

4. When signing certificates or CRLs, CAs shall generate digital signatures as specified 

in Table 2-2. When signing certificates or CRLs with RSA, digital signatures should

be generated using the SHA-1 hash algorithm until 12/31/2010 to maximize 

interoperability. 

5. For digital signature certificates, CAs shall sign the certificate using a digital 

signature process (i.e., signature algorithm, hash function and key) whose security 

strength is equal to or greater than the security strength of the subject public key in 

the certificate. For key establishment certificates, CAs may sign the certificate using 

a digital signature process whose security strength is less than the security strength of 

the subject public key in the certificate18. 

6. Generating key pairs: 

a) Users should generate their own digital signature key pairs. 

b) The user or the PKI may generate key pairs for key establishment on the user’s 

behalf; where required, the PKI may retain copies of the key establishment private 

key to permit key recovery. 

c) CAs should perform proof of possession on all key pairs before issuing 

certificates. 

7. CAs shall obtain assurance of public key validity before issuing certificates. 

8. Key usage extension. 

a) All certificates issued shall include the key usage extension. 

b) The key usage extension should restrict acceptance of the private key to a single 

cryptographic function: digital signatures, user authentication, or key 

establishment. 

 

18 A public key certificate used for key establishment involves two keys: the subject public key, which is 

used to establish a symmetric key that will protect data, and the signing key of the Certification Authority 

(CA), which is used to sign the certificate. The CA’s signing key needs to be secure only until the 

certificate expires, but the subject public key needs to be secure as long as the data must be secure, which 

may be long after the certificate expiration date. As long as the CA’s signing key is secure during the 

certificate’s lifetime, and the certificate has been securely archived, any break of the CA signing key after 

the expiration of the certificate does not affect the validity of the subject public key or the security that it 

(the subject public key) can provide. For example, if the security strength of the subject public key is 

greater than that of the CA’s signing key, any break of the signing key after the subject public key is signed 

does not affect the security of that public key. Therefore, it is acceptable for a key transport or key 

agreement subject public key to be stronger than the CA key used to sign a certificate containing the key 

agreement or key transport public key. 

27
c) Dual-use certificates (where a single key is used for both digital signatures and 

key establishment) should not be issued to users. 

d) Dual-use certificates may be issued to devices where required to support legacy 

applications. 

9. Extended Key Usage extension. 

a) Certificates may include the extended key usage extension to support specific 

applications (e.g., smart card logon). 

b) If a certificate is intended for general use, in addition to some list of specific 

applications, the extended key usage extension shall also specify “Any Key 

Usage”. 

10. All certificates shall include the CRL distribution points extension to support the 

retrieval of status information. 

11. If an OCSP responder is supported, a certificate shall include an appropriate URL in 

the Authority Information Access extension. 

12. Certificates should be renewed before they expire and replaced if there is a change in 

the certificate’s contents such as the domain name or the embedded email address. 

2.4.2 Certificate Revocation Requests 

1. CAs should be configured to automate revocation processing where practical: 

a) CAs should be configured to authenticate and process revocation requests 

electronically. 

b) Where the CA can authenticate a digitally signed request submitted by the user of 

the associated key pair or an RA, the request should be handled without manual 

intervention. 

2. RAs should be configured to submit digitally signed revocation requests on behalf of 

users or the organization. 

2.4.3 Certificate Revocation List Generation 

1. To maximize interoperability, all CAs should be configured to generate full CRLs. A 

full CRL is a single CRL that lists all revoked and unexpired certificates issued by 

this CA. 

2. CAs that serve a large community should generate CRL distribution points in 

addition to full CRLs. Each CRL distribution point lists a subset of the revoked 

certificates for a given CA. The number of certificates covered by a CRL distribution 

point should be limited to a maximum of 250,000 to ensure that the distribution point 

CRLs do not grow to an unmanageable size. 

28
2.4.4 PKI Repositories for the Distribution of Certificates and CRLs 

1. PKIs should be configured to provide certificates and CRLs to requesters without 

authentication of the requester. 

2. PKI repositories shall be configured to require authenticated access to modify the set 

of certificates and CRLs distributed by the repository. 

3. At a minimum, repositories shall support either the HTTP version 1.1 or LDAP 

version 3 interface. 

4. For maximum interoperability, both HTTP and LDAP should be supported. 

5. Replication of repositories (e.g., through directory shadowing or web server 

replication) to maximize availability should be considered. 

6. PKI repositories should contain all CA certificates issued by or to the corresponding 

PKI. 

7. PKI repositories shall contain all current CRLs. 

2.4.5 OCSP Responders 

For Federal agencies, detailed configuration guidance for OCSP responders is specified 

in Draft Guidance for OCSP Responders in the U.S. Federal PKI.

19

1. If maximum interoperability is required then: 

a) OCSP responders shall not require that requests be signed and shall not limit the 

set of relying parties to which certificate status information is provided. 

b) The responders shall generate OCSP basic responses, and the responses shall not

include critical extensions. 

2. Where interoperability requirements are limited to a closed community: 

a) OCSP responders may require signed requests, and may reject requests from 

entities outside that community. 

b) OCSP response messages may include private extensions known within the target 

community. 

2.4.6 Backup and Archive 

1. To maintain the availability of status information, CAs shall ensure that sufficient 

information is stored in a secure location to reconstitute the CA after a disaster. 

2. CAs should archive sufficient information to establish when certificates were 

issued, and under whose authority. 

 

19 Draft guidance is available at http://cio.nist.gov/esd/emaildir/lists/pkits/doc00000.doc. 

29
3. As a general rule, all audit logs should be maintained, along with any certificates 

and CRLs issued by the CA. 

4. User public signature verification keys should be archived, along with their 

corresponding certificates, for at least 7 1⁄2 years after certificate expiration. 

2.4.7 Relying Party Integration and Configuration 

1. Path discovery components shall be configured to enable path discovery, and 

require the retrieval of status information. 

2. Status information should be accepted in both CRL and OCSP formats. 

3. Relying party implementations shall be configured to recognize the smallest set 

of acceptable trust anchors possible. 

4. For business-to-government and government-to-government applications, Federal 

agencies should use either the Common Policy Root CA or an agency CA that is 

cross certified with the Federal Bridge as the trust anchor. 

5. For citizen-to-government applications with limited security requirements (e.g. 

Level 2 e-Authentication requirements as specified in [OMB 04-04]) and high 

interoperability requirements, agency applications may use the pre-installed trust 

anchors provided in COTS products. 

6. Path validation modules: 

a) For end user applications and applications with minimal security 

requirements, path validation modules should be configured to accept any 

valid path. 

b) For systems with more significant security requirements (e.g., systems using 

PKI to satisfy Level 3 or Level 4 e-Authentication), path validation modules 

should be configured to only accept paths that are valid under appropriate 

policies. 

2.5 User Guidance (Subscribers) 

In a PKI, the subject is the identity of the user associated with a public key. The subject 

may be a person or a device. For the purposes of this section, the term user is either the 

person associated with a public key, or the administrator of a device associated with a 

public key. 

1. Users should generate key pairs for digital signature and authentication. 

 

2. Users may generate their own key pairs for key establishment, or the key 

establishment key pairs may be imported from a trusted source. 

30
3. Users shall protect the authenticators (e.g., the PIN or password) that control 

access to their private keys. 

4. Users shall request the revocation of their certificates if they believe the 

authenticator or cryptographic module has been stolen, copied or compromised. 

5. Users shall verify all CRLs before rejecting claimed revoked certificates in the 

CRLs. 

6. Users shall control the disposition of “old” key pairs after certificates expire 

unless otherwise controlled in accordance with Federal agency policy and 

procedures 

a) Private signature keys should be destroyed after the corresponding 

certificate(s) expire. 

b) Private key establishment keys need not be destroyed after the corresponding 

certificate(s) expire. The user should not destroy the private key 

establishment key until all symmetric keys established using this key have 

been recovered or otherwise protected (e.g., by encrypting under a different 

key). Premature destruction of private key establishment keys may prevent 

recovery of the subscriber’s plaintext data. 

31
3 Internet Protocol Security (IPsec) 

3.1 Description 

IPsec is a suite of protocols for securing Internet communications at the network layer 

and operates within the Internet Protocol (IP). It is frequently used to establish Virtual 

Private Networks (VPNs)20, requiring both parties to share keying material, and enabling 

telecommuters or travelers to gain secure access to their business networks. IPsec 

provides the cryptographic security functions for both versions 4 and 6 of the Internet 

Protocol. 

IPsec operates by inserting one of two special IPsec headers after the IP header in each 

message. The Authentication Header (AH) provides integrity protection. The 

Encapsulating Security Protocol (ESP) Header provides confidentiality and/or integrity 

protection. Both ESP and AH provide data origin authentication, and optionally provide 

replay protection. AH protects the IP header and the data following the IP header. ESP, 

when applied directly to a packet (i.e., in transport mode), protects the data, but not the IP 

header. However, ESP in tunnel mode (with a new IP header inserted) does protect the 

original IP header. Furthermore, using ESP with automated keying protects the source 

and destination addresses in the IP header, in either transport or tunnel mode. Since AH 

processing introduces unnecessary complexity, and since ESP can provide equivalent 

functionality, the use of AH is not recommended. 

There have been three versions of IPsec.21 All new systems should implement IPsec-v3, 

as it has many enhancements not found in the previous versions.22 However, IPsec-v2 is 

still implemented in numerous current systems, despite the fact that it is obsolete.23

Two classes of key management methods are specified for IPsec: manual keying and 

automated keying. Manual keying involves an agreement (in an unspecified manner) by 

the parties in a communication on the IPsec protections to be applied and the symmetric 

keys to be used. This has a major downside in that it severely limits the scalability of the 

security solution and requires re-keying to be done in an unspecified manner. A Security 

Association (SA, i.e., a relationship between two or more entities that describes how each 

entity will use the security services to communicate securely) and its secret keys cannot 

be easily renewed in the cases where the SA expires, has been used for the maximum 

allowable volume of traffic, or if its keys are compromised. 

To use automated keying, a negotiation between peers prior to exchanging IPsecprotected traffic determines the IPsec protections to be applied and the symmetric keys to 

be used. The same method can be used to maintain, delete, or renegotiate the SA (e.g., to 

rekey). This approach permits a decoupling of the key management mechanism from the 

 

20 See SP 800-77, “Guide to IPsec VNPs” [SP 800-77]. 

21 There are no generally accepted names for IPsec-v3 and IPsec-v2; these terms are used in this document to make the 

requirements more understandable

22 IPsec-v3 is specified in RFC 4301, RFC 4302, and RFC 4303. 

23 IPsec-v2 is specified in RFC 2401, RFC 2402 and RFC 2406. 

32
other security mechanisms, thus facilitating the use of alternative key management 

methods without having to modify other security mechanisms. 

The preferred automated keying method is IKE, the Internet Key Exchange protocol that 

was designed specifically for use with IPsec. IKE generates the necessary keying 

material for IPsec via an authenticated secure channel between the two IKE peers. There 

are two versions of IKE in use: IKEv1 [RFC 2407, RFC 2408 and RFC 2409] and IKEv2 

[RFC 4306 and RFC 4718]; both versions perform mutual authentication, and establish 

and maintain security associations. SAs will be valid for a specified period of time or 

volume of traffic. These two versions of IKE are not interoperable. 

Table 3-1 provides the IETF reference materials for versions 2 and 3 of IPsec. 

Table 3-1. Summary of References for IPsec 

Version Security 

Architecture Privacy Authentication Automated Key 

Management 

IPsec-v2 

RFC 

2401[RFC 

2401] 

RFC 2406 

[RFC 2406]

RFC 2402[RFC 

2402], RFC 

2406 

RFC 2407, RFC 

2408, RFC 2409 

IPsec-v3 RFC 4301 

[RFC 4301] 

RFC 4303 

[RFC 4303]

RFC 4302 [RFC 

4302], RFC 

4303 

RFC 4306, RFC 

4718 

The IPsec security mechanisms are not tied to any specific cryptographic algorithms; in 

fact, many algorithms and modes have IETF Requests For Comment (RFCs) describing 

their use with IPsec. This, however, can result in a situation where there are so many 

choices for typical system administrators to make that it is difficult to achieve 

interoperability. To improve interoperability in IPsec-v3, two named cipher suites: VPNA and VPN-B24 that cover typical security policies, were specified [RFC 4308]. 

However, VPN-B shall not be used because VPN-B contains AES-XCBC-MAC-96, 

which is not NIST-approved. VPN-A shall not be used after the end of the year 2010. 

Implementers may allow the individual selection of security algorithms (i.e., rather than 

selecting a pre-specified suite of algorithms), but users must be aware that picking nonstandard groupings of algorithms may result in limited interoperability. However, when 

IPsec is used in the context of a VPN, security policy can be centrally managed, thus 

ensuring interoperability without the use of pre-defined cipher suites. Complete IETF 

algorithm guidance is provided in [RFC 4835] (for AH and ESP), RFC 4307 [RFC 4307] 

(for IKEv2) and [RFC 4109] (for IKEv1). 

 

24 SP 500-267 lists VPN-A and VPN-B as recommended cipher suites. However, the recommendations in 

SP 500-267 are superseded by the requirements/recommendations in this section. 

33
3.2 Security and Compliance Issues 

3.2.1 Cryptographic Algorithms 

Table 3-2 below gives cryptographic algorithm recommendations for use within IPsec. 

The algorithms that are specified for IKE are used to protect IKE’s own traffic. The ESP 

and AH algorithms are used to provide IPsec protection to data traffic; for these 

algorithms to be used within ESP or AH, IKE must be capable of negotiating their use. 

Table 3-2. Cryptographic Algorithm Recommendations25

Protocol Cryptographic 

Service Algorithm/Mode IETF Requirement 

Federal 

Requirement 

ESP Encryption 

TDEA in CBC 

mode 

[RFC 2451], [RFC 

4835] 

MUST 

Mandatory 

Must use with 

three distinct 

keys 

ESP Encryption 

AES with 128-bit 

keys in CBC 

mode 

[RFC 3602], [RFC 

4835] 

MUST 

Mandatory 

ESP Encryption 

AES-128 in 

Counter mode 

[RFC 3686], [RFC 

4835] 

SHOULD 

Optional, 

however, 

must be used 

with integrity 

protection 

ESP or AH Integrity 

Protection 

HMAC SHA1-96 [RFC 2404], [RFC 

4835] 

MUST 

Mandatory 

ESP or AH Integrity 

Protection 

HMAC SHA256-128 [RFC 4868] 

SHOULD Optional

 

25 Column four lists IETF conformance requirements as specified in the RFCs by using the three IETF 

requirement levels: MUST, SHOULD and MAY. See RFC 2119 [RFC 2119] for definitions of these 

requirement levels and further information on IETF Conformance language. 

Column five states Federal conformance requirements using two levels: Mandatory and Optional. 

 Mandatory means that the feature is required, and Optional means the technique is permitted. 

34
Protocol Cryptographic 

Service Algorithm/Mode IETF Requirement 

Federal 

Requirement 

ESP 

Encryption and 

Integrity 

Protection 

AES-128 in 

Galois/Counter 

Mode 

[RFC 4106], [RFC 

4835] Optional 

ESP 

Encryption and 

Integrity 

Protection 

AES-128 in 

Counter mode 

with CBC-MAC 

[RFC 4309], [RFC 

4835] 

MAY 

Optional 

ESP or AH Integrity 

Protection 

AES-128 in 

GMAC Mode [RFC 4543] Optional 

IKEv1 or 

IKEv2 Encryption TDEA in CBC mode 

[RFC 4109], [RFC 

4307] 

MUST 

Mandatory 

 with three 

distinct keys 

IKEv1 or 

IKEv2 Encryption AES-128 in CBC mode 

[RFC 4109], [RFC 

4307] 

SHOULD 

Optional 

IKEv1 or 

IKEv2 

Pseudo-random 

function HMAC-SHA1 

[RFC 4109], RFC 

4307] 

MUST 

Mandatory 

IKEv1 or 

IKEv2 

Pseudo-random 

Function 

HMAC-SHA256 [RFC 4868] 

SHOULD 

Optional 

IKEv1 or 

IKEv2 

Diffie-Hellman 

Group 2 1024-bit MODP 

[RFC 4109], [RFC 

4307] 

MUST 

Mandatory 

IKEv2 Diffie-Hellman 

Group 24 

2048-bit MODP [RFC 5114] Mandatory 

IKEv1 or 

IKEv2 

Diffie-Hellman 

Group 14 

2048-bit MODP [RFC 4109], RFC 

4307] 

SHOULD 

Optional 

35
Protocol Cryptographic 

Service Algorithm/Mode IETF Requirement 

Federal 

Requirement 

IKEv1 or 

IKEv2 Integrity HMAC-SHA1-96 

[RFC 4109], [RFC 

4307] 

MUST 

Mandatory 

IKEv1 or 

IKEv2 Integrity HMACSHA256-128 

[RFC 4868] 

SHOULD Optional 

IKEv1 Peer 

Authentication 

RSA or DSA 

with SHA1 

[RFC 4109] 

SHOULD (RSA) 

MAY (DSA) 

Optional 

IKEv2 Peer 

Authentication RSA with SHA1 [RFC 4306] MUST Mandatory 

IKEv2 Peer 

Authentication DSA with SHA1 [RFC 4306] MAY Optional 

ESP provides options of NULL integrity protection or NULL encryption (RFC 4835 

[RFC 4835] and RFC 2410 [RFC 2410]) which means no integrity protection is applied 

or no encryption is used, respectively, but not both at the same time as specified in RFC 

4835. NULL integrity protection (often referred to as NULL authentication) is used for 

situations where confidentiality is required without the need for integrity protection. 

NULL integrity protection shall not, and in fact cannot, be used with NULL encryption. 

ESP, for example, could send unencrypted packets, (encryption set to NULL), but would 

be required to integrity protect them; for example by using HMAC-SHA1. On the other 

hand, ESP could send packets encrypted with AES-128 in CBC mode but omit the 

integrity check, (integrity protection set to NULL). However, to be compliant with this 

Recommendation, IPsec (ESP)-protected traffic shall always be integrity-protected, 

either through the use of an integrity-protection algorithm such as HMAC-SHA1-96 or 

through the use of a combined-mode algorithm such as AES-128 in Galois/Counter 

Mode. Therefore, encrypted ESP shall not be used with no integrity-protection. 

When IPsec-protected traffic is integrity-protected, an Integrity Check Value (ICV) is 

stored in the Integrity Check Value field of the ESP payload; see RFC 4303, or in the 

Integrity Check Value field of the Authentication Header (AH); see RFC 4302. (This 

field is referred to as the “Authentication Data” field in IPsec V2 [RFCs 2406 and 2402]). 

In the case of HMAC for integrity protection, the length of the ICV value is at most the 

size of the output value of the hash function. For IPsec applications, the ICV value shall

be truncated to 96 and 128 bits for HMAC-SHA1 and HMAC-SHA256, respectively, 

RFC 4307 [RFC 4307] and RFC 4868 [RFC 4868]. 

Although the IETF is transitioning to AES-XCBC-MAC, [RFC 3566 and RFC 4434], 

and also allows the use of HMAC-MD5 (not shown in the table), neither is approved for 

36
use by the Federal government. As such, AES-XCBC-MAC and HMAC-MD5 shall not

be used for integrity protection. 

A new class of algorithms, called combined-mode algorithms, appears in the above table. 

They can be negotiated by IKE and used within IPsec-v3 cipher suites. These algorithms 

provide both encryption and integrity protection. Two combined-mode algorithms have 

been approved for Federal government use: AES in Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) [RFC 

4106] and AES in counter mode with CBC-MAC (AES-CCM) [RFC 4309]. 

There is also a variant of AES-GCM, referred to as AES-GMAC [RFC 4543] , that 

provides integrity protection but does not provide encryption. This mode can be used 

within either the ESP or AH header. 

The maximum size of the ICV for AES-CCM, AES-GCM and AES-GMAC is 16 bytes. 

Implementations shall support a size of 16 bytes for these three algorithms [RFCs 4309, 

4106, 4543]. 

AES-GCM, AES-CCM, AES-CTR, and AES-GMAC shall not be used with manually 

distributed keys. If the counter value, in AES-CTR or AES-CCM, or the IV value, in 

AES-GCM or AES-GMAC, is used for more than one packet with the same key, the 

security of the algorithm’s confidentiality mechanism is compromised. Since manual 

keying presents a major challenge to this limit, it shall not be used with these algorithms. 

Automated keying using IKE establishes secret keys for the two peers within each 

Security Association, with an extremely small probability of duplicate keys. 

In previous IETF guidance, DES using the CBC mode [RFC 2405] was mandatory-toimplement; however, this algorithm shall not be used to protect information. 

IPsec allows the individual selection of security algorithms. As an example, an 

implementer using Table 3-2 and following the guidance of Part 1 of SP 800-57, could 

select the following algorithms to form an IPsec suite with an overall security strength of 

80 bits: 

• ESP Encryption: AES in CBC mode 

• ESP Integrity Protection: HMAC-SHA1 

• IKEv2 Encryption: AES in CBC mode 

• IKEv2 Pseudo-random function: HMAC-SHA1 

• IKEv2 Diffie-Hellman group: 1024-bit MODP 

• IKEv2 Integrity: HMAC-SHA1 

• IKEv2 Peer Authentication: 1024-bit RSA with SHA-1 

Note that if the implementer wanted to ensure a security strength of 112 bits, he would 

have to make the following changes to the suite above: 

• IKEv2 Diffie-Hellman group: 2048-bit MODP 

• IKEv2 Peer Authentication: 2048-bit RSA with SHA-256 

The Suite-B-GCM-128 and Suite-B-GCM-256 suites are both defined in RFC 4869 [RFC 

4869]. At present, these cipher suites are not widely available or deployed. SP 500-267 

37
states that support for these cipher suites is optional. However, wherever practical, 

implementations should be procured that support these cipher suites, and they should be 

selected for use wherever very high performance and security strength are required. As 

discussed above, AES-GCM is a combined-mode algorithm that provides both encryption 

and integrity protection; therefore these suites provide integrity, despite the fact the 

integrity mechanism is listed in RFC 4869 as NULL for both suites. 

3.2.2 Additional Recommendations 

1. The Authentication Header (AH) should not be used in IPsec version 3. 

2. IKE should be used for automated key management to ensure a re-keying capability 

and scalability. 

3. Once an ESP Security Association has expired or is no longer in use, its ESP 

encryption keys shall continue to be protected by the system and kept secret as long 

as the data they were used to protect needs to be kept secret. 

3.3 Procurement Guidance 

These recommendations are written to assist individuals responsible for selecting security 

products that include IPsec for the security of the IP layer. 

1. Any IPsec system for use within the Federal government should include an IKE 

implementation for automated key management. 

2. IPsec implementations shall include approved algorithms for each IPsec security 

component. In addition, the implementation should be capable of using one or more 

of the approved cipher suites specified in Section 3.2. Being capable of using one or 

more of these cipher suites will improve interoperability. 

3. IPsec implementations should include the algorithms used in the Suite B cipher 

suites. 

3.4 Recommendations for System Installers 

Systems installers are those individuals that install products that include IPsec for 

security. 

1. IKE should be used for automated key management within any IPsec system. 

2. NULL encryption shall only be employed when integrity protection is required, but 

confidentiality is not needed. 

3. Installers should select approved algorithms for each security component, as 

specified in Section 3.2. 

38
3.5 Recommendations for System Administrators 

System administrators are those individuals responsible for the day-to-day functioning of 

the security product containing IPsec. System administrators shall: 

1. Ensure that end users are properly trained and that the organization’s security policy 

is enforced. 

2. Ensure that a key used by the product is protected throughout its lifespan. 

3.6 Recommendations for End Users 

An end user is the individual using a product that relies on IPsec for security. End users 

shall: 

1. Be aware of and trained to follow the organization’s security policy for using the 

product. 

2. Operate their system as instructed by their organization and system administrator. 

39
4 Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Secure Socket Layer 

(SSL) 

4.1 Description 

The Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Secure Socket Layer (SSL) protocols are the 

primary end-to-end security protocols used to protect information on the Internet. TLS is 

an enhanced version of SSL; the protocols are similar, but not identical. The Internet 

Engineering Task Force (IETF) governs the TLS protocol [RFC 5246]. The information 

in this section generally applies to both TLS and SSL, except where otherwise noted. 

Only the term TLS will be used in the text, except when it is necessary to make a 

distinction. 

TLS is a robust protocol that is used to protect various links (e.g. authentication server to 

a wireless access point or the e-mail link between client and server). Specific guidance 

could vary greatly, based on the intended application. The current discussion has, 

therefore, primarily been limited to the classic scenario where a browser is acting as a 

client for a human user, and is interfacing with a web site. Some of the other applications 

of TLS (for example, dedicated network infrastructure applications primarily involving 

machines with no human user) may not require all of the features of general purpose web 

browsers and servers. Moreover, some cipher suites, as indicated below, are primarily 

intended for these infrastructure or more restricted applications. 

A TLS session occurs between a client (typically an end user’s web browser) and a server 

(typically a web server belonging to an entity with which the end user wants to conduct 

business or needs to exchange information). Symmetric keys for a session are 

determined during a protocol involving either Diffie-Hellman (DH) key agreement or 

RSA key transport. The latter method implicitly authenticates the server to the client. In 

a DH key agreement, the server authenticates itself by supplying a signed, static DH key 

in a certificate or by signing an ephemeral DH key and sending a certificate with its 

public signing key. Thus, the server will always send a certificate, with either a signing 

key or a key-establishment key. The server may request a certificate from the client. 

Except for non-Suite B static-static DH key-agreement, client certificates will always 

contain a signing key. An “anonymous” exchange, i.e., without server authentication, 

shall not be used by implementations conforming to this Recommendation. Static-static 

DH key establishment should not be used by implementations conforming to this 

Recommendation. 

A TLS session begins with a cryptographic negotiation between the client and the server 

to select a suite of algorithms to be used in the session (often called a cipher suite) and to 

establish a set of cryptographic keys to be used for a variety of functions throughout the 

session. This negotiation takes the form of a series of "handshake" messages between the 

client and server. The client states the “cipher suites” that it can handle in the order that 

it prefers them and provides a non-secret random nonce. A cipher suite bundles the 

choice of key-establishment method (e.g., RSA key transport or DH key agreement 

method), symmetric key algorithm and data-integrity hash function to be used into a 

single value. The server then selects the "cipher suite" to be used from the list provided 

by the client, and provides its own random nonce and a certificate containing a signing or 

40
key-establishment key. The server may also request certificate-based client 

authentication during the handshake.26 Session keys are then established in accordance 

with the selected cipher suite, with the random numbers providing assurance of liveliness 

and freshness to the derived keys. 

When only the server supplies a certificate, the TLS protocol provides for integrity and 

authentication services to a client whose identity has not necessarily been verified. This 

is sufficient under many circumstances, such as when TLS is used to protect passwords 

or credit card numbers during transactions over the Internet. For example, if an end user 

is trying to purchase something from Acme Flowers online, he wants to be certain that he 

is doing business with Acme Flowers (and not Acme Flours, the credit card thief), but the 

Acme Flowers server may only be concerned that the credit card number supplied is 

valid. In this case authentication of the end user’s identity (and his authority to use the 

credit card supplied) could be handled outside of the TLS protocol (e.g., by contacting 

the credit card company to verify the validity of the credit card number). 

After completion of the handshake sequence, TLS provides a secure communications 

channel between the server and client for the duration of a communications session. All 

cipher suites provide authentication and integrity protection for transferred data, and most 

TLS cipher suites also provide encryption. All TLS cipher suites recommended in this 

document provide authentication and integrity. Most also provide encryption. If 

encryption is provided, data is encrypted when sent, and decrypted when received. TLS 

does not, however, provide a cryptographic non-repudiation service to allow a validation 

of the session data or authentication after the communications session has ended, e.g., by 

a third party. 

4.2 Security and Compliance Issues 

4.2.1 General 

1. Servers make the selection of the cipher suite to be used, based on the choices 

offered by the client during the handshake protocol. Therefore, if a client offers 

any cipher suite not listed in the tables 4-1 through 4-4, the server might select it, 

even when the client indicates (by the order of its list of suites) that its preference 

is for another cipher suite. 

2. Symmetric key sizes shall be compliant with guidance in Part 1, and public key 

sizes shall be consistent with guidance in the PKI section above.27 Clients shall 

not accept any certificate signed using a key smaller than the approved key size 

 

26 In the initial Client Hello Message the client proposes a list of all the TLS versions and cipher suites that 

it can use, and, in the Server Hello reply, the server selects a version and cipher suite from the choices 

offered by the client. TLS accommodates several versions (1.0 and 1.1, and 1.2) as well as a bewildering 

number of cipher suites. While the ordering of the cipher suites in the Client Hello message is supposed to 

indicate the order of the client’s preference, experimentation reveals that few servers honor this; most 

simply follow their own preference, if it is anywhere on the client’s list. 

27 See Part 1 Sections 5.6.1 and 5.6.2. 

41
for the date of certificate verification by the client. This is generally 

accomplished through control of the root certificate key-store.28 

 

3. Hash functions used during the signing of TLS certificates shall be consistent 

with the public key sizes, as given in Section 5.6.1 of Part 1. 

4. In choosing algorithm suites, Federal agencies need to consider the value or 

sensitivity of the information being protected and how long it must be protected 

(see Part 1, Section 6). Public keys contained in certificates (i.e., subject public 

keys) that are used only for authentication need only be large enough that they are 

secure at the time they are used in a TLS session. However, while TLS does not 

create encrypted files that are saved, an eavesdropper could record a TLS session 

and attack it at a later time when more powerful technology is available. This 

should be taken into consideration when determining the security strength needed 

for the session. 

TLS cipher suites have the form: 

TLS_key_establishment_alg_WITH_encryption alg_message authentication_alg.29

For example, 

TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA. 

The “TLS” distinguishes these cipher suites from SSL protocol suites. In the example, 

the key establishment method is the RSA public key algorithm. For this example, the 

server provides a public key certificate containing an RSA modulus and encryption 

exponent. The AES block cipher algorithm is used with 128-bit keys in cipher block 

chaining (CBC) mode to encrypt data and HMAC_SHA1 is used to provide integrity 

protection. Acceptable combinations of algorithms are referenced in the handshake 

messages with a two-byte indicator assigned by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority 

(IANA). 

Not all cryptographic algorithms available for use are appropriate for the protection of 

Federal government information. Federal servers and clients shall use approved 

algorithms for transmitting information. Federal clients should support the use of unapproved algorithms in receiving information in accordance with organizational policy, 

in order to support interoperability. Not all combinations of algorithms are appropriate 

for the protection of Federal government information; most options that use AES or 3-

key TDEA (also called 3DES in TLS cipher suites) are acceptable. The IETF identifies 

one cipher suite as mandatory-to-implement for TLS version 1.2: 

 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA. 

 

28 See Section 2 above 

29 Beginning with TLS 1.2, the cipher suite must explicitly designate the PRF (pseudo-random function) 

for deriving keying material in its definition. TLS 1.2 has chosen a default PRF, based on HMAC-SHA256 

for use with existing cipher suites (Section 5, [RFC 5246]). 

42
As described in [RFC 5246], all implementations are required to include this particular 

cipher suite. All TLS cipher suites begin with “TLS” (this distinguishes them from the 

original SSL protocol that was the ancestor of TLS). “TLS” is followed by a key 

establishment method; in the cipher suite example given above, this is the RSA public 

key algorithm. For this method, the server is required to have a server public key key 

establishment certificate using the RSA algorithm. “WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA” 

specifies the cipher mechanism actually used to transfer “payload data.” In this example, 

the AES block cipher is used with 128-bit keys in cipher block chaining mode, and 

HMAC-SHA1 provides integrity protection. 

4.2.2 Recommended Cipher Suites for Federal Government Use 

A large number of cipher suites have been defined for TLS. Many are not suitable for 

Federal government use. The cipher suites listed in tables 4.1 through 4.4 may be used to 

protect Federal government information. Anonymous cipher suites that do not 

authenticate the server, or that use HMAC-MD5 or unapproved encryption algorithms 

shall not be used to protect Federal government information and are not included in the 

tables below. Four tables are provided: Conventional Public Key cipher suites, Elliptic 

Curve cipher suites, Pre-shared Key cipher suites and Elliptic Curve-AES suites that are 

specific to TLS version 1.2. 

Conventional public key cipher suites with HMAC-SHA1 are listed in Table 4-1. All 

suites listed in Table 4-1 are allowed for use in protecting Federal information. The 

cipher suites with the SHA suffix all use HMAC-SHA1 to authenticate and provide 

integrity protection for payload data, and use the RSA, Diffie-Hellman and DSA public 

key algorithms for key establishment and server authentication. These cipher suites may 

be used with TLS Versions 1.0, 1.1 or 1.2. These cipher suites use the MD5/SHA1 

pseudorandom function (PRF) in TLS 1.0 or 1.1, and use HMAC-SHA256 PRF in TLS 

1.2. Similar suites, shown with the SHA256 suffix, use HMAC-SHA256 for integrity 

protection and the HMAC-SHA256 PRF for key derivation. These latter suites were 

designed for use with TLS v1.2. 

43
Table 4-130: Conventional Public Key Cipher Suites Using HMAC-SHA1 and 

HMAC-SHA256 

SUITE Key 

Exchange Encryption TLS 

TLS_RSA_WITH_NULL_SHA RSA NULL 1.0, 1.1, 

1.2 

TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA ** RSA 3DES_EDE_CBC 1.0, 1.1, 

1.2 

TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA* RSA AES_128_CBC 1.0, 1.1, 

1.2 

TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 RSA AES_128_CBC 1.2 

TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA RSA AES_256_CBC 1.0, 1.1, 

1.2 

TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256 RSA AES_256_CBC 1.2 

TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA DH_DSS 3DES_EDE_CBC 1.0, 1.1, 

1.2 

TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA DH_RSA 3DES_EDE_CBC 1.0, 1.1, 

1.2 

TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA 

*** DHE_DSS 3DES_EDE_CBC 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 

TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA DHE_RSA 3DES_EDE_CBC 1.0, 1.1, 

1.2 

TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA DH_DSS AES_128_CBC 1.0, 1.1, 

1.2 

TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA DH_RSA AES_128_CBC 1.0, 1.1, 

1.2 

TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA DHE_DSS AES_128_CBC 1.0, 1.1, 

1.2 

TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA DHE_RSA AES_128_CBC 1.0, 1.1, 

1.2 

TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA DH_DSS AES_256_CBC 1.0, 1.1, 

1.2 

TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA DH_RSA AES_256_CBC 1.0, 1.1, 

1.2 

TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA DHE_DSS AES_256_CBC 1.0, 1.1, 

1.2 

TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA DHE_RSA AES_256_CBC 1.0, 1.1, 

1.2 

TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 DH_DSS AES_128_CBC 1.2 

TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 DH_RSA AES_128_CBC 1.2 

TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 DHE_DSS AES_128_CBC 1.2 

TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 DHE_RSA AES_128_CBC 1.2 

TLS_DH_DSS_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256 DH_DSS AES_256_CBC 1.2 

TLS_DH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256 DH_RSA AES_256_CBC 1.2 

TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256 DHE_DSS AES_256_CBC 1.2 

TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256 DHE_RSA AES_256_CBC 1.2 

 

30 This table has been updated since the document was first published in December 2009. 

44
* This cipher suite is named by IETF as mandatory-to-implement for TLS version 1.2 

[RFC 5246]. 

** This cipher suite is named by IETF as mandatory-to-implement for TLS version 1.1 

[RFC 4346] 

*** This cipher suite is named by IETF as mandatory-to-implement for TLS version 1.0 

[RFC 2246]. 

Elliptic curve cipher suites using HMAC-SHA1 are listed in Table 4-2. The cipher suites 

with SHA suffix all use HMAC-SHA1 for payload data integrity and use Elliptic Curve 

algorithms for key agreement. They may use either the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature 

Algorithm (ECDSA) or RSA for server authentication. These cipher suites may be used 

with TLS Versions 1.0, 1.1 or 1.2. The SHA256/SHA384 suffix means that similar 

cipher suites have also been defined, as of TLS 1.2, which use HMAC-SHA256 or 

HMAC-SHA384 for integrity protection and HMAC-SHA256/HMAC-SHA384 PRF for 

key derivation, replacing SSL’s original MD5/SHA1 PRF. ECDHE denotes the use of a 

key exchange algorithm in which each side (client and server) each generate an elliptic 

curve Diffie-Hellman ephemeral key pair for use in that particular TLS session. 

45
Table 4-2: Elliptic Curve Cipher Suites Using HMAC-SHA1/HMACSHA256/HMAC-SHA384 

SUITE Key Exchange Encryption 

TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA ECDH_ECDSA 3DES_EDE_CBC

TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA ECDH_ECDSA AES_128_CBC 

TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 ECDH_ECDSA AES_128_CBC 

TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 ECDH_ECDSA AES_256_CBC 

TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA ECDHE_ECDSA 3DES_EDE_CBC

TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA ECDHE_ECDSA AES_128_CBC 

TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 ECDHE_ECDSA AES_128_CBC 

TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 ECDHE_ECDSA AES_256_CBC 

TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA ECDH_RSA 3DES_EDE_CBC

TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 ECDH_RSA AES_128_CBC 

TLS_ECDH_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 ECDH_RSA AES_256_CBC 

TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA ECDHE_RSA 3DES_EDE_CBC

TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA ECDHE_RSA AES_128_CBC 

TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 ECDHE_RSA AES_128_CBC 

TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 ECDHE_RSA AES_256_CBC 

Pre-shared key (PSK) cipher suites using HMAC-SHA1 are listed in Table 4-3; preshared keys shall be distributed in a secure manner, such as secure manual distribution or 

using a digital signature or key establishment certificate. These cipher suites all use 

HMAC-SHA1 to authenticate and provide integrity protection for payload data. They 

employ a pre-shared key for entity authentication (for both the server and client) and may 

also use RSA or ephemeral Diffie-Hellman (DHE) algorithms for key establishment. For 

example, when DHE is used, the result of the Diffie Hellman computation is combined 

with the pre-shared key and other input to determine the pre-master secret. 

The pre-shared key shall have minimum security strength of 112-bits. Because these 

cipher suites require pre-shared keys, these suites are not generally applicable to classic 

secure web site applications and are not expected to be widely supported in web browser 

clients or general web servers. NIST suggests that these suites be considered in particular 

for infrastructure applications, particularly if frequent authentication of the network 

entities is required. These cipher suites may be used with TLS Versions 1.0, 1.1 or 1.2. 

46
Table 4-3: Pre-shared Key Cipher Suites Using HMAC-SHA1 

SUITE 

Key 

Exchange Encryption 

TLS_PSK_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA PSK 3DES_EDE_CBC 

TLS_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA PSK AES_128_CBC 

TLS_PSK_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA PSK AES_256_CBC 

TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA DHE_PSK 3DES_EDE_CBC 

TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA DHE_PSK AES_128_CBC 

TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA DHE_PSK AES_256_CBC 

TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA RSA_PSK 3DES_EDE_CBC 

TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA RSA_PSK AES_128_CBC 

TLS_RSA_PSK_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA RSA_PSK AES_256_CBC 

“Suite B Profile for TLS” [RFC 5430] introduces six new cipher suites for TLS 1.2. Four 

of them use only Suite B algorithms as listed in Table 4-4. These cipher suites are a 

departure from earlier TLS cipher suites in several respects, and only work with TLS 

version 1.2, which allows the negotiation of the Pseudo-Random Function (PRF) used in 

the process of deriving the symmetric keys (used to protect payload data) from the “premaster secret” arrived at by the key agreement operation. Earlier TLS versions (1.1 and 

1.0) use the original SSL PRF, a combination of MD5 and SHA-1 to derive keying 

material. The hash function used for data integrity was separate and negotiated as part of 

the cipher suite. For these cipher suites, ECDHE is used for key establishment. 

Moreover, TLS 1.2 adds authenticated encryption as a symmetric cipher type. The Suite 

B cipher suites all specify AES in Galois Counter Mode (GCM) or Cipher Block 

Chaining (CBC) for encryption protection. In addition to the encryption protection, 

GCM also provides integrity protection. The AES GCM cipher suites offer the potential 

for higher performance than the AES CBC suites, while elliptic curve key establishment 

also offers performance advantages over the RSA alternatives and at higher security 

strengths. These cipher suites are too new to yet be widely available or deployed, but 

NIST suggests that, wherever practical, servers and clients be procured that support these 

cipher suites, and that they be selected for use wherever very high performance and 

security strength are required. The other two suites are 

TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA and 

TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA. These are not Suite B cipher 

suites. However, they are used for TLS 1.2 or later versions to provide backward 

compatibility with TLS 1.1 or earlier versions. 

Table 4-4: TLS 1.2-Suite B Cipher Suites 

Suite MAC PRF

TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 Galois Ctr. P_SHA256

TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 Galois Ctr. P_SHA384

TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 HMAC P_SHA256

TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 HMAC P_SHA384

47
4.3 Procurement Guidance 

The following recommendations are for any individual that makes a purchasing decision 

for acquiring a TLS/SSL component. Recommendations for purchasing are: 

General requirements: 

1. New procurements of clients and servers shall support TLS (SSL 3.0 or higher). 

2. Implementations shall support approved algorithms (see Section 4.2 above). 

3. Implementations shall support client authentication using public key certificates. 

4. Implementations shall use an approved random bit generator specified in SP 800-

90. 

Server implementations: 

1. Web server implementations should support the following cipher suites: 

TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA 

TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA 

TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA 

TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA 

TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA 

TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA 

2. Implementations shall protect the server’s private key from unauthorized 

disclosure. 

3. Implementations should select cipher suites in the order of preference submitted 

by the client. 

Client implementations: 

1. Federal client implementations should support at least one of the following four 

cipher suites: 

TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA 

TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA 

TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA 

TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA 

and at least one of the following two cipher suites: 

TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA 

TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA. 

2. Client implementations should allow system administrators to provide the list of 

cipher suites to be provided to the server in order of preference. 

3. Client implementations shall support the recognition and verification of the 

certificate path for the server’s certificate before trusting the server’s certificate 

(see Section 2 above). 

48
4. Client implementations shall be capable of verifying that the identifier presented 

in the server’s certificate matches the identifier displayed by the browser. 

5. Client implementations should give the end user an opportunity to verify that the 

site named in the certificate and displayed by the browser is consistent with the 

site that the end user was attempting to reach. 

6. Client implementations for human users shall provide an indication to the user

(e.g, by generating a message) if the site named in the certificate does not match 

the URL31 that the end user requested. 

7. Client implementations shall be capable of supporting a well-managed root 

certificate key-store (see Section 2 above.) 

4.4 Recommendations for System Installers 

The system installer is the individual(s) that installs the TLS/SSL application and 

performs the initial configuration of the system. 

System installers should: 

1. Configure the root certificate store appropriately (see Section 2)32. 

2. Disable unapproved cipher suites, wherever possible. 

3. Disable SSL 2.0 (most clients allow this). 

4. Properly configure and install client certificates, in accordance with applicable 

policy. 

5. Configure client implementations to provide a list of cipher suites to the server in 

order of preference if allowed by the application. 

6. Configure server implementations to select the client’s most preferred cipher suite 

from the cipher suite lists presented by the clients in their ClientHello messages. 

7. Ensure that server certificates are not expired and that they chain to a CA root 

certificate that is normally in the root store of the intended user population. 

8. The public keys in certificates should not be used for multiple purposes (e.g., 

digital signatures and key establishment). However, TLS applications use the 

RSA server keys for both key agreement and server authentication, and this is 

acceptable because it is a carefully analyzed key agreement scheme. 

9. Systems shall be configured to use approved algorithms and key sizes. 

10. Federal government servers should be configured to include the following cipher 

suites: 

TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA 

TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA 

TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA 

TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA 

 

31 Uniform Resource Locator; the unique address for a file (e.g., a web page) that is accessible on the 

Internet. 

32 Note that some common desktop operating systems permit centralized management of root stores; 

however, many systems and browsers are shipped pre-configured with hundreds of root certificates preinstalled. 

49
TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA 

TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA. 

11. Federal government clients should be configured to include at least one of the 

following four cipher suites: 

TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA 

TLS_ECDH_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA 

TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA 

TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA 

and at least one of the following two cipher suites: 

 TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA 

TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA. 

4.5 Recommendations for System Administrators 

The System Administrator is the individual who runs the TLS/SSL application on a dayto-day basis and, on client implementations, interacts with the end user. This includes 

acquiring certificates for the server and assisting the user in acquiring certificates. The 

system administrator shall ensure that end users are properly trained and that the 

organization’s security policy for using the product is enforced. 

System administrators should: 

1. Obtain and install an appropriate server certificate with an appropriate strength 

public key that can be verified using the SHA-1, SHA-256 or SHA-384 hash 

algorithm. 

2. Maintain the server such that it only accepts approved algorithms and cipher 

suites that use 3TDES or AES for encryption. 

3. Configure the client system to provide the list of cipher suites to the server in the 

order of their preference with the most preferred cipher suite presented first and 

the least preferred cipher suite presented last. 

If client authentication is to be used, system administrators should: 

1. Maintain the root and intermediate certificate store for the intended client 

certificates, 

2. Support policy processing and path discovery according to organizational policy 

if they are used, and 

3. Support CRL or OCSP responder processing. 

4.6 Recommendations for End Users 

An end user is the individual using a client to access the system. End users shall: 

1. Operate their client systems as instructed by their organization and system 

administrator. 

50
2. Protect the private key associated with the public key contained in the user’s 

certificate if it is contained outside the client (e.g., on a smart card), as advised by 

the system administrator. 

3. Look for browser indicators that a secure session is in progress (e.g., Internet 

Explorer’s closed padlock) 

4. Verify that the site named in the certificate and displayed by the browser is 

consistent with the site that the end user is attempting to reach. 

51
5 Secure/Multipart Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) 

5.1 Description 

Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) provides a consistent way to 

send and receive secure Internet mail. S/MIME is a set of specifications that are defined 

by a series of IETF RFCs, namely RFC 3851 [RFC 3851]33, RFC 5652 [RFC 5652], RFC 

2045 [RFC 2045], RFC 2046 [RFC 2046], RFC 2047 [RFC 2047], RFC 2048 [RFC 

2048], and RFC 2049 [RFC 2049]. S/MIME provides the following cryptographic 

security services for electronic messaging applications: 

• Authentication of a sending party using digital signatures, 

• Message integrity and non-repudiation of origin using digital signatures, and 

• Confidentiality using encryption. 

S/MIME, therefore, requires a suite of algorithms for creating digital signatures, 

generating hash values, establishing keys and encrypting the content of the email, as well 

as some means of establishing and sharing digital identities. Federal implementations 

rely on a public key infrastructure, specifically X.509 PKI, to establish S/MIME user 

identities, to bind those identities to the user’s public key through public key certificates, 

to provide digital signatures and to provide keys to be used for content encryption or to 

establish symmetric keys for use on a per message basis. For detailed information on 

PKIs, see Section 2 of this Recommendation. 

Stored electronic mail encompasses key management issues associated with encrypted 

file integrity and with transmission over a network. It is therefore necessary 1) to 

establish pair-wise and/or multicast (sent to more than one recipient) key management 

relationships between the sender and receiver(s) and 2) to securely store the key(s) 

associated with encrypted email until it is no longer necessary for a recipient to be able to 

decrypt or verify the integrity of the email. 

S/MIME is not restricted to email; it can be used with any transport mechanism that 

employs MIME protocols, such as the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP). 

5.2 Security and Compliance Issues 

S/MIME products can be implemented with different combinations of security features 

and a variety of cryptographic algorithms. Senders and receivers may have different 

capabilities and may be sending messages protected with algorithms of different 

strengths. This can lead to numerous interoperability issues. Federal clients using secure 

email shall be able to perform the following: 

• Send and receive signed messages, 

• Send and receive encrypted messages, 

• Send and receive signed and encrypted messages, 

 

33 RFC 3851 is currently under revision. See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-smime-3851bis-11. 

52
• Request, send and process signed receipts, and 

• Process messages from secure email list clients (includes suppressing receipts, as 

required, and nondisclosure of list recipients, as required). 

Furthermore, Federal systems shall: 

• Utilize cryptographic modules that are FIPS 140-1 or FIPS 140-2 certified, 

• Support cryptographic suites ALS 1 and ALS 2 (see Tables 5-1 and 5-2 below), 

and

• Require X.509 certificates that conform to Federal PKI X.509 Certificates and the 

CRL Extensions Profile. 

Federal clients should be capable of sending and processing email with security labels 

and securely binding senders’ certificates to their signatures through the signing 

certificate attribute as described in RFC 5035 [RFC 5035].34 

The most widely accepted, standard S/MIME profile is [RFC 3851]35. Not all 

cryptographic algorithms available for use in support of these features are appropriate for 

the protection of Federal government information. The S/MIME specifications allow the 

selection of individual algorithms. However, a number of cipher suites have been 

specified to define a specific combination of algorithms. Federal organizations shall use 

approved algorithms within S/MIME implementations for key establishment and 

transmitting messages. Tables 5.1 through 5.7 specify a variety of cipher suites that may 

be used to protect Federal information and information systems ([SP 800-49], [RFC 

5008]). Any of the algorithms listed in the following tables may be used, in accordance 

with security strength time frame restrictions given in Part 1, to protect Federal 

information in combinations other than those displayed. 

Table 5-1: Cipher Suite 1 (ALS1) 

Mechanism Guidance 

Digital 

Signatures 

RSA with key sizes ≥ 1024 bits 

[FIPS 186-3] and [RFC 3447] 

Hash SHA-1 

[FIPS 180-3] 

Key Transport RSA with key sizes ≥ 1024 bits 

[RFC 3447] and [SP 800-56B] 

Encryption TDEA in CBC mode 

[RFC 3851] and [SP 800-67] 

 

34 Both of these services are defined in S/MIME V3 standards RFC 2634 [RFC 2634]. 

35 RFC 3851 is currently under revision. See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-smime-3851bis-11. 

53
Table 5-2: Cipher Suite 2 (ALS2) 

Mechanism Guidance 

Digital 

Signatures 

DSA with; key sizes ≥ 1024 bits 

[FIPS186-3] 

Hash SHA-1 

[FIPS 180-3] 

Key Transport RSA with key sizes ≥ 1024 bits 

[RFC 3447] and [SP 800-56B]

Encryption TDEA in CBC mode 

[RFC 3851] and [SP 800-67] 

Table 5-3: Cipher Suite 3 (ALS3) 

Mechanism Guidance 

Digital 

Signatures 

RSA with keys ≥ 1024 bits 

[FIPS 186-3] and [RFC 3447] 

Hash SHA-1 

[FIPS 180-3] 

Key Transport RSA with key sizes ≥ 1024 bits 

[RFC 3447] and [SP 800-56B] 

Encryption AES-128 in CBC mode 

[FIPS 197] and [SP 800-38A] 

Table 5-4: Cipher Suite 4 (ALS4) 

Mechanism Guidance 

Digital 

Signatures 

DSA with key sizes ≥ 1024bits 

[FIPS186-3] 

Hash SHA-1 

[FIPS 180-3] 

Key 

Agreement 

Diffie-Hellman 

[RFC 2631] and [SP 800-56A] 

Encryption TDEA in CBC mode 

[RFC 3851], [SP 800-38A] and [SP 800-67] 

54
Table 5-5: Cipher Suite 5 (ALS5) 

Mechanism Guidance 

Digital 

Signatures 

DSA with key sizes ≥ 1024 bits 

[FIPS 186-3] 

Hash SHA-256 

[FIPS 180-3] 

Key 

Agreement 

Diffie-Hellman 

[RFC 2631] and [SP 800-56A] 

Encryption AES in CBC mode

[FIPS 197] and [SP 800-38A] 

Table 5-6: Cipher Suite B, Level 1* 

Mechanism Guidance 

Digital 

Signatures 

ECDSA with P-256 

[X9.62] 

Hash SHA-256 

[FIPS 180-3] 

Key 

Agreement 

ECDH with P-256 

[SEC1] 

Key 

Derivation 

Based on SHA-256 

[SEC1] 

Key Wrap AES-128 

[RFC 3394] 

Encryption AES-128 in CBC mode 

[FIPS 197] and [SP 800-38A] 

*see [RFC 5008] 

Table 5-7: Cipher Suite B, Level 2* 

Mechanism Guidance 

Digital 

Signatures 

ECDSA with P-384 

[X9.62] 

Hash SHA-384 

[FIPS 180-3] 

Key 

Agreement 

ECDH with P-384 

[SEC1] 

Key 

Derivation 

Based on SHA-384 

[SEC1] 

Key Wrap AES-256 

[RFC 3394] 

Encryption AES-256 in CBC mode 

[FIPS 197] and [SP 800-38A] 

* see [RFC 5008] 

55
Note that after 2010, Federal systems shall not use SHA-1 as a hash algorithm for digital 

signatures. Also, at that time, algorithm and key size requirements may also change. 

(See SP 800-57 Part 1.) 

Federal clients shall be supported by a Public Key Infrastructure with valid Federal PKI 

X.509 certificates for senders and receivers. 

Cryptographic modules used in Federal systems shall comply with FIPS 140-2.

Federal S/MIME implementations may, in accordance with organizational policies, be 

capable of receiving messages protected with algorithm suites that are not approved for 

Federal use in sending protected messages. In those instances, users should be presented 

with a warning banner explaining that the cryptographic mechanisms used are weak and, 

therefore, integrity and authentication cannot be assured. 

5.3 Procurement Guidance 

The following recommendations are for any individual that makes a purchasing decision 

for acquiring an S/MIME-enabled component. 

1. In support of security and compatibility across the Federal government, all 

Federal information systems shall support ALS 1 and ALS 2. 

2. Procurement officials should buy products that support hash algorithms that 

provide more protection for digital signatures than SHA-1, such as ALS 5, Cipher 

Suite B level 1 and Cipher Suite B level 2 (see FIPS 180-3 [FIPS 180-3]). 

3. Federal clients should support MD5 and RC2 in the event that users receive 

correspondence signed or encrypted with these weaker, unapproved algorithms. 

4. Federal agencies shall not use SHA-1 for digital signatures after 2010. Therefore, 

when selecting a product with S/MIME functionality, procurement officials 

should consider organizational needs for cryptography beyond 2010 and 

purchase for the future. Cryptographic algorithm implementations should be 

modular so as to allow for new algorithms. 

5. If an S/MIME client needs to generate a key pair, then the S/MIME client or some 

related administrative utility or function shall be capable of generating public 

private key pairs on behalf of the user. 

5.4 Recommendations for System Installers 

The system installer is the individual that installs the S/MIME application and performs 

the initial configuration of the system. 

1. Federal clients shall be configured to support cipher suites ALS1 and ALS2 for 

interoperability as described above in Section 5.2. 

56
2. In accordance with security requirements beyond 2010, Federal clients shall be 

configured to support cipher suites with algorithms and key size requirements as 

described in SP 800-57, Part 1. 

3. Systems shall be configured so that they only permit the use of approved 

cryptographic algorithms and approved key sizes to encrypt or sign new 

messages. 

4. Installers should install and configure S/MIME clients such that they default to 

the use of an approved cipher algorithm suite. Furthermore, installers should

configure clients such that there is a straightforward means for end users to 

change default settings and select algorithms as needed for interoperability and in 

accordance with organizational needs and policies. 

5. System installers should configure clients such that end users can use unique 

certificates for each security function (e.g., encryption, digital signatures) at their 

disposal. 

5.5 Recommendations for System Administrators 

The System Administrator is the individual who runs the S/MIME application on a dayto-day basis and, on client implementations, interacts with the end user. 

1. The system administrator shall ensure that end users are properly trained and that 

the organization’s security policy is enforced. 

2. In accordance with security requirements beyond 2010, Federal clients shall be 

maintained to support cipher suites with algorithms and key size requirements as 

described in SP 800-57 Part 1. 

3. Systems shall be maintained so that they only permit the use of approved 

cryptographic algorithms and approved key sizes to encrypt or sign new 

messages. 

4. Administrators should maintain S/MIME clients such that they default to the use 

of an approved cipher algorithm suite. Furthermore, administrators should

maintain a straightforward means for end users to change default settings and 

select algorithms as needed for interoperability and in accordance with 

organizational needs and policies. 

5. System administrators should provide training for users on the relative security 

provided by various cryptographic algorithms and on organizational policies for 

their use. 

57
6. System administrators should provide end users with guidance on how 

certificates and keys are stored and managed, and identify the end user’s related 

responsibilities. 

5.6 Recommendations for End Users 

An end user is the individual using a client to access the system. Even within a centrally 

managed environment, end users may find that they have a significant amount of control 

over some of the security features within an SMIME implementation. 

1. Users shall operate their system as instructed by their organization and system 

administrators. 

2. Users should use unique certificates for each security function at their disposal.36 

3. Users shall protect their private keys from unauthorized disclosure. 

4. Users should not send the same message both encrypted and in plain text. 

 

36 If they have not been supplied with certificates by their home organizations, users can obtain certificates 

from a number of organizations via the web. 

58
6 Kerberos 

6.1 Description 

The Kerberos authentication mechanism was developed at MIT to enable the secure 

authentication of users to Target Servers (TSs) over an unprotected network, where client 

software acts on behalf of a user37. The original design and implementation of Kerberos 

and its first three revisions (i.e., versions 1 through 4) was primarily the work of Steve 

Miller, Clifford Neuman, Jerome Saltzer and Jeffrey Schiller38. Kerberos is used for 

local logins, remote (over the network) authentication, and for client-to-TS requests. It 

can also be extended to provide for the establishment of cryptographic keys between a 

client and a TS. Kerberos has been designed so that a user and a TS rely on a trusted third 

party to provide assurance of each party’s identity. This assurance is granted by means of 

tickets and authentication information, each encrypted with symmetric keys. 

The trusted third party is a Key Distribution Center (KDC), which consists of an 

Authentication Server (AS) and a Ticket Granting Service (TGS). The AS and TGS may 

or may not reside on the same machine. The KDC has a database of user, TS, and TGS 

symmetric keys. All KDC symmetric keys are accessible by the TGS. The user’s key is 

normally created by hashing a user’s password with other information. 

An overview of the Kerberos version 5 protocol is shown in Figure 6-1. The following is 

a simplification of the process (e.g., the generation of most keys and the use of most 

cryptographic operations are not specified). For example, tickets and authentication 

information are protected with checksums and encryption when transmitted. 

1. A user logs onto a client by entering a password, from which a user symmetric 

key is generated. 

2. The client, acting on behalf of the user, requests a Ticket Granting Ticket from the 

AS. 

3. The AS generates a Ticket Granting Ticket, for a specified validity period, and 

sends it to the client. 

4. The client provides the Ticket Granting Ticket to the TGS, along with his own 

authentication information, which includes the client identifier and a time stamp. 

5. The TGS checks the authentication information and the validity period of the 

Ticket Granting Ticket. The TGS then generates a Target Server Ticket and sends 

it to the client. 

6. The client sends authentication information and the Target Server Ticket to the 

TS. 

 

37 Note that a single client implementation may be used by multiple users, and a single user may use 

multiple client implementations (e.g., a user could access different workstations, each with its own client 

implementation). 

38 The design was based in part upon a protocol proposed by Needham and Schroeder [NEED] with 

modifications provided by Denning and Sacco [DENN]. For more detail on the goals, motivations, and 

rationale of Kerberos see [NEUM]. 

59
7. The TS checks the authentication information and the validity period of the Target 

Server Ticket; if the information is reasonable, the user is authenticated to the TS. 

The protocol may be extended to authenticate the TS to the user, and a ticket may be reused within its validity period. 

1

23 5 4

TS

AS

Client

TGS

1. User-Client Interface

2. Request for Ticket Granting Ticket

3. Ticket Granting Ticket

4. Request for Target Server Ticket

5. Target Server Ticket

6. Request for Service

6

User

KDC

Figure 6-1: The Kerberos Protocol 

Each TGS has its own “realm” of clients and TSs. However, different realms may be 

linked by the sharing of inter-realm keys between TGS's (see Figure 6-2). A client in 

Realm 1 wishing a service on a TS in Realm 2 may obtain a ticket from TGS1 that 

introduces the client to TGS2. This ticket is encrypted with the inter-realm key shared 

between TGS1 and TGS2. The client can then request a ticket from TGS2 for the desired 

service on the TS in Realm 2. Thus, realms may be networked to provide clients with 

inter-realm services. 

60
1

4

2 3

5

TS

Realm2

AS

Realm1

Client

Realm1

TGS1

Realm1

1. User-Client Interface

2. Request for Ticket Granting Ticket

3. Ticket Granting Ticket for TGS1

4. Request for Ticket Granting Ticket

5. Ticket Granting Ticket for TGS2

6. Request for Target Server Ticket 

7. Target Server Ticket for TS

8. Request for Service

6

User

TGS2

Realm2

7

8

Figure 6-2: Cross-Realm Authentication 

In an alternative Kerberos protocol between the client and the AS (as specified in RFC 

4556 [RFC 4556]), either both the user and the AS have key establishment public key 

pairs with corresponding certificates, or the user has a key establishment key pair and 

associated certificate, and the AS has a digital signature key pair and digital signature 

certificate. The user symmetric key can then be established between the client and the 

KDC in one of two ways: 

1. using key agreement (e.g., Diffie-Hellman) between the AS and the client39, or 

2. using key transport (e.g., RSA), where the AS generates the user symmetric key, 

and sends the key to the client40. 

Once the user symmetric key is established, the remainder of the protocol proceeds as 

previously described. The need for user symmetric keys generated from passwords can 

thus be avoided. 

6.2 Security and Compliance Issues 

1. Kerberos version 5 was initially specified in RFC 1510 [RFC 1510]. More 

recently, the security was updated in version 5; see RFC 4120 [RFC 4120]; 

however, many existing implementations still correspond to the initial RFC. 

 

39 In this case, both the user and the AS have key establishment key pairs. 

40 In this case, the user has a key establishment key pair, and the AS has a digital signature key pair. 

61
2. Many current Kerberos implementations based on RFC 1510 rely on DES for 

symmetric encryption functions. DES is no longer approved for use in protecting 

Federal government information. 

3. If a keyless checksum computation is used for the data integrity of Kerberos 

messages, the integrity of the message may be inadequate. 

4. Some Kerberos implementations rely solely on the entropy (i.e., randomness) 

provided by the user password to generate the symmetric client key (the client key 

is a hash of the user’s password). Passwords, in general, do not provide enough 

randomness for generating a key. In such cases, a dictionary attack41 is feasible. 

If passwords are used to generate cryptographic keys, they should be selected to 

maximize the difficulty of a password guessing attack, thus increasing the 

difficulty of an off-line dictionary attack; see SP 800-118 [SP 800-118].42

5. Compromising the client, KDC, or TS could compromise the symmetric keys that 

they contain and thereby compromise parts of the system. In particular, the KDC 

stores keying information for all the KDC users, the TGS, and any TS that 

communicates directly with the KDC TGS. These symmetric keys require 

protection that is commensurate with the protection required for the data that they 

protect (e.g., tickets, other keys, authentication information, and shared data). 

6. The TGS has read-only access to the KDC database. If the TGS and database do 

not reside on the same machine, a secure channel is required for the TGS to obtain 

the required TS keys. 

7. A failure of the AS or the TGS would prevent all AS users from obtaining new 

tickets and corresponding new services. 

8. Clocks must be synchronized in order to accurately assess the validity of clock 

authentication information and tickets. If the TS is running late, then previous 

authentication information and tickets could be played back to the TS after they 

have expired. 

6.3 Procurement Guidance 

The following recommendations are for any individual that makes a purchasing decision 

for acquiring a Kerberos capability. 

1. New procurements shall conform to version 5; see RFC 4120. 

 

41 A dictionary attack is a technique for guessing a password by selecting candidate passwords from a list 

of words commonly found in a dictionary, or derived from words commonly found in a dictionary. Each 

selected candidate is tested as though it were the actual password until the result of the test indicates that 

the correct password has been selected. 

42 SP 800-118 Guide to Enterprise Password Management is currently under development. The current 

draft can be found at http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsSPs.html. 

62
2. Government procurements shall specify the inclusion of approved symmetric key 

encryption algorithms (e.g., the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)) RFC 3962 

[RFC 3962]. 

3. An approved MAC computation (e.g., HMAC-SHA1) shall be available for data 

integrity with encryption (see RFC 3962). 

4. Kerberos version 5 permits the use of smart cards or tokens (e.g., FIPS 201 

Personal Identity Verification cards, [FIPS 201]) to store a user's password. 

Passwords stored on tokens shall be randomly generated; therefore, when tokens 

are used, a means of generating random passwords and securely writing them on 

the token shall be available. When tokens are used, manual entry of passwords 

shall not be permitted except to authenticate the user to the token. 

5. If passwords are used to form user symmetric keys, then the password mechanism 

shall support the use of strong passwords; see SP 800-118,42 and an approved 

hash algorithm (e.g., SHA-1 or stronger) shall be used as the hash algorithm. 

6. If passwords are generated by users, then the system software shall enforce a 

strong password policy in accordance with SP 800-118.42

7. Kerberos with public key authentication and subsequent key establishment can 

provide stronger security than the use of password-based keys and should be 

available where PKI mechanisms are available. See RFC 4556 for further 

information. 

8. Procurement officials should consider whether inter-realm networking is 

necessary and include the capability in the software if it’s needed. 

9. Cryptographic modules used by CAs, TSs and clients shall be validated at FIPS 

140-2 Level 1 or higher. 

6.4 Recommendations for System Installers 

The system installer is any individual(s) that installs a Kerberos capability and performs 

the initial configuration of the system. 

1. New systems shall conform to version 5; see RFC 4120. 

2. Government systems shall be configured so that approved algorithms (e.g., AES) 

shall be used (see RFC 3962), and DES shall not be used. 

3. An approved MAC checksum (e.g., HMAC-SHA1) shall be installed and used in 

all implementations for data integrity purposes; see RFC 3962. 

4. The AS, TGS, TSs, and clients shall use strong access control mechanisms43

(physical and logical) for protecting and updating keys. 

 

43 Strong access control mechanisms either prevent or detect unauthorized attempts to access or replace 

sensitive data. These controls may be physical (e.g., locks, guards, or alarms) or logical (e.g., encryption, 

data integrity, or entity authentication). 

63
5. Kerberos version 5 permits the use of smart cards or tokens (e.g., FIPS 

201 Personal Identity Verification cards) to store a user's password. 

Passwords stored on tokens shall be randomly generated; therefore, when 

tokens are used, a means of generating random passwords and securely 

writing them on the token shall be used. When tokens are used, 

manual entry of passwords shall not be permitted except to authenticate 

the user to the token. 

6. Kerberos with public key-based user authentication and key establishment can 

provide stronger security than password-based keys and should be installed where 

PKI mechanisms are available and the software has the capability. See RFC 4556 

for further information. 

7. If user passwords are generated by the system, the system shall generate strong 

passwords; see SP 800-118.42

8. If passwords are used to form user symmetric keys, then an approved hash 

algorithm (e.g., SHA-1 or stronger) shall be used as the password hashing 

algorithm. 

9. If user passwords are used to generate cryptographic keys, the password 

mechanism shall be configured to use and require strong passwords; see SP 800-

118.42

10. A backup AS and TGS should be provided so as to minimize the impact in case 

of operational failure or denial-of-service attacks. 

11. Clocks should be synchronized periodically and whenever a new system is 

brought on-line44. 

6.5 Recommendations for System Administrators 

The System Administrator is any individual(s) who runs a system with a Kerberos 

capability on a day-to-day basis and interacts with the end user. 

1. System administrators shall ensure that users are properly trained and that the 

organization’s security policy is enforced. 

2. The AS, TGS, TS, and client shall be physically secured. 

3. Tickets shall be encrypted or physically protected at the client, TS, and TGS sites. 

4. If the passwords are generated by the user, then the system administrator shall

develop a policy for selecting strong passwords that is enforced by the software; 

see SP 800-118.42

5. System clocks shall be periodically verified to ensure synchronization. 

 

44 (see http://www.nist.time.gov). 

64
6.6 Recommendations for End Users 

An end user is the individual using the Kerberos capability. 

1. If user-selected passwords are allowed, they shall be generated in accordance 

with the organization’s password policy.

2. Users shall protect their password from unauthorized disclosure. If a token 

containing a password or key is provided, users shall protect the token from 

unauthorized use. Users shall report the loss of physical tokens or the 

compromise of passwords. 

 

 

65
7 Over-The-Air Rekeying (OTAR) Key Management Messages 

(KMMs) 

7.1 Description 

A key management protocol has been specified for over-the-air rekeying of digital radios 

(OTAR) [OTAR]. This protocol has been designed to handle several types of 

cryptographic security, one of which, Type 3, has been designed for unclassified, 

sensitive communications and is discussed herein. The only differences between the 

security types are the cryptographic algorithms used and the security requirements. The 

Type 3 algorithms and security requirements are addressed in both OTAR and OTAR1 

[OTAR1]45. 

For key management, a secure mobile system consists of Key Management Facilities 

(KMFs) and mobile radios that are subordinate to each KMF. Key Management 

Messages (KMMs) are exchanged between each KMF and its subordinate mobile radios 

(see Figure 7-1). Cryptographic keys are transferred from a KMF to a mobile radio, 

protected using a key-wrapping algorithm and key wrapping key; many of the KMMs are 

protected by encrypting the data in the messages; the integrity of the messages is 

protected using a Message Authentication Code (MAC). 

Key Management

Facility

O O O O

Mobile Radio Mobile Radio

KMMs

O O Portable Radio

: Normal radio communications (i.e., no KMMs)

Figure 7-1: Radio Communications with OTAR 

 

45 [OTAR] provides an overview of the key management techniques and the protocol. [OTAR1] specifies 

the general security requirements for transmitting Type 3 key management messages (KMMs), the 

requirements for wrapping the keys, the techniques used for KMM integrity and the mechanism used to 

protect against replay of the KMMs. 

66
Three general types of keys are used in OTAR: a Key-Wrapping Key (KWK)46, a 

Traffic-Encryption Key (TEK) and a key to be used for the computation of a Message 

Authentication Code (MAC). 

7.2 Security and Compliance Issues 

7.2.1 Cryptographic Algorithms 

Although the protocol has been designed to allow the use of any block cipher algorithm 

to apply the cryptographic protection, only three block cipher algorithms have been 

included in the specification: DES, TDEA and AES. 

Approval for DES has been withdrawn because DES no longer provides the security that 

is needed to protect Federal government information. 

TDEA, as specified in SP 800-67, uses three DES encryption/decryption operations with 

a “key bundle” consisting of three separate DES keys. Two versions of TDEA have been 

included in the OTAR specification: a one-key version, whereby all three keys are the 

same for compatibility with DES, and a three-key version (3-TDEA), whereby the three 

keys are different. Since DES is no longer considered secure, the one-key version of the 

TDEA is also no longer considered secure. 

7.2.2 Message Authentication and Cryptoperiods 

A Message Authentication Code (MAC) is used to authenticate and protect the integrity 

of many of the KMMs as specified in OTAR1, using the CBC-MAC mode of operation. 

The security of a MAC depends, in part, on the block size of the MAC algorithm. AES 

has a larger block size than 3-TDEA, and so the security of AES CBC-MAC is better 

than 3-TDEA CBC-MAC. The OTAR documentation provides no guidance on the length 

of cryptoperiods (i.e., the number of messages or the length of time that a key may be 

used before it must be changed). 

For AES, the number of messages that can be authenticated using a given key is, in 

practice, not an issue. However, AES keys shall be periodically updated because of other 

threats to the system, e.g., lost radios or an undetected compromise of a key. 

When using 3-TDEA, no more than 1,000,000 messages shall be sent using a given key 

because of threats to the security of the algorithm. However, like AES, it may be prudent 

to update the 3-TDEA keys more frequently because of other threats to the system. 

 

46 A Key Wrapping Key may also be referred to as a Key Encryption Key (KEK). 

67
7.2.3 Key Usage 

Part 1 of this Recommendation states that keys should be used for only one purpose.47

However, OTAR1 states that the key used to generate a MAC must be either a key 

reserved for authentication and integrity protection purposes, or a key derived from a 

Traffic-Encryption Key (TEK) using a key wrapping algorithm. In this latter case, note 

that the TEK might be used for both encryption and for key derivation. In order to 

comply with the recommendation to use a key for only one purpose, the MAC key 

should be a key reserved for a single purpose. 

7.2.4 Backup 

The KMF should backup all keying material shared with and among the mobile radios so 

that it can be recovered if necessary. When a key is no longer required, it should be 

deleted from both normal operational storage and backup storage. 

7.2.5 Rekeying 

Procedures shall be in place to rekey all radios in the network in the event of a key 

compromise. If a radio is lost, procedures shall enable rekeying other radios in the 

network so that the lost radio no longer has the capability of communicating securely 

with other radios in the network. 

7.2.6 Random bit generators 

Keys shall be generated at the KMF using an approved random bit generator that 

provides sufficient randomness for the desired security strength of the cryptographic 

processes; see SP 800-90. 

7.3 Procurement Guidance 

The following recommendations are for any individual(s) that makes a purchasing 

decision for acquiring OTAR equipment. 

1. Procurements shall include the AES or TDEA algorithm. 

2. If TDEA is provided in an implementation, the three-key version shall be included. 

3. Procurements that include TDEA shall be capable of limiting the number of uses of a 

single TDEA key bundle to 1,000,000.48

4. KMFs and radios shall conform to OTAR and OTAR1. 

 

47 There is an allowed exception to this rule, but it does not apply to OTAR (see Section 5.2 in Part 1). 

48 See Section 7.2.2. 

68
5. When keys are generated within KMFs, they shall be generated using approved 

random bit generators. 

6. Cryptographic modules used by the KMF and the mobile radios shall be validated at 

FIPS 140-2 Level 1 or higher. 

7. KMFs shall include backup and archive capabilities to support reconstitution of the 

KMF in the event of a disaster (e.g., fire, earthquake). 

7.4 Recommendations for System Installers 

The system installer is the individual(s) that installs an OTAR capability and performs 

the initial configuration of the system components. 

1. The KMF shall use and have strong physical and logical access control mechanisms 

to protect the cryptographic keys (e.g., physical locks, alarms or password token). 

2. Backup KMFs should be provided, along with a strategy and procedures to transition 

from a primary KMF to a backup KMF, and from a backup KMF to the primary 

KMF. 

3. A TEK should not be used for multiple purposes. Reserved MAC keys should be 

used for message authentication and integrity protection. 

4. Maximum cryptoperiods for each key type shall be determined at the KMF in 

accordance with the organization’s security policy and Section 7.2.2. 

5. Radios shall be accounted for; in the case of a lost or stolen radio, an assessment of 

the effect of a loss of the keys contained in that radio shall be made. The use of any 

key contained in that radio shall be discontinued. Procedures shall be in place for 

replacing these keys if used by the KMF or by other radios. 

6. Implementations shall be configured to use the AES or TDEA algorithms, and to 

disallow the use of DES. 

7. If TDEA is provided and is to be used, the three-key version shall be used, and the 

one-key version shall not be used. 

8. For implementations using TDEA in which the cryptoperiod of a key bundle is 

configurable, the cryptoperiod shall be set to a value less than 1,000,000 messages. 

7.5 Recommendations for System Administrators 

The System Administrator is the individual who manages the OTAR system or its 

components on a day-to-day basis and interacts with the end users. 

1. System administrators shall ensure that the organization’s security policy is enforced. 

69
2. System administrators shall protect the keying material from disclosure and 

modification. 

3. Procedures shall be in place for replacing keys at the end of their cryptoperiod. 

4. To maintain the availability of the KMF, system administrators shall ensure that 

sufficient information is stored in a secure location to reconstitute the KMF after a 

disaster. 

5. System administrators shall train end users in the use of their radios and the 

procedures to be followed in the case of lost radios or suspected key compromises. 

6. Audit logs should be maintained at the KMF with sufficient information to indicate 

which keys are shared by which radios. 

 

7.6 Recommendations for End Users 

An end user is the individual using a radio that has an OTAR capability. 

1. End Users shall operate radios as instructed by their organization and system 

administrators. 

2. End users shall protect their radios from loss and unauthorized access. 

3. In the event that a radio is lost or a key is suspected of being compromised, end users 

shall immediately notify the system administrator in accordance with the 

organization’s security policy. 

70
8 Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) 

8.1 Description 

Domain Name System (DNS), as defined in [RFC 1034] and [RFC 1035], is the global 

hierarchical distributed database system for mapping Internet addresses, SMTP servers, 

and other information to a human readable name. Its main purpose is handling mappings 

between host domain names and Internet addresses, but it can handle other forms of data 

as well, such as host system information, geographic-location of servers, even encoded 

digital certificates. DNS data is stored as individual Resource Records (RR) that 

associates a piece of data (e.g., IP address, mail server name) with a domain name and an 

identifying Resource Record type code (RR type). All the RRs for a particular 

organization are stored in an administrative unit called a zone. Multiple zones form a 

domain. A domain is hierarchical, in that one zone may act as a delegating parent to one 

or more child delegated zones. For example, most Federal agencies are child delegations 

under the “.gov” parent zone. 

Zone information is maintained on authoritative servers, which are distributed all over 

the Internet to answer queries according to the DNS network protocols. The DNS 

infrastructure is comprised of a small group (or single server) known as a primary master 

authoritative server that has a local zone database, and multiple secondary servers that 

obtain their copies of the zone database from the primary authoritative master server. 

Another set of components are caching recursive servers49, which query the authoritative 

servers and cache any replies. On the end user’s client system, software components 

known as resolvers make DNS queries to recursive caches and/or authoritative servers. 

Figure 8-1 depicts the relationship between the DNS components. 

Primary 

Authoritative 

Server 

End User 

Resolver 

Query/Response 

(DNSSEC) 

Query/Response 

(DNSSEC) Query/Response 

(DNSSEC) 

Caching 

Server 

Secondary 

Authoritative

Server 

Zone Transfer 

(TSIG) 

Figure 8-1: DNS Components 

The basic DNS does not have many security features; see SP 800-81 [SP 800-81]. A 

suite of RFCs has been developed to provide security enhancements contained in three 

 

49 Caching Recursive Server is sometimes shortened to “caching server” or “recursive server”. However, 

the role remains the same. 

71
IETF documents, collectively called the DNS security extensions (DNSSEC) [RFC 4033, 

RFC 4034, and RFC 4035]. DNSSEC provides a layer of authentication and integrity 

protection for any kind of data stored in the DNS, including data used by other protocols. 

For example, there are RR types allocated for storing Secure Shell (SSH) keys in the 

DNS, which then rely on DNSSEC to protect the integrity of that information. 

8.1.1 DNS Data Authentication 

Cryptographically generated public key-based digital signatures provide authentication 

for DNS data. Commonly, there will be two or more digital signature public key pairs 

(which make up the key set) used to implement DNSSEC in a zone. One key pair is used 

to sign the zone data (referred to as the Zone Signing Key or ZSK), and a separate key 

pair is used to sign the zone key set (known as the Key Signing Key or KSK). This KSK 

is also known as the Secure Entry Point (SEP) key for the zone – using it, a client can 

authenticate the ZSK (by validating the signature over the ZSK using the KSK public 

key), and then use the ZSK to authenticate the zone data. The KSK is also used to link 

the security chain50 from the zone to its delegating parent. Since the KSK is used to link 

security from the zone (e.g. “example.gov”) to the delegating parent zone (e.g. “.gov”) 

[RFC 4035], it is often longer lived, and used infrequently (used only to sign the zone key 

set). Multiple digital signature algorithms can be supported, so there may be multiple 

keys (one for each algorithm), as there is no algorithm negotiation in DNSSEC, and 

clients may only understand certain digital signature algorithms. There is one 

mandatory-to-implement algorithm as defined by the IETF, so there is at least one 

agreed-upon digital signature algorithm that all servers and clients will understand. 

When this document was published, the only mandatory-to-implement algorithm to use 

with DNSSEC data authentication is RSA using SHA-1 as a hash algorithm.51 When the 

use of SHA-256 (or greater) is included in the specification, there shall be an immediate 

transition plan to migrate from the use of RSA with SHA-1 to the use of RSA with SHA256 (see FIPS 180-3) for DNS data authentication. However, both hash algorithms (i.e., 

SHA-1 and SHA-256) should be used to generate digital signatures for DNS data for a 

period of time to ensure that client systems that cannot validate RSA with SHA-256 can 

still authenticate DNS data. The length of this transition period depends on the 

widespread availability and deployment of client system software that understands RSA 

with SHA-256. 

8.1.2 DNS Transaction Authentication 

Additional authentication mechanisms are used for server-server communication and 

administrative control. Transaction authentication is performed by computing an HMAC 

 

50 The security chain (also referred to as “chain of authentication”) is the collection of digital signatures and 

public keys that can be used to trace a logical path from the data to be validated back to a trusted, installed 

public key on the client, see SP 800-81. This chain of public keys and signatures is similar to a PKI 

certificate chain (see Section 2.1), but entirely contained within the DNS. 

51 Note that the transition away from SHA-1 in 2011 is necessary when the hash function is used for digital 

signatures, but not when used for HMAC. 

72
over the entire DNS message and a secret random string that is known by both 

authoritative DNS servers in the transaction, and transmitting the result in a Transaction 

Signature (TSIG) RR appended to the original message. Transaction authentication is 

usually used for special transactions, such as zone transfers or dynamic updates. A zone 

transfer is a special query type that is used to keep secondary authoritative servers up-todate with the most recent version of the zone data. Dynamic update is a feature that 

allows an authorized administrator to add or delete DNS data by sending a specially 

formatted message. This is frequently used in local area networks where the Dynamic 

Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) is used to assign IP addresses dynamically. The 

DHCP server may update the DNS server by sending a dynamic update message to 

reflect network changes. 

The currently defined algorithm used in TSIG authentication is HMAC using SHA-1. 

This is deemed acceptable for current security practices when using HMAC with a 

suitably random secret string; see SP 800-90. Newer implementations allow for stronger 

hash algorithms to be used (SHA-256 and stronger) and may be used when available. All 

DNS server administrators taking part in the transaction must agree on which algorithm 

and secret string size will be used for transaction authentication and must ensure that all 

parties have the same secret random string (which may include out-of-band transactions 

to distribute keys). 

8.1.3 DNS Cryptographic Algorithms/Schemes, Modes and Combinations 

DNS does not support algorithms in isolation, but specifies suites of algorithms and 

schemes. Algorithm/scheme combinations for zone data signing and for message 

authentication are provided in Tables 8-1 and 8-2: 

Table 8-1: Recommended Algorithm and Scheme Combinations for Zone Data 

Signing 

Suite Authentication Digest IETF 

Status 

Approved for 

Federal Use52

RSA_SHA1 RSA SHA-1 Mandatory YES 

DSA_SHA1 DSA SHA-1 Optional YES 

RSA_SHA256 RSA SHA-256 Optional YES 

RSA_SHA512 RSA SHA-512 Optional YES 

 

52 Refer to Part 1 of this guide for approved key lengths and for algorithm lifetimes. 

73
Table 8-2: Recommended Message Authentication Algorithms 

Suite IETF status Approved for 

Federal Use 

HMAC_SHA1 Mandatory YES 

HMAC_SHA256 Optional YES 

GSS_TSIG53 Optional YES 

It should be noted that HMAC-MD5.SIG-ALG.REG.INT is a suite that is widely 

implemented and often set as the default choice. However, it shall not be used for 

Federal implementations. Since TSIG message authentication is used between servers 

where there is an existing trust relationship, the administrators must agree to the method 

used and the secret (random) string used with the TSIG method. 

Currently, there are plans for migrating to SHA-256 and SHA-512 by the IETF 

community for use with RSA in zone data signing. The registry maintained by the 

Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) function for DNSSEC algorithm codes has 

several entries available for use, but the use of SHA-256 has yet to be finalized and 

implemented in current software. However, the use of SHA-256 is encouraged and 

should be considered when supported by DNSSEC software. There should be a 

transition period when SHA-1 and SHA-256 would both be used to ensure that clients 

that are non-SHA-256-aware could still validate signatures until they are upgraded. 

Due to message size constraints (See Section 8.1.4 below), large RSA keys may result in 

DNS transaction failures that are often interpreted by clients as DNS failures. It is 

recommended to move to a digital signature algorithm that has the same level of security 

with smaller sized keys, such as ECDSA or similar. As of the time of writing this 

document, there is some progress in the IETF to provide ECC support to DNSSEC, but it 

is not finalized. It is recommended that DNS administrators plan to migrate to ECDSA 

for zone signing by Oct 1st 2015 or plan to migrate earlier as soon as it becomes available 

in DNS software components. 

8.1.4 Special Considerations for Key Sizes 

There are some special considerations needed when choosing the size of the RSA 

DNSSEC signing keys. Early deployments have shown that large RSA keys can result in 

other protocol issues, such as response messages that are too large to fit in a standard 

UDP packet. DNSSEC requires the use of larger DNS packet sizes up to 4KB, but 

practical limits are around 1500 bytes or less. 

It is recommended that DNS administrators maintain 1024 bit RSA/SHA-1 and/or 

RSA/SHA-256 ZSK’s until Oct 1st 2015, or until it is proven that the majority of routers, 

caches and other network middleboxes can handle packet sizes over 1500 bytes (if before 

2015). However, 1024-bit RSA keys are allowed until the 2015 date to accommodate 

 

53 Generic Security Service Algorithm for Secret Key Transaction Authentication (GSS-TSIG [RFC3645]) 

may be found in some server implementations 

74
older versions DNS clients that may be older network components which cannot handle 

UDP packets with sizes over 1500 bytes. This exception on RSA key sizes does not apply 

to Key Signing Keys. KSK’s shall follow the guidance set in Part 1 of this guide. 

It is recommended that zone administrators migrate DNSSEC zone signing algorithms to 

ECDSA (or similar) by 2015 or when support for ECDSA appears in DNSSEC 

components, whichever is sooner. 

To minimize the risk when using 1024 bit RSA ZSK’s with DNSSEC, ZSK’s should be 

changed more frequently: every 1-3 months, with a signature validity period of 5-7 days. 

The ZSK rollover sequence discussed in the NIST Special Publication 800-81 [SP 800-

81] is recommended to maintain a valid chain of authentication in DNS data. 

8.1.5 Special Considerations for NSEC3 

There is a special varient to DNSSEC that minimizes the risk of information leakage and 

is known as the Hashed Next Secure (NSEC3) RR; see RFC 5155 [RFC 5155]. In 

DNSSEC, a client can map the contents of the zone by sending a series of queries for the 

Next Secure (NSEC) RR type found in error messages. These NSEC RRs provide signed 

proof that the queried name did not exist, but also provides two names that do exist in the 

zone as part of that proof. NSEC3 attempts to minimize this information leakage of zone 

names by using the hash values of the two existing names (currently using SHA-1 only). 

However, this requires the server and client to be able to perform multiple SHA-1 hash 

calculations during runtime; note that this method could be used to mount a Denial of 

Service attack against the server if multiple requests are made. 

NSEC3 was designed to solve a specific class of information leakage that could lead to a 

complete mapping of network resources in a DNS zone. NSEC3 deployment risks are 

often greater than the usefulness provided by using NSEC3, unless there is an overriding 

need to deploy NSEC3 beyond zone content protection (examples include protecting 

personally indentifying information that may be contained in the DNS). However, it is a 

good idea to use NSEC3-aware client software, because a client may access a zone that 

uses NSEC3 RRs with DNSSEC. 

As with other issues in DNSSEC involving secure hash algorithms, SHA-1 is the most 

widely used algorithm. As of the time of writing, SHA-256 has yet to be widely 

implemented. System installers and administrators should develop a transition plan to 

migrate from SHA-1 to SHA-256 when SHA-256 becomes available in major software 

distributions to prevent an attacker from performing a brute force attack against the 

hashed names and obtain the entire contents of a zone database. This would involve 

deploying both SHA-1 and SHA-256-based NSEC3 RRs until it is observed that SHA256-aware implementations have become widely used in the Internet community. 

8.2 Security/Compliance Issues 

1. For digital signatures over DNS data, only SHA-1 (used with RSA or DSA) has both 

Federal government approval as a hash algorithm and is fully specified in DNSSEC 

(as of the time of writing). It is the only approved hash algorithm available to use 

75
until SHA-256 with RSA and SHA-512 with RSA is implemented in DNSSEC 

software. 

2. Although not strictly necessary to the specification, a Key Signing Key should be 

used to maintain security chains from the parent zone (e.g. .gov) to the zone (e.g. 

nist.gov). This KSK should be securely transmitted to the delegating parent 

according to the policy and procedure established by the parent zone. 

3. TSIG shared secret strings should be random for use in providing integrity protection 

for DNS message transactions, and generated at an appropriate security strength. The 

system installers using the TSIG secret string shall agree on which TSIG algorithm to 

use. 

4. System developers should implement SHA-256 (see FIPS 180-3) for use with digital 

signatures when the use of SHA-256 is specified through the IETF standards process. 

8.3 Procurement Guidance 

The following recommendations are for any individual that makes a purchasing decision 

for acquiring DNSSEC capable components for their network infrastructure. 

1. DNSSEC utilities shall use FIPS140-2 compliant cryptographic modules. 

2. DNS server software should generate and serve NSEC3 RRs, if required by zone 

policy. 

3. DNS server software shall use an approved random bit generator to generate random 

strings for use with TSIG message authentication using HMAC that is consistent with 

the hash algorithm security strength recommendations in Part 1. 

4. DNSSEC-enabled versions of network applications shall be purchased as required by 

security policy, if available. 

5. DNSSEC software implementing SHA-256 shall be included in procurements when 

available. 

8.4 Recommendations for System Installers 

The system installer is the individual(s) that installs a DNS component and performs the 

initial configuration of the component. 

8.4.1 Recommendations for System Installers (Authoritative Servers) 

1. Authoritative server installers shall configure a DNS authoritiative server to serve 

DNSSEC signed zone data. 

2. Authoritiative server installers shall use an approved random bit generator (as 

discussed in NIST Special Publication 800-90) to create and configure an initial 

random secret string for use with TSIG in transactions. 

76
3. Authoritative servers shall be configured to generate and sign zone data with a key 

pair that is consistent with the key size recommendations for digital signatures as 

specified in Part 1. 

4. Authoritative servers shall be configured to generate and sign the key set with a key 

pair that is consistent with the key sizes recommended for digital signatures, as 

specified in Part 1. 

5. Authoritative servers shall be configured to generate and use a random secret string 

for zone transfer message authentication (via TSIG) between primary and secondary 

servers. The security strength of the random bit generator process shall support the 

security strength required by the servers. 

6. Authoritative servers shall be configured to generate and use a separate shared secret 

string for dynamic update message authentication (via TSIG). The security strength 

of the random bit generator process shall support the security strength required by the 

servers. 

8.4.2 Recommendations for System Installers (Caching Recursive Servers) 

1. Recursive caching server installers shall configure DNS servers to be DNSSECaware. 

2. Recursive caching server installers shall install at least one public key used for 

DNSSEC validation. 

8.4.3 Recommendations for System Installers (Client Systems) 

1. Client systems shall be configured to send DNS queries to a DNSSEC-enabled 

caching recursive server. 

2. Client systems should be configured to use DNSSEC-enabled applications, if they are 

available. 

8.5 Recommendations for System Administrators 

The System Administrator is the individual who runs the DNS application on a day-today basis and interacts with the end user. 

8.5.1 Recommendations for System Administrators (Authoritative Server) 

1. Organization security policy regarding the Authoritative servers shall be enforced. 

2. Cryptographic keys shall be protected as specified in Part 1. 

3. System administrators shall replace zone data signature Resource Records before the 

end of their validity period. 

77
4. Zone data signature Resource Records shall be replaced if the private key associated 

with the public key is compromised, when the administrator of the DNS zone leaves 

the organization, and for other reasons listed in the organization’s security policy. 

5. Administrators shall utilize methods for handling and protecting the private key (e.g., 

using a smart card that requires appropriate user authentication). 

Administrators shall follow the key lifecycle procedures found in NIST Special 

Publication 800-81 Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Deployment Guide. 

8.5.2 Recommendations for System Administrators (Caching Recursive Servers) 

1. Server administrators shall ensure that there is an organization security policy for 

using the Caching Recursive Server. 

2. Cryptographic keys shall be adequately protected (see Part 1). 

3. The trust anchors for DNS validating caches should be kept up to date. 

8.5.3 Recommendations for System Administrators (Client Systems) 

1. Server administrators shall ensure that there is an organization security policy for 

using the client systems. 

2. Server administrators shall ensure that users are properly trained. 

8.6 Recommendations for End Users 

An end user is the individual using a client to access the system. 

1. End users shall operate their client systems as instructed by their organization and 

system administrator. 

78
9 Encrypted File Systems (EFS) 

9.1 Description 

The encryption of data files and complete disk volumes presents a somewhat different set 

of key management issues than those for encryption of network-communicated data. 

While network communications security focuses on the privacy and integrity of 

information in transit, storage (e.g., file) security focuses on the privacy and integrity of 

persistent data and the secure sharing of this data. The key management guidance 

surrounding file and volume encryption are sufficiently similar to consolidate into a 

single section. 

Unlike the previous sections where the protocols and/or standards have been thoroughly 

studied by the network security community, the commercial solutions for file encryption 

utilize a wide variety of security schemes and methods for storing keys. Due to this 

range of solutions, this section will not be comprehensive, but will cover a variety of 

methods used for file encryption. 

The most important questions that designers of a file encryption system must answer are: 

• How are keys used in the system, and what protection are they afforded? 

• Where are the keys stored on the system? 

• Does the method scale upward for numerous user communities (without requiring 

an impractical number of keys to be stored)? 

9.1.1 Number of Keys Required 

For an Encrypted File System, keys are used to encrypt a file or group of files. The 

system can either encrypt each file with a distinct symmetric key or encrypt a set of files 

using the same symmetric key. In the first case, it is very easy to provide access to a 

sharing user, for example, by simply giving the key to that user. In this way, only that 

single file can be accessed by the sharing user without providing access to any of the 

other files in the system. The drawback with this first method is that if many files are 

encrypted, the model can quickly become unwieldy, since a key is required for each 

encrypted file and must be provided to the sharing user. 

In the second case, many fewer keys are required, which eases the key distribution 

process. However, when a sharing user requires access to a single file, giving access to 

that user is more problematic. By simply sending a key to the sharing user, access would 

be provided to all of the owner’s54 files that were encrypted using that key, rather than to 

the single file. 

However, there are several cryptographic management actions that could be used to grant 

access to an individual file. One option to limit access in this second system is for the 

owner or system to decrypt the file and re-encrypt it using a new key for transmission to 

the sharing user (e.g., using network security mechanisms and session keys). In the 

 

54 An owner could be an individual or a group of individuals or processes that share the key. 

79
increasingly rare case of both users sharing a common file server, the decrypted and reencrypted file would be placed in the sharing user’s file space. This would require 

significant processing overhead and a key management protocol for exchanges between 

the owner and the sharing user or between the file system management process and the 

sharing user. This process requires proper protection for these new keys, at the same 

security strength as the original key protecting that file. 

Another option is for the sharing user to be provided the encrypted file and the owner’s 

decryption key that could be used to decrypt all of the owner’s files, including the one 

provided to the sharing user. System overhead is reduced, and it may be possible to 

protect the key from third party administrators, but it is unlikely that the owner would 

agree that the requester should be granted access to all files protected under the common 

key. 

Having provided more extreme examples in the previous two cases, the following is a 

more common approach that is used. In this case, each user on the system has an 

asymmetric key pair. Each owner’s file is encrypted under a different randomly 

generated symmetric File Encrypting Key (FEK). The FEK is then encrypted using the 

public key of the owner and stored with the encrypted file. When the owner of a file 

wants to share it with another user, the owner decrypts the encrypted FEK (using her 

private key) and then encrypts the FEK using the sharing user’s public key. The 

encrypted file and re-encrypted FEK can then be provided to the requester. This system 

has several advantages. First, the owner needs to manage only a single asymmetric key 

pair. Second, it permits easier file sharing between users. Third, it is very efficient 

because files do not have to be re-encrypted in order to be shared. Finally, the system 

need not manage any keys separately, since the asymmetric keys are managed by the 

owners, and the FEKs are stored in encrypted form with the files. 

The owner can, of course, use different keys to encrypt different files or sets of files. The 

fewer files that the owner chooses to encrypt with a given key results in more keys and 

associations (e.g., associations of keys with file identities, file groups, individual 

identities, or access groups) that would need to be maintained. 

Another important concept within an encrypted file system that must be considered is 

how data recovery is implemented. If a user loses his keys, without a data recovery 

capability within the system, the user’s data is permanently lost. As such, it is vital that 

some form of data recovery, such as master administrator passwords, be included.55 This 

requires a file encryption system that allows multiple passwords to decrypt the file, one 

of which is provided to the user, and the second is provided to the administrator, in the 

form of a master administrator password. Another possibility is that the administrator has 

a method of storing the user’s passwords for use only when the user has lost or forgotten 

their password. 

 

55 The specifics of how data recovery is accomplished are beyond the scope of this document. 

80
When the scope of the system expands from a pair of individuals to a large network or 

internet-work, the factors associated with the management of keys can become unwieldy. 

Key management challenges associated with large systems include the following: 

• Maintaining context in the face of global data placement (many owners and large 

quantities of data). 

• Very large numbers of keys to manage and distribute. 

• If numerous keys are stored in a single location within an EFS, that site provides 

an attractive target for an adversary, a single point of trust for a large domain. 

• Difficulty in accounting for revoked users (individuals who have left an 

organization, whose subscriptions have expired, or otherwise should not be 

authorized to access the file any longer). 

• Reassignment of ownership of protected data to another individual or 

organization. 

• Recovery of data in the event of lost keys (e.g., the case of archived encrypted 

data that is encrypted and stored by an individual who has left the organization 

and cannot be found). 

• A sharing user who has been provided the keys to a number of the owner’s files, 

then provides the keys, and the owner’s data, to additional users. 

9.1.2 Access to Symmetric Keys used in File Encryption 

After the decision has been made about the number of files to be protected with a single 

symmetric key, key management questions can be considered. How does the File 

Encryption System generate the encryption keys? How will the keys be stored and 

protected? This section identifies common ways of answering these questions, as well as 

discussing their strengths and weaknesses. As technology advances, additional techniques 

will be developed, and as such, the list below is not complete nor should be considered 

mandatory. 

Consider common answers to the three important questions above. First, how do file 

encryption systems generate symmetric keys? A simple method is to derive the key from 

a password as described in [PKCS-5]. In this case, the security of the system depends on 

the randomness of the password; normally, passwords do not contain enough randomness 

to be used for generating keys (i.e., they can be guessed relatively easily). A standard 

dictionary attack can often recover weak passwords, so a strong password is vital for the 

security of this type of system. It is preferable to utilize a good random bit generator 

within the system to generate keys. Approved random bit generation schemes can be 

found in NIST Special Publication 800-90. Next, consider the question of how to protect 

the keys. There is a great deal of effort underway by the Trusted Computing Group 

(TCG) to develop secure storage of keys on computers. As this effort continues to 

mature, the Trusted Platform Module chip, through its key cache management, offers 

another format for protecting keys used in EFS. 

Next, consider where these keys will be stored. If random keys need to be stored, they 

could simply be stored on the computer itself or on a hardware token. Alternatively, the 

key could be split into two (or more) key components with, for example, one component 

81
stored on a hardware token and the other key component stored on the computer itself. If 

a split key is employed, the method used to combine the key components is important; 

performing an XOR operation on equal length key components is better than simply 

concatenating the components. Common hardware tokens include PCMCIA cards and 

smartcards. The advantage to using a hardware token is that if the user stores the 

hardware token away from the computer, and the key is split between the token and the 

computer, an adversary needs to recover both pieces of hardware to recover the key. 

Additional security may be provided by encrypting the key splits, perhaps by using a 

password. 

There are many permutations of answers to the questions above. Four examples of how 

these questions can be answered will be considered, along with the pros and cons of each 

system. It is important to consider the specific environment in which the File Encryption 

System will be used, as that will usually point to a specific type of system that is 

preferable for that case. 

The first example that will be considered is a file encryption system that uses a single 

symmetric key to encrypt every file on the system. This single key is generated using 

[PKCS-5] from a user’s password. 

The second example is a system that utilizes per-file encryption keys, which are stored on 

the hard disk, encrypted by a key encryption key. The key encryption key (which is also 

used to decrypt each file encryption key) is securely stored on the hard drive (e.g., using 

the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) [TPM]). 

The third example is a system that utilizes per-file encryption keys that are split into two 

key components that will be XORed to recreate the key, with one key component stored 

on a hardware token and the other component derived from a password (e.g., using 

PKCS-5 to derive the key). 

The fourth example uses per-file encryption keys, which are encrypted under the file 

owner’s asymmetric private key as previously described. This system is common in 

current file encryption packages, while the previous three are extreme to show more 

clearly the pros and cons of the systems. 

82
Method Pros Cons 

Example 1: 

PKCS #5 

- Least expensive solution. 

- Utilizing a strong password 

can result in reasonable 

security. 

- Less secure because the 

security is dependent only on 

the strength of the password. 

Example 2: 

Key Encryption 

Key 

- Secure storage directly in the 

computer. 

- Secure from external 

software attack and physical 

threat. 

- Relatively new technology. 

- Keys are stored on the same 

computer as the file. 

Example 3: 

Hardware Token 

- Splits key. 

- Requires two hardware 

pieces to decrypt. 

- Highly secure if implemented 

correctly. 

- If the files or token are lost, 

the files will stay secure. 

- More expensive. 

- If the token is lost, the files 

cannot be decrypted. 

Example 4: 

Asymmetric user 

owned Key 

Encryption Key 

- No plaintext keys stored in 

the computer. 

- Efficient file sharing. 

- Highly secure if token is 

used. 

- Compromise of a user’s 

private key compromises 

only the user’s files. 

-Requires the user to manage 

their own RSA key pair. 

- Requires either a user 

password or a user token. 

9.2 Security and Compliance Issues 

1. Any encrypted file system shall employ approved cryptography if it is to be used for 

the protection of Federal government information. 

2. Keys derived from passwords shall use strong passwords to maximize the difficulty 

of an off-line exhaustion attack; see SP 800-118 42. 

9.3 Recommendations for Procurement Officials 

The following recommendations are for any individual(s) that make a purchasing 

decision for acquiring an EFS component. 

1. An encrypted file system shall include a data recovery capability (e.g., master 

administrator password) so that the data is not lost in the event that a user forgets his 

password or the user is unavailable. Data recovery is vital in this type of system. 

83
2. Any EFS system that derives keys from passwords should have the capability of 

enforcing the use of strong passwords. 

3. To increase the security of encrypted file systems, the system should use a hardware 

token for storage of the key or the TPM for storage of the keys. 

9.4 Recommendations for System Installers 

The system installer is the individual(s) that installs EFS components and performs the 

initial configuration of the components. 

1. When an EFS system that utilizes passwords for security is installed, the installer 

shall require that strong passwords be enforced by the EFS. This maximizes the 

difficulty of an off-line exhaustion attack. 

2. The system installer should ensure that the database of keys is protected by 

encryption to ensure the security of the system. In addition, if the key is split by the 

EFS system, the key component stored on a hardware token should be protected. 

9.5 Recommendations for System Administrators 

The system administrator is the individual that manages the EFS on a day-to-day basis 

and interacts with the end user. 

1. The system administrator shall ensure that the organization’s security policy is 

enforced. 

2. Key recovery procedures shall be in place to ensure that users can recover their data 

if they lose their authentication information (password, token data, etc). A method 

for data recovery personnel to authenticate these users should be in place prior to the 

recovery of the user’s keys or files. 

3. If the EFS includes a master administrator password for use in data recovery by the 

system administrator, the system administrator shall utilize a strong password. 

4. System administrators shall provide training and security guidance to the end users of 

the system that, at a minimum, focuses on passwords, data recovery procedures, and 

user configuration of their system to utilize the authentication features within the 

system. 

9.6 Recommendations for End Users 

An end user is the individual that uses the EFS to secure and share their information. 

1. If user-selected passwords are used within the product, end users shall utilize strong 

passwords to maximize the difficulty of an off-line exhaustion attack. 

2. End users shall follow guidance provided by the system administrator regarding the 

use of an Encrypted File System product. 

84
3. End users shall inform a system administrator if they have lost their hardware token 

or forgotten their password. 

 

85
Appendix A: Glossary 

The terms provided below are defined as they are used in this document. The same terms 

may be defined differently in other documents. 

Term Definition 

Access control Restricts access to resources only to privileged entities. 

Access Control 

Mechanism 

A method for restricting access to some resource. 

Approved FIPS-approved and/or NIST-recommended. An algorithm or 

technique that is either 1) specified in a FIPS or NIST 

Recommendation, or 2) adopted in a FIPS or NIST 

Recommendation or 3) specified in a list of NIST approved 

security functions.

Archive See Key management archive. 

Asymmetric key 

algorithm 

See Public key cryptographic algorithm. 

Authentication A process that establishes the origin of information, or 

determines an entity’s identity. 

Authentication code See Message Authentication Code. 

Authorization Access privileges granted to an entity; conveys an “official” 

sanction to perform a given security function or activity. 

Availability Timely, reliable access to information by authorized entities. 

Backup A copy of information to facilitate recovery, if necessary. 

CBC-MAC A mode of operation for block cipher algorithms. 

Certificate See public key certificate. 

Certification 

authority 

The entity in a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) that is 

responsible for issuing certificates, and exacting compliance to 

a PKI policy. 

Checksum A method used to protect the integrity of data by detecting 

errors in that data. 

Ciphertext Data in its encrypted form. 

Compromise The unauthorized disclosure, modification, substitution or use 

of sensitive data (e.g., keying material and other security related 

information). 

Confidentiality The property that sensitive information is not disclosed to 

86
unauthorized entities. 

Contingency plan A plan that is maintained for disaster response, backup 

operations, and post-disaster recovery to ensure the availability 

of critical resources and to facilitate the continuity of operations 

in an emergency situation. 

Cryptographic 

Boundary 

An explicitly defined continuous perimeter that establishes the 

physical bounds of a cryptographic module and contains all 

hardware, software, and/or firmware components of a 

cryptographic module. 

Cryptographic Hash 

Function 

See Hash function. 

Cryptographic key 

(key) 

A parameter used in conjunction with a cryptographic algorithm 

that determines its operation in such a way that an entity with 

knowledge of the key can reproduce or reverse the operation, 

while an entity without knowledge of the key cannot. Examples 

include: 

1. the transformation of plaintext data into ciphertext data, 

2. the transformation of ciphertext data into plaintext data, 

3. the computation of a digital signature from data, 

4. the verification of a digital signature, 

5. the computation of an authentication code from data, 

6. the verification of an authentication code from data and a 

received authentication code, 

7. the computation of a shared secret that is used to derive 

keying material. 

Cryptographic 

module 

The set of hardware, software, and/or firmware in which 

approved security functions are implemented; a cryptographic 

module is contained within a cryptographic boundary. 

Cryptoperiod The time span during which a specific key is authorized for use 

or in which the keys for a given system or application may 

remain in effect. 

Data integrity A property whereby data has not been altered in an 

unauthorized manner since it was created, transmitted or stored. 

In this Recommendation, the statement that a cryptographic 

algorithm "provides data integrity" means that the algorithm is 

used to detect unauthorized alterations. 

Decryption The process of changing ciphertext into plaintext using a 

cryptographic algorithm and key. 

DES The Data Encryption Standard that was specified in FIPS 46 

(now withdrawn). 

Digital signature The result of a cryptographic transformation of data that, when 

properly implemented, provides the services of: 

87
1. origin authentication, 

2. data integrity, and 

3. signer non-repudiation. 

Distribution See key distribution. 

Encryption The process of changing plaintext into ciphertext using a 

cryptographic algorithm and key. 

Entity An individual (person), organization, device or process. 

Hash algorithm See Hash function. 

Hash function A function that maps a bit string of arbitrary length to a fixed 

length bit string. Approved hash functions satisfy the following 

properties: 

1. (One-way) It is computationally infeasible to find any input 

that maps to any pre-specified output, and 

2. (Collision free) It is computationally infeasible to find any 

two distinct inputs that map to the same output. 

Hash value The result of applying a hash function to information. 

Hash-based message 

authentication code 

(HMAC) 

A message authentication code that uses an approved keyedhash function. 

Identifier A bit string that is associated with a person, device or 

organization. It may be an identifying name, or may be 

something more abstract (for example, a string consisting of an 

IP address and timestamp), depending on the application. 

Initialization vector 

(IV) 

A vector used in defining the starting point of a cryptographic 

process within a cryptographic algorithm. 

Integrity The property that sensitive data has not been modified or 

deleted in an unauthorized and undetected manner. In this 

Recommendation, the statement that a cryptographic algorithm 

"provides integrity" means that the algorithm is used to detect 

unauthorized modifications or deletions. 

Key See cryptographic key. 

Key agreement A key establishment scheme whose resultant keying material is 

a function of information contributed by two or more 

participants, so that no party can predetermine the value of the 

keying material. 

Key Bundle A set of keys used during one operation, typically a TDEA 

operation. 

Key component A parameter used in conjunction with other key components in 

an approved security function to form a plaintext cryptographic 

key or perform a cryptographic function. 

88
Key distribution The transport of a key and other keying material from an entity 

that either owns or generates the key to another entity that is 

intended to use the key. 

Key encrypting key A cryptographic key that is used for the encryption or 

decryption of other keys. 

Key establishment A function in the lifecycle of keying material; the process by 

which cryptographic keys are securely distributed among 

cryptographic modules using manual transport methods (e.g., 

key loaders), automated methods (e.g., key transport and/or key 

agreement protocols), or a combination of automated and 

manual methods. 

Key management The activities involving the handling of cryptographic keys and 

other related security parameters (e.g., IVs and passwords) 

during the entire life cycle of the keys, including their 

generation, storage, establishment, entry and output, and 

destruction. 

Key management 

archive 

A function in the lifecycle of keying material; a repository 

containing keying material of historical interest. 

Key pair A public key and its corresponding private key; a key pair is 

used with a public key algorithm. 

Key recovery Mechanisms and processes that allow authorized entities to 

retrieve keying material from key backup or archive. 

Key revocation A process whereby a notice is made available to affected 

entities that keying material should be removed from 

operational use prior to the end of the established cryptoperiod 

of that keying material. 

Key transport A key establishment procedure whereby one entity (the sender) 

selects a value for secret keying material and then securely 

distributes that value to another party (the receiver). 

Key update A function performed on a cryptographic key in order to 

compute a new, but related, key. 

Key wrapping A method of encrypting keys (along with associated integrity 

information) that provides both confidentiality and integrity 

protection using a symmetric key. 

Keying material The data (e.g., keys and IVs) necessary to establish and 

maintain cryptographic keying relationships. 

Message 

Authentication Code 

(MAC) 

A cryptographic checksum on data that uses a symmetric key to 

detect both accidental and intentional modifications of data. 

Nonce A time-varying value that has, at most, a negligible chance of 

89
repeating. For example, a nonce could be a random value that is 

generated anew for each instance of a nonce, a timestamp, a 

sequence number, or some combination of these. 

Non-repudiation A service that is used to provide assurance of the integrity and 

origin of data in such a way that the integrity and origin can be 

verified by a third party as having originated from a specific 

entity in possession of the private key of the claimed signatory. 

Owner For an asymmetric key pair, the entity that owns the private 

key, whether that entity generated the key pair or a trusted party 

generated the key pair for the entity. 

In Encrypted File Systems, the file owner has control over the 

file and grants access of the file to others. A file may have one 

or more owners. An owner could be an individual or a group of 

individuals or processes 

Password A string of characters (letters, numbers and other symbols) that 

are used to authenticate an identity or to verify access 

authorization. 

Payload A part of the data stream representing the user information and 

user overhead in a communication. 

Plaintext Intelligible data that has meaning and can be understood 

without the application of decryption. 

Private key A cryptographic key, used with a public key cryptographic 

algorithm, that is uniquely associated with an entity and is not 

made public. In an asymmetric (public) cryptosystem, the 

private key is associated with a public key. Depending on the 

algorithm, the private key may be used to: 

1. Compute the corresponding public key, 

2. Compute a digital signature that may be verified by the 

corresponding public key, 

3. Decrypt data that was encrypted by the corresponding public 

key, or 

4. Compute a piece of common shared data, together with other 

information. 

Protocol A special set of rules used by two or more entities that describe 

the message order and data structures for information 

exchanged between the entities. 

Public key A cryptographic key used with a public key cryptographic 

algorithm that is uniquely associated with an entity and that 

may be made public. In an asymmetric (public) cryptosystem, 

the public key is associated with a private key. The public key 

may be known by anyone and, depending on the algorithm, may 

be used to: 

90
1. Verify a digital signature that is signed by the corresponding 

private key, 

2. Encrypt data that can be decrypted by the corresponding 

private key, or 

3. Compute a piece of shared data. 

Public key 

(asymmetric) 

cryptographic 

algorithm 

 A cryptographic algorithm that uses two related keys, a public 

key and a private key. The two keys have the property that 

determining the private key from the public key is 

computationally infeasible. 

Public key certificate A set of data that uniquely identifies an entity, contains the 

entity's public key and possibly other information, and is 

digitally signed by a trusted party, thereby binding the public 

key to the entity. 

Public Key 

Infrastructure (PKI) 

A framework that is established to issue, maintain and revoke 

public key certificates. 

Reconstitute Rebuilding a service provider (possibly with a different 

infrastructure) using previously saved security information 

and/or key material, rather than simply restarting a service from 

a backup. 

Rekey A new key replaces another key; the “value” of the new key is 

entirely independent of the “value” of the old key. 

Relying party An individual or organization that relies on the certificate and 

the CA that issued the certificate to verify the identity of the 

user; the validity of the public key, associated algorithms and 

any relevant parameters; and the user’s possession of the 

corresponding private key. 

Secret key A cryptographic key that is used with a secret key (symmetric) 

cryptographic algorithm that is uniquely associated with one or 

more entities and is not made public. The use of the term 

“secret” in this context does not imply a classification level, but 

rather implies the need to protect the key from disclosure. 

Security association A relationship between two network entities in which security 

information is shared and used to support secure 

communication between the two entities. 

Security services Mechanisms used to provide confidentiality, data integrity, 

authentication or non-repudiation of information. 

Self-signed 

certificate 

A public key certificate whose digital signature may be verified 

by the public key contained within the certificate. The 

signature on a self-signed certificate protects the integrity of the 

data, but does not guarantee authenticity of the information. 

The trust of self-signed certificates is based on the secure 

procedures used to distribute them. 

91
Shall This term is used to indicate a requirement of a Federal 

Information Processing Standard (FIPS) or a requirement that 

must be fulfilled to claim conformance to this 

Recommendation. Note that shall may be coupled with not to 

become shall not. 

Shared secret A value that is generated during a key agreement scheme; the 

shared secret is typically used to derive keying material for a 

symmetric key algorithm. 

Should This term is used to indicate a very important requirement. 

While the “requirement” is not stated in a FIPS, ignoring the 

requirement could result in undesirable results. Note that 

should may be coupled with not to become should not. 

Signature verification Uses a digital signature algorithm and a public key to verify a 

digital signature. 

Symmetric key A single cryptographic key that is used with a secret 

(symmetric) key algorithm. 

Symmetric key 

algorithm 

A cryptographic algorithm that uses one shared key, a secret 

key. 

Threat Any circumstance or event with the potential to adversely 

impact a system through unauthorized access, destruction, 

disclosure, modification of data or denial of service. 

Triple DES/Triple 

DEA (TDEA) 

Triple Data Encryption Algorithm, specified in SP 800-67. 

3-TDEA Three key TDEA as specified in SP 800-67. 

Unauthorized 

disclosure 

An event involving the exposure of information to entities not 

authorized access to the information. 

User name (in a 

certificate) 

The name of the party authorized to use the private key 

associated with the public key in the certificate; the subject of 

the certificate. 

User registration A function in the lifecycle of keying material; a process 

whereby an entity becomes a member of a security domain. 

X.509 public key 

certificate 

 The public key for a user (or device) and a name for the user 

(or device), together with some other information, rendered unforgeable by the digital signature of the certification authority 

that issued the certificate, encoded in the format defined in the 

ISO/ITU-T X.509 standard.

92
Appendix B: Acronyms 

AES Advanced Encryption Standard 

AH Authentication Header 

AS Authentication Server 

CA Certificate Authority 

CBC Cipher Block Chaining 

CBC-MAC Cipher Block Chaining Message 

Authentication Code 

CMVP Cryptographic Module Validation 

Program 

COTS Commercial Off-the-Shelf 

CRL Certificate Revocation List 

CTR Counter Mode 

DES Data Encryption Standard 

DHCP Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol 

DNS Domain Name System 

DSA Digital Signature Algorithm 

ECDH Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman 

ECDSA Elliptic Curve Digital Signature 

Algorithm 

EFS Encrypted File System 

ESP Encapsulating Security Protocol 

FEK File Encryption Key 

GCM Galois Counter Mode 

GMAC Galois Message Authentication Code 

HMAC Hash-based Message Authentication 

Code 

HTTP Hypertext Transfer Protocol 

ICV Integrity Check Value 

IETF Internet Engineering Task Force 

IKE Internet Key Exchange 

IP Internet Protocol 

IV Initialization Vector 

KDC Key Distribution Center 

KMF Key Management Facility 

KMM Key Management Message 

KSK Key Signing Key 

KWK Key Wrapping Key 

LDAP Lightweight Directory Access Protocol 

MAC Message Authentication Code 

93
MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm 5 

NSEC Next Secure 

NIST National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

OCSP Online Certificate Status Protocol 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OTAR Over The Air Rekeying 

PIN Personal Identification Number 

PKCS Public Key Cryptography Standard 

PKI Public Key Infrastructure 

PRF Pseudorandom Function 

PVM Path Validation Module 

RA Registration Authority 

RFC Request for Comment 

RR Resource Record 

RSA Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman. 

SA Security Association 

SEP Secure Entry Point 

SHA Secure Hash Algorithm 

SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol 

S/MIME Secure/Multipart Internet Mail 

Extensions 

SSL Secure Socket Layer 

TDEA Triple Data Encryption Algorithm 

TEK Traffic Encryption Key 

TCG Trusted Computing Group 

TGS Ticket Granting Service 

TLS Transport Layer Security 

TPM Trusted Platform Module 

TS Target Server 

TSIG Transaction Signature 

URL Uniform Resource Locator 

VPN Virtual Private Network 

XOR Exclusive-Or operation 

ZSK Zone Signing Key 

94
Appendix C: A Word to Novice End Users 

Cryptographic keys are frequently categorized by the algorithms they are used with, the 

operations they are used to perform and by the number of times they can be used. Keys 

will either be asymmetric and used with an asymmetric algorithm, or symmetric and used 

with a symmetric algorithm. Asymmetric keys are generated as key pairs: a private key

that must be kept secret, and a related public key, that may not be a secret. In general, the 

private key performs one operation, for example, a digital signature, and the public key 

does the complementary operation, in this case, signature verification. In the case of 

symmetric keys, end users need to treat the key as a shared secret value and use the same 

value for complementary cryptographic functions, such as encryption and decryption. 

Some asymmetric keys are static and intended for long-term use, while others are 

ephemeral and expire after use with one message or session. The public key of a static 

asymmetric key pair is often provided in a public key certificate, while an ephemeral 

public key is not. Although the concept of static vs. ephemeral also applies to symmetric 

keys, a short term symmetric key is often called a session key, rather than an ephemeral 

key. No specific terminology is used for a long-term symmetric key. An application or 

protocol may be supported by some combination of such keys. 

A PKI is the foundation of many current key management processes and is used in many 

of the protocols or applications described in this Recommendation, as well as other 

security protocols and applications. Some understanding of the role of a PKI and public 

key certificates in key management is very helpful to setting up security protocols or 

applications properly. A long-term, or “static” public key is generally combined with the 

name of the key’s “owner” in an electronic document called a public key certificate. 

While certificates can be self-issued and signed (that is, the party that created the key pair 

can sign his name and the public key with the corresponding private key), most 

certificates are digitally signed with the private key of a trusted entity called a 

Certification Authority. 

An end user may typically have one or more certificates, and may have different 

certificates for different applications, e.g., for e-mail and for authentication to web sites. 

As Federal Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards are issued to Federal employees 

and contractors, most Federal users will have a personal smart card that contains one or 

more personal certificates issued to them by their agency. Other specific applications 

may require “soft” certificates, usually kept on the user’s computer, and possibly issued 

by commercial CAs. For example, browser products, such as Internet Explorer, Firefox 

or Safari, typically implement a mechanism to generate key pairs, send the public keys to 

a CA and return a public key certificate for that key to the browser. The certificates are 

then kept in a user certificate store on the user’s computer, which can be managed in a 

manner similar to a root certificate store (see Section 2). The process and interfaces for 

generating keys, and for requesting, downloading and installing certificates are specific to 

both the individual user client product and, sometimes, to the CA itself; however, the 

websites of CAs often have pages that “walk” the user through the key generation and 

certificate issuance process for the common browser products. Users can share 

certificates via email or public key infrastructures, smart cards or other memory tokens. 

95
Similarly, secure web servers have TLS/SSL server certificates, with certain specific 

characteristics; note that, although Federal users are required to use TLS rather than SSL, 

SSL is really just an earlier version of TLS, and the certificates are identical). The Subject 

Name in these certificates follows specific rules so that the domain name of the server is 

included in the Subject Name field of the certificate. Commercial CAs sell SSL 

certificates, and, where it is important to reach a general population of non-government 

users, it may be desirable to get an SSL certificate from a CA that has its root certificate 

widely distributed “out of the box” in the certificate stores of Microsoft Windows, 

Macintosh OS X, and the various Mozilla browsers. This will allow most users to verify 

the server certificate. However, it is important to review the certificate policy and 

choices that may be available from the CAs selling SSL certificates for use on Federal 

agency web servers in order to ensure that the certificates meet the requirements stated 

herein and in SP 800-57, part 1. 

96
Appendix D: References 

COMMON “X.509 Certification Policy for the U.S. Federal PKI Common 

Policy Framework”, Federal Public Key Infrastucture Policy 

Authority, Version 3647-1.3, December 2007. 

COMMON 

PROF 

“X.509 Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) 

Extensions Profile for the Shared Secret Providers (SSP) Program” 

Federal PKI Policy Authority Shared Service Provider Working 

Group, January 2008 

DENN D. Denning and G. M. Sacco, “Timestamps in Key Distribution 

Protocols”, CACM 24(8), pp. 533-536, August 1981. 

FIPS 180-3 “Secure Hash Standard (SHS)”, Federal Information Processing 

Standard 180-3, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

US Department of Commerce, October 2008. 

FIPS 186-3 “Digital Signature Standard”, Federal Information Processing 

Standard 186-3, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, June 2009. 

FIPS 197 “Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)”, Federal Information 

Processing Standard 197, National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, November 2001. 

FIPS 201 “Personal Identity Verification (PIV) of Federal Employees and 

Contractors”, Federal Information Processing Standard 201, 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, March 2006. 

FPKI PROF “Federal Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) X.509 Certificate and 

CRL Extensions Profile” Booz-Allen & Hamilton and National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, October 2005. 

NEED Roger M. Needham and Michael D. Schroeder, “Using Large 

Networks of Computers,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 21 

(12), pp. 993-999, December 1978. 

NEUM B. Clifford Neuman and Theodore Y. Ts’o, “An Authentication 

Service for Computer Networks,” IEEE Communications 

Magazine, Vol. 32 (9), pp. 33-38, September 1994. 

OMB 04-04 “MEMORANDUM TO THE HEADS OF ALL DEPARTMENTS 

AND AGENCIES RE: E-Authentication Guidance for Federal 

Agencies”, M-04-04, December 16, 2003 

OTAR “Project 25 Digital Radio Over The Air Rekeying (OTAR) 

Protocol”, TIA/EIA-102.AACA-2001, April 2001. 

97
OTAR1 “Project 25 Digital Radio Over The Air Rekeying Protocol: 

Addendum 1 - Key Management Security Requirements for Type 

3 Block Encryption Algorithms”, TIA/EIA 102.AACA-1, 

November 2002. 

PKCS-5 "PKCS #5 v2.0: Password-Based Cryptography Standard", RSA 

Laboratories, March 25, 1999. 

PKCS-7 Kaliski, B., "PKCS #7: Cryptographic Message Syntax Version 

1.5", RFC 2315, IETF, March 1998. 

PKCS-10 “PKCS #10 v1.7: Certification Request Syntax Standard” RSA 

Laboratories May 2000 

RFC 1034 P. Mockapetris “Domain Names – Concepts and Facilities” RFC 

1034 November 1987. 

RFC 1035 P. Mockapetris “Domain Names – Implementation and 

Specification” RFC 1035 November 1987 

RFC 1510 J. Kohl and C. Neuman “The Kerberos Network Authentication 

Service (V5)”, RFC 1510, September 1993. 

RFC 2045 N. Freed and N. Borenstein, “Multipurpose Internet Mail 

Extensions (MIME) Part One:Format of Internet Message Bodies” 

RFC 2045, November 1996. 

RFC 2046 N. Freed and N. Borenstein, “MIME Part 2: Media Types” RFC 

2046, November 1996. 

RFC 2047 K. Moore, “MIME Part Three: Message Header Extensions for 

Non-ASCII Text” RFC 2047, November 1996. 

RFC 2048 N. Freed, J. Klensin , J. Postel, “MIME Part Four: Registration 

Procedures” RFC 2048, November 1996.

RFC 2049 N. Freed and N. Borenstein, “MIME Part Five: Conformance 

Criteria and Examples”, RFC 2049, November 1996 

RFC 2119 S. Bradner, “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 

Levels”, RFC 2119, March 1997.

RFC 2246 T. Dierks and C. Allen, “The TLS Protocol Version 1.0”, RFC 

2246, January 1999. 

RFC 2401 S. Kent and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the Internet 

Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998. 

RFC 2402 S. Kent and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header", RFC 2402, 

November 1998. 

98
RFC 2404 C. Madson and R. Glenn, "The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within 

ESP and AH", RFC 2404, November 1998. 

RFC 2405 C. Madson and N. Doraswamy, "The ESP DES-CBC Cipher 

Algorithm with Explicit IV", RFC 2405, November 1998. 

RFC 2406 S. Kent, and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Security Payload 

(ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998. 

RFC 2407 D. Piper, "The Internet IP Security Domain of Interpretation for 

ISAKMP", RFC 2407, November 1998. 

RFC 2408 D. Maughan, et. al., "The Internet Security Association and Key 

Management Protocol (ISAKMP)", RFC 2408, November 1998. 

RFC 2409 Harkins, D., Carrel, D., “The Internet Key Exchange (IKE)”, RFC 

2409, November 1998. 

RFC 2410 R. Glenn and S. Kent, “The NULL Encryption Algorithm and its 

Use with IPsesc”, RFC 2410, November 1998. 

RFC 2451 R. Pereira, and R. Adams, "The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher 

Algorithms", Internet Advisory Board, Internet Engineering Task 

Force, RFC 2451, November 1998. 

RFC 2560 M. Myers, R. Ankney, A. Malpani, S. Galperin, and C. Adams, 

“X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online Certificate Status 

Protocol – OCSP”, RFC 2560, June 1999. 

RFC 2631 E. Rescorla, “Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method”, RFC 

2631, June 1999. 

RFC 2634 P. Hoffman “Enhanced Security Services for S/MIME” RFC 2634, 

June 1999. 

RFC 3394 R. Housley and J. Schaad, “Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) 

Key Wrap Algorithm”, RFC 3394, September 2002. 

RFC 3447 J. Jonsson, and B. Kaliski, “Public-Key Cryptography Standards 

(PKCS) #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications Version 2.1”, RFC 

3447, February 2003. 

RFC 3566 S. Frankel and H. Herbert, “The AES-XCBC-MAC-96 Algorithm 

and its Use with IPsec”, RFC 3566, September 2003. 

99
RFC 3602 S. Frankel, R. Glenn, and S. Kelly, “The AES-CBC Cipher 

Algorithm and its Use with IPsec”, RFC 3602, September 2003. 

RFC 3686 R. Housley, “Using Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Counter 

Mode with IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)”, RFC 

3686, January 2004. 

RFC 3851 B. Ramsdell, “S/MIME Version 3.1 Message Specification”, RFC 

3851, July 2004. 

RFC 3962 K. Raeburn, “Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Encryption 

for Kerberos 5”, RFC 3962, February 2005. 

RFC 4033 R. Arends, R. Austein, M. Larson, D. Massey, and S. Rose, “DNS 

Security Introduction and Requirements”, RFC 4033, March 2005. 

RFC 4034 R. Arends, R. Austein, M. Larson, D. Massey, D., and S. Rose, 

“Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions”, RFC 4034, 

March 2005. 

RFC 4035 R. Arends, R. Austein, M. Larson, D. Massey, and S. Rose, 

“Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions”, RFC 

4035, March 2005. 

RFC 4106 J. Viega and D. McGrew, “The Use of Galois/Counter Mode 

(GCM) in IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)”, RFC 

4106, June 2005. 

RFC 4109 P. Hoffman, “Algorithms for Internet Key Exchange version 1 

(IKEv1), RFC 4109, May 2005. 

RFC 4120 Neuman, C., Yu, T., Hartman, S., Raeburn, K., “The Kerberos 

Network Authentication Service (V5)”, RFC 4120, July 2005. 

RFC 4210 Adams, C., Farrell, S., Kause, T., Mononen, T., “Internet X.509 

Public Key Infrastructure Certificate Management Protocol 

(CMP)”, RFC 4210, September 2005. 

RFC 4301 S. Kent and K. Seo, “Security Architecture for the Internet 

Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. 

RFC 4302 S. Kent, "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, December 2005. 

RFC 4303 S. Kent, "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC 4303, 

December 2005. 

RFC 4306 C. Kaufman, ed., “Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol”, RFC 

4306, December 2005. 

100
RFC 4307 J. Schiller, "Cryptographic Algorithms for use in the Internet Key 

Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)" RFC 4307, December 2005. 

RFC 4308 P. Hoffman, "Cryptographic Suites for IPsec", RFC 4308, 

December 2005. 

RFC 4309 R. Housley., “Using Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) CCM 

Mode with IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)”, RFC 

4309, December 2005. 

RFC 4346 T. Dierks and E. Rescorla, “The Transport Layer Security (TLS) 

Protocol Version 1.1” RFC 4346, April 2006. 

RFC 4434 P. Hoffman, “The AES-XCBC-PRF-128 Algorithm for the 

Internet Key Exchange Protocol (IKE)”, RFC 4434, February 

2006. 

RFC 4511 J. Sermersheim, Ed., “Lightweight Directory Access Protocol 

(LDAP): The Protocol”, RFC 4511, June 2006. 

RFC 4512 K. Zeilenga, “Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): 

Directory Information Models”, RFC 4512, June 2006. 

RFC 4543 D. McGrew, and J. Viega, “The Use of Galois Message 

Authentication Code (GMAC) in IPsec ESP and AH”, RFC 4543, 

May 2006. 

RFC 4556 L. Zhu and B. Tung, “Public Key Cryptography for Initial 

Authentication in Kerberos (PKINIT)”, RFC 4556, June 2006. 

RFC 4718 P. Eronen and P. Hoffman, “IKEv2 Clarification and 

Implementation Guidelines”, RFC 4718, October 2006. 

RFC 4835 V. Manral, “Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation 

Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and 

Authentication Header (AH)”, RFC 4835, April 2007. 

RFC 4868 S. Kelly and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868, May 2007. 

RFC 4869 L. Law and J. Solinas, “Suite B Cryptographic Suites for IPsec”, 

RFC 4869, May 2007. 

RFC 5008 R. Housley, and J. Solinas, “Suite B in Secure/Mulitpurpose 

Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) “, RFC 5008, September 2007. 

101
RFC 5019 A. Deacon and R. Hurst, “ The Lightweight Online Certificate 

Status Protocol (OCSP) Profile for High-Volume Environments”, 

RFC 5019, September 2007. 

RFC 5035 P. Hoffman, “Enhanced Security Services (ESS) Update: Adding 

CertID Algorithm Agility”, RFC 5035, August 2007. 

RFC 5155 B. Laurie, G. Sisson, R. Arends and D. Blacka. “DNSSEC Hashed 

Authenticated Denial of Existence”. RFC 5155, March 2008. 

RFC 5246 T. Dierks and E. Rescorla, “The Transport Layer Security (TLS) 

Protocol Version 1.2”, RFC 5246, August 2008. 

RFC 5272 M. Myers and J. Schaad, “Certificate Management Messages over 

CMS “, RFC 5272, June 2008. 

RFC 5280 D. Cooper, S. Santesson, S. Farrell, S. Boeyen, R. Housley, and W. 

Polk, “Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and 

Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile”, RFC 5280, May 2008. 

RFC 5430 M. Salter, E. Rescorla and R. Housley, “Suite B Profile Transport 

Layer Security (TLS), RFC 5430, March 2009. 

RFC 5652 R. Housley, “Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)”, RFC 5652, 

September 2009. 

SEC1 Standards for Efficient Cryptography Group, “Elliptic Curve 

Cryptography”, 2000. [See 

http://www.secg.org/collateral/sec1.pdf.]. 

SP 800-32 D. Kuhn, V. Hu, W. Polk, and S. Chang, “Introduction to Public 

Key Technology and the Federal PKI Infrastructure”, National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 

800-32, February 2001. 

SP 800-38A M. Dworkin, “Recommendations for Block Cipher Modes of 

Operation”, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST 

Special Publication 800-38A, December 2001. 

SP 800-49 C. Chernick, “Federal S/MIME V3 Client Profile”, National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 

800-49, November 2002. 

SP 800-56A E. Barker, D. Johnson and M. Smid, “Recommendations for PairWise Key Establishment Schemes Using Discrete Logarithm 

Cryptography (Revised)” National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-56A March 2007. 

102
103

SP 800-56B E. Barker, L. Chen, A. Regenscheid and M. Smid, 

“Recommendation for Pair-Wise Key Establishment Schemes: 

Using Integer Factorization Cryptography”, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-56B, 

August 2009. 

SP 800-67 W. Barker, “Recommendation for the Triple Data Encryption 

Algorithm (TDEA) Block Cipher”, National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-67, May 2004. 

SP 800-77 S. Frankel, K. Kent, R. Lewkowski, A. Orebaugh, R. Ritchey, St. 

Shama, “Guide to IPsec VPNs”, National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-77, December 

2005. 

SP 800-81 R. Chandramouli and S. Rose, “Secure Domain Name System 

(DNS) Deployment Guide”, National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-81, May 2006. 

SP 800-90 E. Barker and J. Kelsey, “Recommendation for Random Number 

Generation Using Deterministic Random Bit Generators 

(Revised)”, NIST Special Publication 800-90, March 2007. 

SP 800-118 K. Scarfone and M. Souppaya, “Guide to Enterprise Password 

Management”, NIST Special Publication 800-118, (Draft) April 

2009. 

TPM TCG TPM Specification Version 1.2 Revision 103 including 

Design Principles, Structures of the TPM, and Commands. 

X9.62 ANSI X9.62, "Public key cryptography for the financial services 

industry: The Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm 

(ECDSA)", November 2005.