Network Working Group M. Elkins Request for Comments: 3156 Network Associates, Inc. Updates: 2015 D. Del Torto Category: Standards Track CryptoRights Foundation R. Levien University of California at Berkeley T. Roessler August 2001
MIME Security with OpenPGP
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document describes how the OpenPGP Message Format can be used to provide privacy and authentication using the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) security content types described in RFC 1847.
Work on integrating PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) with MIME [3] (including the since withdrawn "application/pgp" content type) prior to RFC 2015 suffered from a number of problems, the most significant of which is the inability to recover signed message bodies without parsing data structures specific to PGP. RFC 2015 makes use of the elegant solution proposed in RFC 1847, which defines security multipart formats for MIME. The security multiparts clearly separate the signed message body from the signature, and have a number of other desirable properties. This document revises RFC 2015 to adopt the integration of PGP and MIME to the needs which emerged during the work on the OpenPGP specification.
This document defines three content types for implementing security and privacy with OpenPGP: "application/pgp-encrypted", "application/pgp-signature" and "application/pgp-keys".
Elkins, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 3156 MIME Security with OpenPGP August 2001
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
OpenPGP implementations can generate either ASCII armor (described in [1]) or 8-bit binary output when encrypting data, generating a digital signature, or extracting public key data. The ASCII armor output is the REQUIRED method for data transfer. This allows those users who do not have the means to interpret the formats described in this document to be able to extract and use the OpenPGP information in the message.
When the amount of data to be transmitted requires that it be sent in many parts, the MIME message/partial mechanism SHOULD be used rather than the multi-part ASCII armor OpenPGP format.
Multipart/signed and multipart/encrypted are to be treated by agents as opaque, meaning that the data is not to be altered in any way [2], [7]. However, many existing mail gateways will detect if the next hop does not support MIME or 8-bit data and perform conversion to either Quoted-Printable or Base64. This presents serious problems for multipart/signed, in particular, where the signature is invalidated when such an operation occurs. For this reason all data signed according to this protocol MUST be constrained to 7 bits (8- bit data MUST be encoded using either Quoted-Printable or Base64). Note that this also includes the case where a signed object is also encrypted (see section 6). This restriction will increase the likelihood that the signature will be valid upon receipt.
Additionally, implementations MUST make sure that no trailing whitespace is present after the MIME encoding has been applied.
Note: In most cases, trailing whitespace can either be removed, or protected by applying an appropriate content-transfer-encoding. However, special care must be taken when any header lines - either in MIME entity headers, or in embedded RFC 822 headers - are present which only consist of whitespace: Such lines must be removed entirely, since replacing them by empty lines would turn them into header delimiters, and change the semantics of the message. The restrictions on whitespace are necessary in order to make the hash calculated invariant under the text and binary mode signature mechanisms provided by OpenPGP [1]. Also, they help to avoid compatibility problems with PGP implementations which predate the OpenPGP specification.
Elkins, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 3156 MIME Security with OpenPGP August 2001
Note: If any line begins with the string "From ", it is strongly suggested that either the Quoted-Printable or Base64 MIME encoding be applied. If Quoted-Printable is used, at least one of the characters in the string should be encoded using the hexadecimal coding rule. This is because many mail transfer and delivery agents treat "From " (the word "from" followed immediately by a space character) as the start of a new message and thus insert a right angle-bracket (>) in front of any line beginning with "From " to distinguish this case, invalidating the signature.
Data that is ONLY to be encrypted is allowed to contain 8-bit characters and trailing whitespace and therefore need not undergo the conversion to a 7bit format, and the stripping of whitespace.
Implementor's note: It cannot be stressed enough that applications using this standard follow MIME's suggestion that you "be conservative in what you generate, and liberal in what you accept." In this particular case it means it would be wise for an implementation to accept messages with any content-transfer- encoding, but restrict generation to the 7-bit format required by this memo. This will allow future compatibility in the event the Internet SMTP framework becomes 8-bit friendly.
Before OpenPGP encryption, the data is written in MIME canonical format (body and headers).
OpenPGP encrypted data is denoted by the "multipart/encrypted" content type, described in [2], and MUST have a "protocol" parameter value of "application/pgp-encrypted". Note that the value of the parameter MUST be enclosed in quotes.
The multipart/encrypted MIME body MUST consist of exactly two body parts, the first with content type "application/pgp-encrypted". This body contains the control information. A message complying with this standard MUST contain a "Version: 1" field in this body. Since the OpenPGP packet format contains all other information necessary for decrypting, no other information is required here.
The second MIME body part MUST contain the actual encrypted data. It MUST be labeled with a content type of "application/octet-stream".
Example message:
From: Michael Elkins <elkins@aero.org> To: Michael Elkins <elkins@aero.org> Mime-Version: 1.0
OpenPGP signed messages are denoted by the "multipart/signed" content type, described in [2], with a "protocol" parameter which MUST have a value of "application/pgp-signature" (MUST be quoted).
The "micalg" parameter for the "application/pgp-signature" protocol MUST contain exactly one hash-symbol of the format "pgp-<hash- identifier>", where <hash-identifier> identifies the Message Integrity Check (MIC) algorithm used to generate the signature. Hash-symbols are constructed from the text names registered in [1] or according to the mechanism defined in that document by converting the text name to lower case and prefixing it with the four characters "pgp-".
Currently defined values are "pgp-md5", "pgp-sha1", "pgp-ripemd160", "pgp-md2", "pgp-tiger192", and "pgp-haval-5-160".
The multipart/signed body MUST consist of exactly two parts. The first part contains the signed data in MIME canonical format, including a set of appropriate content headers describing the data.
The second body MUST contain the OpenPGP digital signature. It MUST be labeled with a content type of "application/pgp-signature".
Elkins, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 3156 MIME Security with OpenPGP August 2001
Note: Implementations can either generate "signatures of a canonical text document" or "signatures of a binary document", as defined in [1]. The restrictions on the signed material put forth in section 3 and in this section will make sure that the various MIC algorithm variants specified in [1] and [5] will all produce the same result.
When the OpenPGP digital signature is generated:
(1) The data to be signed MUST first be converted to its content- type specific canonical form. For text/plain, this means conversion to an appropriate character set and conversion of line endings to the canonical <CR><LF> sequence.
(2) An appropriate Content-Transfer-Encoding is then applied; see section 3. In particular, line endings in the encoded data MUST use the canonical <CR><LF> sequence where appropriate (note that the canonical line ending may or may not be present on the last line of encoded data and MUST NOT be included in the signature if absent).
(3) MIME content headers are then added to the body, each ending with the canonical <CR><LF> sequence.
(4) As described in section 3 of this document, any trailing whitespace MUST then be removed from the signed material.
(5) As described in [2], the digital signature MUST be calculated over both the data to be signed and its set of content headers.
(6) The signature MUST be generated detached from the signed data so that the process does not alter the signed data in any way.
Note: The accepted OpenPGP convention is for signed data to end with a <CR><LF> sequence. Note that the <CR><LF> sequence immediately preceding a MIME boundary delimiter line is considered to be part of the delimiter in [3], 5.1. Thus, it is not part of the signed data preceding the delimiter line. An implementation which elects to adhere to the OpenPGP convention has to make sure it inserts a <CR><LF> pair on the last line of the data to be signed and transmitted (signed message and transmitted message MUST be identical).
Example message:
From: Michael Elkins <elkins@aero.org> To: Michael Elkins <elkins@aero.org> Mime-Version: 1.0
--bar & Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 & Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable & & =A1Hola! & & Did you know that talking to yourself is a sign of senility? & & It's generally a good idea to encode lines that begin with & From=20because some mail transport agents will insert a greater- & than (>) sign, thus invalidating the signature. & & Also, in some cases it might be desirable to encode any =20 & trailing whitespace that occurs on lines in order to ensure =20 & that the message signature is not invalidated when passing =20 & a gateway that modifies such whitespace (like BITNET). =20 & & me
The "&"s in the previous example indicate the portion of the data over which the signature was calculated.
Upon receipt of a signed message, an application MUST:
(1) Convert line endings to the canonical <CR><LF> sequence before the signature can be verified. This is necessary since the local MTA may have converted to a local end of line convention.
Elkins, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 3156 MIME Security with OpenPGP August 2001
(2) Pass both the signed data and its associated content headers along with the OpenPGP signature to the signature verification service.
Sometimes it is desirable to both digitally sign and then encrypt a message to be sent. This protocol allows for two methods of accomplishing this task.
In [2], it is stated that the data is first signed as a multipart/signature body, and then encrypted to form the final multipart/encrypted body. This is most useful for standard MIME- compliant message forwarding.
The OpenPGP packet format [1] describes a method for signing and encrypting data in a single OpenPGP message. This method is allowed in order to reduce processing overhead and increase compatibility with non-MIME implementations of OpenPGP. The resulting data is formatted as a "multipart/encrypted" object as described in Section 4.
Messages which are encrypted and signed in this combined fashion are REQUIRED to follow the same canonicalization rules as multipart/signed objects.
It is explicitly allowed for an agent to decrypt a combined message and rewrite it as a multipart/signed object using the signature data embedded in the encrypted version.
Signatures of a canonical text document as defined in [1] ignore trailing white space in signed material. Implementations which choose to use signatures of canonical text documents will not be able to detect the addition of whitespace in transit.
See [3], [4] for more information on the security considerations concerning the underlying protocols.
This document defines three media types: "application/pgp-encrypted", "application/pgp-signature" and "application/pgp-keys". The following sections specify the IANA registrations for these types.
9.1. Registration of the application/pgp-encrypted media type
MIME media type name: application MIME subtype name: pgp-encrypted Required parameters: none Optional parameters: none
Encoding considerations:
Currently this media type always consists of a single 7bit text string.
This document relies on the work of the IETF's OpenPGP Working Group's definitions of the OpenPGP Message Format. The OpenPGP message format is currently described in RFC 2440 [1].
Special thanks are due: to Philip Zimmermann for his original and ongoing work on PGP; to Charles Breed, Jon Callas and Dave Del Torto for originally proposing the formation of the OpenPGP Working Group; and to Steve Schoenfeld for helpful feedback during the draft process. The authors would also like to thank the engineers at Pretty Good Privacy, Inc (now Network Associates, Inc), including Colin Plumb, Hal Finney, Jon Callas, Mark Elrod, Mark Weaver and Lloyd Chambers, for their technical commentary.
Additional thanks are due to Jeff Schiller and Derek Atkins for their continuing support of strong cryptography and PGP freeware at MIT; to Rodney Thayer of Sable Technology; to John Noerenberg, Steve Dorner and Laurence Lundblade of the Eudora team at QUALCOMM, Inc; to Bodo Moeller for proposing the approach followed with respect to trailing whitespace; to John Gilmore, Hugh Daniel and Fred Ringel (at Rivertown) and Ian Bell (at Turnpike) for their timely critical commentary; and to the international members of the IETF's OpenPGP mailing list, including William Geiger, Lutz Donnerhacke and Kazu Yamamoto. The idea to use multipart/mixed with multipart/signed has been attributed to James Galvin. Finally, our gratitude is due to the many members of the "Cypherpunks," "Coderpunks" and "pgp-users" <http://cryptorights.org/pgp-users> mailing lists and the many users of PGP worldwide for helping keep the path to privacy open.
Elkins, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 3156 MIME Security with OpenPGP August 2001
12. Addresses of the Authors and OpenPGP Working Group Chair
The OpenPGP working group can be contacted via the current chair:
John W. Noerenberg II Qualcomm, Inc. 5775 Morehouse Dr. San Diego, CA 92121 USA
Phone: +1 619 658 3510 EMail: jwn2@qualcomm.com
The principal authors of this document are:
Dave Del Torto CryptoRights Foundation 80 Alviso Street, Mailstop: CRF San Francisco, CA 94127 USA
[1] Callas, J., Donnerhacke, L., Finney, H. and R. Thayer, "OpenPGP Message Format", RFC 2440, November 1998.
[2] Galvin, J., Murphy, G., Crocker, S. and N. Freed, "Security Multiparts for MIME: Multipart/Signed and Multipart/Encrypted", RFC 1847, October 1995.
[3] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, November 1996.
[4] Galvin, J., Murphy, G., Crocker, S. and N. Freed, "MIME Object Security Services", RFC 1848, October 1995.
[5] Atkins, D., Stallings, W. and P. Zimmermann, "PGP Message Exchange Formats", RFC 1991, August 1996.
[6] Elkins, M., "MIME Security with Pretty Good Privacy (PGP)", RFC 2015, October 1996.
[7] Freed, N., "Gateways and MIME Security Multiparts", RFC 2480, January 1999.
Elkins, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 3156 MIME Security with OpenPGP August 2001
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.