2019-05-01 18:55:21 +02:00
|
|
|
# Megolm group ratchet
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An AES-based cryptographic ratchet intended for group communications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Background
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Megolm ratchet is intended for encrypted messaging applications where there
|
|
|
|
may be a large number of recipients of each message, thus precluding the use of
|
|
|
|
peer-to-peer encryption systems such as [Olm][].
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It also allows a recipient to decrypt received messages multiple times. For
|
|
|
|
instance, in client/server applications, a copy of the ciphertext can be stored
|
|
|
|
on the (untrusted) server, while the client need only store the session keys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Overview
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each participant in a conversation uses their own outbound session for
|
|
|
|
encrypting messages. A session consists of a ratchet and an [Ed25519][] keypair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Secrecy is provided by the ratchet, which can be wound forwards but not
|
|
|
|
backwards, and is used to derive a distinct message key for each message.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Authenticity is provided via Ed25519 signatures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The value of the ratchet, and the public part of the Ed25519 key, are shared
|
|
|
|
with other participants in the conversation via secure peer-to-peer
|
|
|
|
channels. Provided that peer-to-peer channel provides authenticity of the
|
|
|
|
messages to the participants and deniability of the messages to third parties,
|
|
|
|
the Megolm session will inherit those properties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## The Megolm ratchet algorithm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Megolm ratchet $`R_i`$ consists of four parts, $`R_{i,j}`$ for
|
|
|
|
$`j \in {0,1,2,3}`$. The length of each part depends on the hash function
|
|
|
|
in use (256 bits for this version of Megolm).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ratchet is initialised with cryptographically-secure random data, and
|
|
|
|
advanced as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```math
|
|
|
|
\begin{aligned}
|
|
|
|
R_{i,0} &=
|
|
|
|
\begin{cases}
|
|
|
|
H_0\left(R_{2^24(n-1),0}\right) &\text{if }\exists n | i = 2^24n\\
|
|
|
|
R_{i-1,0} &\text{otherwise}
|
|
|
|
\end{cases}\\
|
|
|
|
R_{i,1} &=
|
|
|
|
\begin{cases}
|
|
|
|
H_1\left(R_{2^24(n-1),0}\right) &\text{if }\exists n | i = 2^24n\\
|
|
|
|
H_1\left(R_{2^16(m-1),1}\right) &\text{if }\exists m | i = 2^16m\\
|
|
|
|
R_{i-1,1} &\text{otherwise}
|
|
|
|
\end{cases}\\
|
|
|
|
R_{i,2} &=
|
|
|
|
\begin{cases}
|
|
|
|
H_2\left(R_{2^24(n-1),0}\right) &\text{if }\exists n | i = 2^24n\\
|
|
|
|
H_2\left(R_{2^16(m-1),1}\right) &\text{if }\exists m | i = 2^16m\\
|
|
|
|
H_2\left(R_{2^8(p-1),2}\right) &\text{if }\exists p | i = 2^8p\\
|
|
|
|
R_{i-1,2} &\text{otherwise}
|
|
|
|
\end{cases}\\
|
|
|
|
R_{i,3} &=
|
|
|
|
\begin{cases}
|
|
|
|
H_3\left(R_{2^24(n-1),0}\right) &\text{if }\exists n | i = 2^24n\\
|
|
|
|
H_3\left(R_{2^16(m-1),1}\right) &\text{if }\exists m | i = 2^16m\\
|
|
|
|
H_3\left(R_{2^8(p-1),2}\right) &\text{if }\exists p | i = 2^8p\\
|
|
|
|
H_3\left(R_{i-1,3}\right) &\text{otherwise}
|
|
|
|
\end{cases}
|
|
|
|
\end{aligned}
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where $`H_0`$, $`H_1`$, $`H_2`$, and $`H_3`$ are different hash
|
|
|
|
functions. In summary: every $`2^8`$ iterations, $`R_{i,3}`$ is
|
2019-08-22 06:30:45 +02:00
|
|
|
reseeded from $`R_{i,2}`$. Every $`2^{16}`$ iterations, $`R_{i,2}`$
|
|
|
|
and $`R_{i,3}`$ are reseeded from $`R_{i,1}`$. Every $`2^{24}`$
|
2019-05-01 18:55:21 +02:00
|
|
|
iterations, $`R_{i,1}`$, $`R_{i,2}`$ and $`R_{i,3}`$ are reseeded
|
|
|
|
from $`R_{i,0}`$.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The complete ratchet value, $`R_{i}`$, is hashed to generate the keys used
|
|
|
|
to encrypt each message. This scheme allows the ratchet to be advanced an
|
2019-05-20 22:38:16 +02:00
|
|
|
arbitrary amount forwards while needing at most 1020 hash computations. A
|
2019-05-01 18:55:21 +02:00
|
|
|
client can decrypt chat history onwards from the earliest value of the ratchet
|
|
|
|
it is aware of, but cannot decrypt history from before that point without
|
|
|
|
reversing the hash function.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This allows a participant to share its ability to decrypt chat history with
|
|
|
|
another from a point in the conversation onwards by giving a copy of the
|
|
|
|
ratchet at that point in the conversation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## The Megolm protocol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Session setup
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each participant in a conversation generates their own Megolm session. A
|
|
|
|
session consists of three parts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* a 32 bit counter, $`i`$.
|
|
|
|
* an [Ed25519][] keypair, $`K`$.
|
|
|
|
* a ratchet, $`R_i`$, which consists of four 256-bit values,
|
|
|
|
$`R_{i,j}`$ for $`j \in {0,1,2,3}`$.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The counter $`i`$ is initialised to $`0`$. A new Ed25519 keypair is
|
|
|
|
generated for $`K`$. The ratchet is simply initialised with 1024 bits of
|
|
|
|
cryptographically-secure random data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A single participant may use multiple sessions over the lifetime of a
|
|
|
|
conversation. The public part of $`K`$ is used as an identifier to
|
|
|
|
discriminate between sessions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Sharing session data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To allow other participants in the conversation to decrypt messages, the
|
|
|
|
session data is formatted as described in [Session-sharing format](#Session-sharing-format). It is then
|
|
|
|
shared with other participants in the conversation via a secure peer-to-peer
|
|
|
|
channel (such as that provided by [Olm][]).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When the session data is received from other participants, the recipient first
|
|
|
|
checks that the signature matches the public key. They then store their own
|
|
|
|
copy of the counter, ratchet, and public key.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Message encryption
|
|
|
|
|
2019-08-22 06:30:45 +02:00
|
|
|
This version of Megolm uses [AES-256][] in [CBC][] mode with [PKCS#7][] padding and
|
|
|
|
[HMAC-SHA-256][] (truncated to 64 bits). The 256 bit AES key, 256 bit HMAC key,
|
2019-05-01 18:55:21 +02:00
|
|
|
and 128 bit AES IV are derived from the megolm ratchet $`R_i`$:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```math
|
|
|
|
\begin{aligned}
|
2019-08-22 06:30:45 +02:00
|
|
|
\mathit{AES\_KEY}_{i}\;\parallel\;\mathit{HMAC\_KEY}_{i}\;\parallel\;\mathit{AES\_IV}_{i}
|
|
|
|
&= \operatorname{HKDF}\left(0,\,R_{i},\text{"MEGOLM\_KEYS"},\,80\right) \\
|
2019-05-01 18:55:21 +02:00
|
|
|
\end{aligned}
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where $`\parallel`$ represents string splitting, and
|
2019-08-22 06:30:45 +02:00
|
|
|
$`\operatorname{HKDF}\left(\mathit{salt},\,\mathit{IKM},\,\mathit{info},\,L\right)`$
|
|
|
|
refers to the [HMAC-based key
|
2019-05-01 18:55:21 +02:00
|
|
|
derivation function][] using using [SHA-256][] as the hash function
|
2019-08-22 06:30:45 +02:00
|
|
|
([HKDF-SHA-256][]) with a salt value of $`\mathit{salt}`$, input key material of
|
|
|
|
$`\mathit{IKM}`$, context string $`\mathit{info}`$, and output keying material length of
|
2019-05-01 18:55:21 +02:00
|
|
|
$`L`$ bytes.
|
|
|
|
|
2019-08-22 06:30:45 +02:00
|
|
|
The plain-text is encrypted with AES-256, using the key $`\mathit{AES\_KEY}_{i}`$
|
|
|
|
and the IV $`\mathit{AES\_IV}_{i}`$ to give the cipher-text, $`X_{i}`$.
|
2019-05-01 18:55:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ratchet index $`i`$, and the cipher-text $`X_{i}`$, are then packed
|
|
|
|
into a message as described in [Message format](#message-format). Then the entire message
|
|
|
|
(including the version bytes and all payload bytes) are passed through
|
|
|
|
HMAC-SHA-256. The first 8 bytes of the MAC are appended to the message.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finally, the authenticated message is signed using the Ed25519 keypair; the 64
|
|
|
|
byte signature is appended to the message.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The complete signed message, together with the public part of $`K`$ (acting
|
|
|
|
as a session identifier), can then be sent over an insecure channel. The
|
|
|
|
message can then be authenticated and decrypted only by recipients who have
|
|
|
|
received the session data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Advancing the ratchet
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After each message is encrypted, the ratchet is advanced. This is done as
|
|
|
|
described in [The Megolm ratchet algorithm](#the-megolm-ratchet-algorithm), using the following definitions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```math
|
|
|
|
\begin{aligned}
|
2019-08-22 06:30:45 +02:00
|
|
|
H_0(A) &\equiv \operatorname{HMAC}(A,\text{"\x00"}) \\
|
|
|
|
H_1(A) &\equiv \operatorname{HMAC}(A,\text{"\x01"}) \\
|
|
|
|
H_2(A) &\equiv \operatorname{HMAC}(A,\text{"\x02"}) \\
|
|
|
|
H_3(A) &\equiv \operatorname{HMAC}(A,\text{"\x03"}) \\
|
2019-05-01 18:55:21 +02:00
|
|
|
\end{aligned}
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2019-08-22 06:30:45 +02:00
|
|
|
where $`\operatorname{HMAC}(A, T)`$ is the HMAC-SHA-256 of ``T``, using ``A`` as the
|
2019-05-01 18:55:21 +02:00
|
|
|
key.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For outbound sessions, the updated ratchet and counter are stored in the
|
|
|
|
session.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to maintain the ability to decrypt conversation history, inbound
|
|
|
|
sessions should store a copy of their earliest known ratchet value (unless they
|
|
|
|
explicitly want to drop the ability to decrypt that history - see [Partial
|
|
|
|
Forward Secrecy](#partial-forward-secrecy)). They may also choose to cache calculated ratchet values,
|
|
|
|
but the decision of which ratchet states to cache is left to the application.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Data exchange formats
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Session-sharing format
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Megolm key-sharing format is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
+---+----+--------+--------+--------+--------+------+-----------+
|
|
|
|
| V | i | R(i,0) | R(i,1) | R(i,2) | R(i,3) | Kpub | Signature |
|
|
|
|
+---+----+--------+--------+--------+--------+------+-----------+
|
|
|
|
0 1 5 37 69 101 133 165 229 bytes
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The version byte, ``V``, is ``"\x02"``.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is followed by the ratchet index, $`i`$, which is encoded as a
|
|
|
|
big-endian 32-bit integer; the ratchet values $`R_{i,j}`$; and the public
|
|
|
|
part of the Ed25519 keypair $`K`$.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The data is then signed using the Ed25519 keypair, and the 64-byte signature is
|
|
|
|
appended.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Message format
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Megolm messages consist of a one byte version, followed by a variable length
|
|
|
|
payload, a fixed length message authentication code, and a fixed length
|
|
|
|
signature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
+---+------------------------------------+-----------+------------------+
|
|
|
|
| V | Payload Bytes | MAC Bytes | Signature Bytes |
|
|
|
|
+---+------------------------------------+-----------+------------------+
|
|
|
|
0 1 N N+8 N+72 bytes
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The version byte, ``V``, is ``"\x03"``.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The payload uses a format based on the [Protocol Buffers encoding][]. It
|
|
|
|
consists of the following key-value pairs:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Name**|**Tag**|**Type**|**Meaning**
|
|
|
|
:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:
|
|
|
|
Message-Index|0x08|Integer|The index of the ratchet, i
|
|
|
|
Cipher-Text|0x12|String|The cipher-text, Xi, of the message
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Within the payload, integers are encoded using a variable length encoding. Each
|
|
|
|
integer is encoded as a sequence of bytes with the high bit set followed by a
|
|
|
|
byte with the high bit clear. The seven low bits of each byte store the bits of
|
|
|
|
the integer. The least significant bits are stored in the first byte.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strings are encoded as a variable-length integer followed by the string itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each key-value pair is encoded as a variable-length integer giving the tag,
|
|
|
|
followed by a string or variable-length integer giving the value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The payload is followed by the MAC. The length of the MAC is determined by the
|
|
|
|
authenticated encryption algorithm being used (8 bytes in this version of the
|
|
|
|
protocol). The MAC protects all of the bytes preceding the MAC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The length of the signature is determined by the signing algorithm being used
|
|
|
|
(64 bytes in this version of the protocol). The signature covers all of the
|
|
|
|
bytes preceding the signature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Limitations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Message Replays
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A message can be decrypted successfully multiple times. This means that an
|
|
|
|
attacker can re-send a copy of an old message, and the recipient will treat it
|
|
|
|
as a new message.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To mitigate this it is recommended that applications track the ratchet indices
|
|
|
|
they have received and that they reject messages with a ratchet index that
|
|
|
|
they have already decrypted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Lack of Transcript Consistency
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In a group conversation, there is no guarantee that all recipients have
|
|
|
|
received the same messages. For example, if Alice is in a conversation with Bob
|
|
|
|
and Charlie, she could send different messages to Bob and Charlie, or could
|
|
|
|
send some messages to Bob but not Charlie, or vice versa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solving this is, in general, a hard problem, particularly in a protocol which
|
|
|
|
does not guarantee in-order message delivery. For now it remains the subject of
|
|
|
|
future research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Lack of Backward Secrecy
|
|
|
|
|
2019-06-18 13:45:31 +02:00
|
|
|
[Backward secrecy](https://intensecrypto.org/public/lec_08_hash_functions_part2.html#sec-forward-and-backward-secrecy)
|
|
|
|
(also called 'future secrecy' or 'post-compromise security') is the property
|
|
|
|
that if current private keys are compromised, an attacker cannot decrypt
|
|
|
|
future messages in a given session. In other words, when looking
|
2019-06-19 00:47:42 +02:00
|
|
|
**backwards** in time at a compromise which has already happened, **current**
|
|
|
|
messages are still secret.
|
2019-06-18 13:45:31 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2019-06-19 00:47:42 +02:00
|
|
|
By itself, Megolm does not possess this property: once the key to a Megolm
|
|
|
|
session is compromised, the attacker can decrypt any message that was
|
2019-06-20 01:21:47 +02:00
|
|
|
encrypted using a key derived from the compromised or subsequent ratchet
|
|
|
|
values.
|
2019-05-01 18:55:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to mitigate this, the application should ensure that Megolm sessions
|
|
|
|
are not used indefinitely. Instead it should periodically start a new session,
|
|
|
|
with new keys shared over a secure channel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- TODO: Can we recommend sensible lifetimes for Megolm sessions? Probably
|
|
|
|
depends how paranoid we're feeling, but some guidelines might be useful. -->
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Partial Forward Secrecy
|
|
|
|
|
2019-06-18 13:45:31 +02:00
|
|
|
[Forward secrecy](https://intensecrypto.org/public/lec_08_hash_functions_part2.html#sec-forward-and-backward-secrecy)
|
2019-06-19 00:47:42 +02:00
|
|
|
(also called 'perfect forward secrecy') is the property that if the current
|
|
|
|
private keys are compromised, an attacker cannot decrypt *past* messages in
|
|
|
|
a given session. In other words, when looking **forwards** in time towards a
|
|
|
|
potential future compromise, **current** messages will be secret.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Megolm, each recipient maintains a record of the ratchet value which allows
|
|
|
|
them to decrypt any messages sent in the session after the corresponding point
|
|
|
|
in the conversation. If this value is compromised, an attacker can similarly
|
|
|
|
decrypt past messages which were encrypted by a key derived from the
|
2019-06-20 01:21:47 +02:00
|
|
|
compromised or subsequent ratchet values. This gives 'partial' forward
|
|
|
|
secrecy.
|
2019-05-01 18:55:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To mitigate this issue, the application should offer the user the option to
|
|
|
|
discard historical conversations, by winding forward any stored ratchet values,
|
|
|
|
or discarding sessions altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Dependency on secure channel for key exchange
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The design of the Megolm ratchet relies on the availability of a secure
|
|
|
|
peer-to-peer channel for the exchange of session keys. Any vulnerabilities in
|
|
|
|
the underlying channel are likely to be amplified when applied to Megolm
|
|
|
|
session setup.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For example, if the peer-to-peer channel is vulnerable to an unknown key-share
|
|
|
|
attack, the entire Megolm session become similarly vulnerable. For example:
|
|
|
|
Alice starts a group chat with Eve, and shares the session keys with Eve. Eve
|
|
|
|
uses the unknown key-share attack to forward the session keys to Bob, who
|
|
|
|
believes Alice is starting the session with him. Eve then forwards messages
|
|
|
|
from the Megolm session to Bob, who again believes they are coming from
|
|
|
|
Alice. Provided the peer-to-peer channel is not vulnerable to this attack, Bob
|
|
|
|
will realise that the key-sharing message was forwarded by Eve, and can treat
|
|
|
|
the Megolm session as a forgery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A second example: if the peer-to-peer channel is vulnerable to a replay
|
|
|
|
attack, this can be extended to entire Megolm sessions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## License
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Megolm specification (this document) is licensed under the Apache License,
|
|
|
|
Version 2.0 http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Ed25519]: http://ed25519.cr.yp.to/
|
|
|
|
[HMAC-based key derivation function]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5869
|
|
|
|
[HKDF-SHA-256]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5869
|
|
|
|
[HMAC-SHA-256]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2104
|
|
|
|
[SHA-256]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6234
|
|
|
|
[AES-256]: http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips197/fips-197.pdf
|
|
|
|
[CBC]: http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-38a/sp800-38a.pdf
|
|
|
|
[PKCS#7]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2315
|
|
|
|
[Olm]: https://gitlab.matrix.org/matrix-org/olm/blob/master/docs/olm.md
|
|
|
|
[Protocol Buffers encoding]: https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/encoding
|