Group OSCORE - Secure Group Communication for CoAP

1.1. Terminology

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶

Readers are expected to be familiar with the terms and concepts described in CoAP [RFC7252] including "endpoint", "client", "server", "sender" and "recipient"; group communication for CoAP [I-D.ietf-core-groupcomm-bis]; CBOR [RFC8949]; COSE [RFC9052][RFC9053] and related countersignatures [I-D.ietf-cose-countersign].¶

Readers are also expected to be familiar with the terms and concepts for protection and processing of CoAP messages through OSCORE, such as "Security Context" and "Master Secret", defined in [RFC8613].¶

Terminology for constrained environments, such as "constrained device" and "constrained-node network", is defined in [RFC7228].¶

This document refers also to the following terminology.¶

• Keying material: data that is necessary to establish and maintain secure communication among endpoints. This includes, for instance, keys and IVs [RFC4949].¶
• Authentication credential: set of information associated with an entity, including that entity's public key and parameters associated with the public key. Examples of authentication credentials are CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs) and CWT Claims Sets (CCSs) [RFC8392], X.509 certificates [RFC7925] and C509 certificates [I-D.ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert]. Further details about authentication credentials are provided in Section 2.3.¶
• Group: a set of endpoints that share group keying material and security parameters (Common Context, see Section 2). That is, unless otherwise specified, the term group used in this document refers to a "security group" (see Section 2.1 of [I-D.ietf-core-groupcomm-bis]), not to be confused with "CoAP group" or "application group".¶
• Group Manager: entity responsible for a group. Each endpoint in a group communicates securely with the respective Group Manager, which is neither required to be an actual group member nor to take part in the group communication. The full list of responsibilities of the Group Manager is provided in Section 3.3.¶
• Silent server: member of a group that never sends protected responses in reply to requests. For CoAP group communications, requests are normally sent without necessarily expecting a response. A silent server may send unprotected responses, as error responses reporting an OSCORE error. Note that an endpoint can implement both a silent server and a client, i.e., the two roles are independent. An endpoint acting only as a silent server performs only Group OSCORE processing on incoming requests. Silent servers maintain less keying material and in particular do not have a Sender Context for the group. Since silent servers do not have a Sender ID, they cannot support the pairwise mode.¶
• Group Identifier (Gid): identifier assigned to the group, unique within the set of groups of a given Group Manager.¶
• Birth Gid: with respect to a group member, the Gid obtained by that group member upon (re-)joining the group.¶
• Group request: CoAP request message sent by a client in the group to all servers in that group.¶
• Key Generation Number: an integer value identifying the current version of the keying material used in a group.¶
• Source authentication: evidence that a received message in the group originated from a specific identified group member. This also provides assurance that the message was not tampered with by anyone, be it a different legitimate group member or an endpoint which is not a group member.¶

2.1. Common Context

The Common Context may be acquired from the Group Manager (see Section 3). The following sections define how the Common Context is extended, compared to [RFC8613].¶

2.2. Sender Context and Recipient Context

OSCORE specifies the derivation of Sender Context and Recipient Context, specifically of Sender/Recipient Keys and Common IV, from a set of input parameters (see Section 3.2 of [RFC8613]).¶

The derivation of Sender/Recipient Keys and Common IV defined in OSCORE applies also to Group OSCORE, with the following extensions compared to Section 3.2.1 of [RFC8613].¶

• If the group uses (also) the group mode, the 'alg_aead' element of the 'info' array takes the value of Signature Encryption Algorithm from the Common Context (see Section 2.1.5).¶
• If the group uses only the pairwise mode, the 'alg_aead' element of the 'info' array takes the value of AEAD Algorithm from the Common Context (see Section 2.1.1).¶

The Sender ID SHALL be unique for each endpoint in a group with a certain tuple (Master Secret, Master Salt, Group Identifier), see Section 3.3 of [RFC8613].¶

For Group OSCORE, the Sender Context and Recipient Context additionally contain asymmetric keys, as described previously in Section 2. The private key of the sender and the authentication credential including the corresponding public key can, for example, be generated by the endpoint or provisioned during manufacturing.¶

With the exception of the authentication credential of the sender endpoint and the possibly associated pairwise keys, a receiver endpoint can derive a complete Security Context from a received Group OSCORE message and the Common Context. The authentication credentials in the Recipient Contexts can be retrieved from the Group Manager (see Section 3) upon joining the group. An authentication credential can alternatively be acquired from the Group Manager at a later time, for example the first time a message is received from a particular endpoint in the group (see Section 8.2 and Section 8.4).¶

For severely constrained devices, it may be not feasible to simultaneously handle the ongoing processing of a recently received message in parallel with the retrieval of the sender endpoint's authentication credential. Such devices can be configured to drop a received message for which there is no (complete) Recipient Context, and retrieve the sender endpoint's authentication credential in order to have it available to verify subsequent messages from that endpoint.¶

An endpoint admits a maximum amount of Recipient Contexts for a same Security Context, e.g., due to memory limitations. After reaching that limit, the creation of a new Recipient Context results in an overflow. When this happens, the endpoint has to delete a current Recipient Context to install the new one. It is up to the application to define policies for selecting the current Recipient Context to delete. If the new Recipient Context has been installed after the endpoint has experienced the overflow above, then the Recipient Context is initialized with an invalid Replay Window, and accordingly requires the endpoint to take appropriate actions (see Section 2.5.1.2).¶

2.3. Authentication Credentials

In a group, the following MUST hold for the authentication credential of each endpoint as well as for the authentication credential of the Group Manager.¶

• All authentication credentials MUST be encoded according to the same format used in the group. The used format MUST provide the public key as well as the comprehensive set of information related to the public key algorithm, including, e.g., the used elliptic curve (when applicable).¶

• All authentication credentials and the public key specified therein MUST be for the public key algorithm used in the group and aligned with the possible associated parameters used in the group, e.g., the used elliptic curve (when applicable).¶

  If the group uses (also) the group mode, the public key algorithm is the Signature Algorithm used in the group. If the group uses only the pairwise mode, the public key algorithm is the Pairwise Key Agreement Algorithm used in the group.¶

  If the authentication credentials are X.509 certificates [RFC7925] or C509 certificates [I-D.ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert], the public key algorithm is fully described by the "algorithm" field of the "SubjectPublicKeyInfo" structure, and by the "subjectPublicKeyAlgorithm" element, respectively.¶

  If authentication credentials are CBOR Web Tokens (CWTs) or CWT Claims Sets (CCSs) [RFC8392], the public key algorithm is fully described by a COSE key type and its "kty" and "crv" parameters.¶

Authentication credentials are used to derive pairwise keys (see Section 2.4.1) and are included in the external additional authenticated data when processing messages (see Section 4.3). In both these cases, an endpoint in a group MUST treat authentication credentials as opaque data, i.e., by considering the same binary representation made available to other endpoints in the group, possibly through a designated trusted source (e.g., the Group Manager).¶

For example, an X.509 certificate is provided as its direct binary serialization. If C509 certificates or CWTs are used as authentication credentials, each is provided as the binary serialization of a (possibly tagged) CBOR array. If CCSs are used as authentication credentials, each is provided as the binary serialization of a CBOR map.¶

If authentication credentials are CWTs, then the untagged CWT associated with an entity is stored in the Security Context and used as authentication credential for that entity.¶

If authentication credentials are X.509 / C509 certificates or CWTs and the authentication credential associated with an entity is provided within a chain or a bag, then only the end-entity certificate or end-entity untagged CWT is stored in the Security Context and used as authentication credential for that entity.¶

Storing whole authentication credentials rather than only a subset of those may result in a non-negligible storage overhead. On the other hand, it also ensures that authentication credentials are correctly used in a simple, flexible and non-error-prone way, also taking into account future credential formats as entirely new or extending existing ones. In particular, it is ensured that:¶

• When used to derive pairwise keys and when included in the external additional authenticated data, authentication credentials can also specify possible metadata and parameters related to the included public key. Besides the public key algorithm, these comprise other relevant pieces of information such as key usage, expiration time, issuer and subject.¶
• All endpoints using another endpoint's authentication credential use exactly the same binary serialization, as obtained and distributed by the credential provider (e.g., the Group Manager) and as originally crafted by the credential issuer. In turn, this does not require to define and maintain canonical subsets of authentication credentials and their corresponding encoding, and spares endpoints from error-prone re-encoding operations.¶

Depending on the particular deployment and the intended group size, limiting the storage overhead of endpoints in a group can be an incentive for system/network administrators to prefer using a compact format of authentication credentials in the first place.¶

2.4. Pairwise Keys

Certain signature schemes, such as EdDSA and ECDSA, support a secure combined signature and encryption scheme. This section specifies the derivation of "pairwise keys", for use in the pairwise mode defined in Section 9.¶

Group OSCORE keys used for both signature and encryption MUST be used only for purposes related to Group OSCORE. These include the processing of messages with Group OSCORE, as well as performing proof-of-possession of private keys, e.g., upon joining a group through the Group Manager (see Section 3).¶

Pairwise Sender Key    = HKDF(Sender Key, IKM-Sender, info, L)
Pairwise Recipient Key = HKDF(Recipient Key, IKM-Recipient, info, L)

with

IKM-Sender    = Sender Auth Cred | Recipient Auth Cred | Shared Secret
IKM-Recipient = Recipient Auth Cred | Sender Auth Cred | Shared Secret

2.5. Update of Security Context

It is RECOMMENDED that the immutable part of the Security Context is stored in non-volatile memory, or that it can otherwise be reliably accessed throughout the operation of the group, e.g., after a device reboots. However, also immutable parts of the Security Context may need to be updated, for example due to scheduled key renewal, new or re-joining members in the group, or the fact that the endpoint changes Sender ID (see Section 2.5.3).¶

On the other hand, the mutable parts of the Security Context are updated by the endpoint when executing the security protocol, but may nevertheless become outdated, e.g., due to loss of the mutable Security Context (see Section 2.5.1) or exhaustion of Sender Sequence Numbers (see Section 2.5.2).¶

If it is not feasible or practically possible to store and maintain up-to-date the mutable part in non-volatile memory (e.g., due to limited number of write operations), the endpoint MUST be able to detect a loss of the mutable Security Context and MUST accordingly take the actions defined in Section 2.5.1.¶

3.1. Support for Additional Entities

The Group Manager MAY serve additional entities acting as signature checkers, e.g., intermediary gateways. These entities do not join a group as members, but can retrieve authentication credentials of group members and other selected group data from the Group Manager, in order to solely verify countersignatures of messages protected in group mode (see Section 8.5).¶

In order to verify countersignatures of messages in a group, a signature checker needs to retrieve the following information about that group from the Group Manager.¶

• The current ID Context (Gid) used in the group.¶

• The authentication credentials of the group members and the authentication credential of the Group Manager.¶

  If the signature checker is provided with a CWT for a given entity, then the authentication credential associated with that entity that the signature checker stores and uses is the untagged CWT.¶

  If the signature checker is provided with a chain or a bag of X.509 / C509 certificates or of CWTs for a given entity, then the authentication credential associated with that entity that the signature checker stores and uses is just the end-entity certificate or end-entity untagged CWT.¶

• The current Group Encryption Key (see Section 2.1.6).¶
• The identifiers of the algorithms used in the group (see Section 2), i.e.: i) Signature Encryption Algorithm and Signature Algorithm; and ii) AEAD Algorithm and Pairwise Key Agreement Algorithm, if the group uses also the pairwise mode.¶

A signature checker MUST be authorized before it can retrieve such information. To this end, the same method mentioned above based on the ACE framework [RFC9200] can be used.¶

3.2. Management of Group Keying Material

In order to establish a new Security Context for a group, the Group Manager MUST generate and assign to the group a new Group Identifier (Gid) and a new value for the Master Secret parameter. When doing so, a new value for the Master Salt parameter MAY also be generated and assigned to the group. When establishing the new Security Context, the Group Manager should preserve the current value of the Sender ID of each group member.¶

The specific group key management scheme used to distribute new keying material is out of the scope of this document. A simple group key management scheme is defined in [I-D.ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore]. When possible, the delivery of rekeying messages should use a reliable transport, in order to reduce chances of group members missing a rekeying instance.¶

The set of group members should not be assumed as fixed, i.e., the group membership is subject to changes, possibly on a frequent basis.¶

The Group Manager MUST rekey the group when one or more endpoints leave the group. An endpoint may leave the group at own initiative, or may be evicted from the group by the Group Manager, e.g., in case an endpoint is compromised, or is suspected to be compromised. In either case, rekeying the group excludes such endpoints from future communications in the group, and thus preserves forward security. If a network node is compromised or suspected to be compromised, the Group Manager MUST evict from the group all the endpoints hosted by that node that are member of the group and rekey the group accordingly.¶

If required by the application, the Group Manager MUST rekey the group also before one or more new joining endpoints are added to the group, thus preserving backward security.¶

The establishment of the new Security Context for the group takes the following steps.¶

1. The Group Manager MUST increment the Key Generation Number for the group by 1.¶

2. The Group Manager MUST build a set of stale Sender IDs including:¶

   • The Sender IDs that, during the current Gid, were both assigned to an endpoint and subsequently relinquished (see Section 2.5.3.1).¶
   • The current Sender IDs of the group members that the upcoming group rekeying aims to exclude from future group communications, if any.¶

3. The Group Manager rekeys the group, by distributing:¶

   • The new keying material, i.e., the new Master Secret, the new Gid and (optionally) the new Master Salt.¶
   • The new Key Generation Number from step 1.¶
   • The set of stale Sender IDs from step 2.¶

   Further information may be distributed, depending on the specific group key management scheme used in the group.¶

When receiving the new group keying materal, a group member considers the received stale Sender IDs and performs the following actions.¶

• The group member MUST remove every authentication credential associated with a stale Sender ID from its list of group members' authentication credentials used in the group.¶
• The group member MUST delete each of its Recipient Contexts used in the group whose corresponding Recipient ID is a stale Sender ID.¶

After that, the group member installs the new keying material and derives the corresponding new Security Context.¶

A group member might miss one group rekeying or more consecutive instances. As a result, the group member will retain old group keying material with Key Generation Number GEN_OLD. Eventually, the group member can notice the discrepancy, e.g., by repeatedly failing to verify incoming messages, or by explicitly querying the Group Manager for the current Key Generation Number. Once the group member gains knowledge of having missed a group rekeying, it MUST delete the old keying material it stores.¶

Then, the group member proceeds according to the following steps.¶

1. The group member retrieves from the Group Manager the current group keying material, together with the current Key Generation Number GEN_NEW. The group member MUST NOT install the obtained group keying material yet.¶
2. The group member asks the Group Manager for the set of stale Sender IDs.¶

3. If no exact indication can be obtained from the Group Manager, the group member MUST remove all the authentication credentials from its list of group members' authentication credentials used in the group and MUST delete all its Recipient Contexts used in the group.¶

   Otherwise, the group member MUST remove every authentication credential associated with a stale Sender ID from its list of group members' authentication credentials used in the group, and MUST delete each of its Recipient Contexts used in the group whose corresponding Recipient ID is a stale Sender ID.¶

4. The group member installs the current group keying material, and derives the corresponding new Security Context.¶

Alternatively, the group member can re-join the group. In such a case, the group member MUST take one of the following two actions.¶

• The group member performs steps 2 and 3 above. Then, the group member re-joins the group.¶

• The group member re-joins the group with the same roles it currently has in the group, and, during the re-joining process, it asks the Group Manager for the authentication credentials of all the current group members.¶

  Then, given Z the set of authentication credentials received from the Group Manager, the group member removes every authentication credential which is not in Z from its list of group members' authentication credentials used in the group, and deletes each of its Recipient Contexts used in the group that does not include any of the authentication credentials in Z.¶

By removing authentication credentials and deleting Recipient Contexts associated with stale Sender IDs, it is ensured that a recipient endpoint storing the latest group keying material does not store the authentication credentials of sender endpoints that are not current group members. This in turn allows group members to rely on stored authentication credentials to confidently assert the group membership of sender endpoints, when receiving incoming messages protected in group mode (see Section 8).¶

Components changed in lockstep
    upon a group rekeying
+----------------------------+            * Changing a kid does not
|                            |              need changing the Group ID
| Master               Group |<--> kid1
| Secret <---> o <--->  ID   |            * A kid is not reassigned
|              ^             |<--> kid2     under the ongoing usage of
|              |             |              the current Group ID
|              |             |<--> kid3
|              v             |            * Upon changing the Group ID,
|         Master Salt        | ... ...      every current kid should
|         (optional)         |              be preserved for efficient
|                            |              key rollover
| The Key Generation Number  |
| is incremented by 1        |            * After changing Group ID, an
|                            |              unused kid can be assigned,
+----------------------------+              even if it was used before
                                            the Group ID change

3.3. Responsibilities of the Group Manager

The Group Manager is responsible for performing the following tasks:¶

1. Creating and managing OSCORE groups. This includes the assignment of a Gid to every newly created group, ensuring uniqueness of Gids within the set of its OSCORE groups and, optionally, the secure recycling of Gids.¶
2. Defining policies for authorizing the joining of its OSCORE groups.¶
3. Handling the join process to add new endpoints as group members.¶
4. Establishing the Common Context part of the Security Context, and providing it to authorized group members during the join process, together with the corresponding Sender Context.¶
5. Updating the Key Generation Number and the Gid of its OSCORE groups, upon renewing the respective Security Context.¶

6. Generating and managing Sender IDs within its OSCORE groups, as well as assigning and providing them to new endpoints during the join process, or to current group members upon request of renewal or re-joining. This includes ensuring that:¶

   • Each Sender ID is unique within each of the OSCORE groups;¶
   • Each Sender ID is not reassigned within the same group since the latest time when the current Gid value was assigned to the group. That is, the Sender ID is not reassigned even to a current group member re-joining the same group, without a rekeying happening first.¶
7. Defining communication policies for each of its OSCORE groups, and signaling them to new endpoints during the join process.¶
8. Renewing the Security Context of an OSCORE group upon membership change, by revoking and renewing common security parameters and keying material (rekeying).¶
9. Providing the management keying material that a new endpoint requires to participate in the rekeying process, consistently with the key management scheme used in the group joined by the new endpoint.¶
10. Assisting a group member that has missed a group rekeying instance to understand which authentication credentials and Recipient Contexts to delete, as associated with former group members.¶
11. Acting as key repository, in order to handle the authentication credentials of the members of its OSCORE groups, and providing such authentication credentials to other members of the same group upon request. The actual storage of authentication credentials may be entrusted to a separate secure storage device or service.¶
12. Validating that the format and parameters of authentication credentials of group members are consistent with the public key algorithm and related parameters used in the respective OSCORE group.¶

The Group Manager specified in [I-D.ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore] provides these functionalities.¶

4.1. Countersignature

When protecting a message in group mode, the 'unprotected' field MUST additionally include the following parameter:¶

• COSE_Countersignature0: its value is set to the encrypted countersignature of the COSE object, namely ENC_SIGNATURE. That is:¶

  • The countersignature of the COSE object, namely SIGNATURE, is computed by the sender as described in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of [I-D.ietf-cose-countersign], by using its private key and according to the Signature Algorithm in the Security Context.¶

    In particular, the Countersign_structure contains the context text string "CounterSignature0", the external_aad as defined in Section 4.3 of this document, and the ciphertext of the COSE object as payload.¶

  • The encrypted countersignature, namely ENC_SIGNATURE, is computed as¶

    ENC_SIGNATURE = SIGNATURE XOR KEYSTREAM¶

    where KEYSTREAM is derived as per Section 4.1.1.¶

info = [
  id : bstr,
  id_context : bstr,
  type : bool,
  L: uint
]

4.2. The 'kid' and 'kid context' parameters

The value of the 'kid' parameter in the 'unprotected' field of response messages MUST be set to the Sender ID of the endpoint transmitting the message, if the request was protected in group mode. That is, unlike in [RFC8613], the 'kid' parameter is always present in responses to a request that was protected in group mode.¶

The value of the 'kid context' parameter in the 'unprotected' field of requests messages MUST be set to the ID Context, i.e., the Group Identifier value (Gid) of the group. That is, unlike in [RFC8613], the 'kid context' parameter is always present in requests.¶

4.3. external_aad

The external_aad of the Additional Authenticated Data (AAD) is different compared to OSCORE [RFC8613], and is defined in this section.¶

The same external_aad structure is used in group mode and pairwise mode for authenticated encryption/decryption (see Section 5.3 of [RFC9052]), as well as in group mode for computing and verifying the countersignature (see Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of [I-D.ietf-cose-countersign]).¶

In particular, the external_aad includes also the Signature Algorithm, the Signature Encryption Algorithm, the Pairwise Key Agreement Algorithm, the value of the 'kid context' in the COSE object of the request, the OSCORE option of the protected message, the sender's authentication credential, and the Group Manager's authentication credential.¶

The external_aad SHALL be a CBOR array wrapped in a bstr object as defined below, following the notation of [RFC8610]:¶

external_aad = bstr .cbor aad_array

aad_array = [
   oscore_version : uint,
   algorithms : [alg_aead : int / tstr / null,
                 alg_signature_enc : int / tstr / null,
                 alg_signature : int / tstr / null,
                 alg_pairwise_key_agreement : int / tstr / null],
   request_kid : bstr,
   request_piv : bstr,
   options : bstr,
   request_kid_context : bstr,
   OSCORE_option: bstr,
   sender_cred: bstr,
   gm_cred: bstr / null
]

Compared with Section 5.4 of [RFC8613], the aad_array has the following differences.¶

• The 'algorithms' array is extended as follows.¶

  The parameter 'alg_aead' MUST be set to the CBOR simple value "null" (0xf6) if the group does not use the pairwise mode, regardless whether the endpoint supports the pairwise mode or not. Otherwise, this parameter MUST encode the value of AEAD Algorithm from the Common Context (see Section 2.1.1), as per Section 5.4 of [RFC8613].¶

  Furthermore, the 'algorithms' array additionally includes:¶

  • 'alg_signature_enc', which specifies Signature Encryption Algorithm from the Common Context (see Section 2.1.5). This parameter MUST be set to the CBOR simple value "null" (0xf6) if the group does not use the group mode, regardless whether the endpoint supports the group mode or not. Otherwise, this parameter MUST encode the value of Signature Encryption Algorithm as a CBOR integer or text string, consistently with the "Value" field in the "COSE Algorithms" Registry for this AEAD algorithm.¶
  • 'alg_signature', which specifies Signature Algorithm from the Common Context (see Section 2.1.5). This parameter MUST be set to the CBOR simple value "null" (0xf6) if the group does not use the group mode, regardless whether the endpoint supports the group mode or not. Otherwise, this parameter MUST encode the value of Signature Algorithm as a CBOR integer or text string, consistently with the "Value" field in the "COSE Algorithms" Registry for this signature algorithm.¶
  • 'alg_pairwise_key_agreement', which specifies Pairwise Key Agreement Algorithm from the Common Context (see Section 2.1.5). This parameter MUST be set to the CBOR simple value "null" (0xf6) if the group does not use the pairwise mode, regardless whether the endpoint supports the pairwise mode or not. Otherwise, this parameter MUST encode the value of Pairwise Key Agreement Algorithm as a CBOR integer or text string, consistently with the "Value" field in the "COSE Algorithms" Registry for this HKDF algorithm.¶

• The new element 'request_kid_context' contains the value of the 'kid context' in the COSE object of the request (see Section 4.2).¶

  In case Observe [RFC7641] is used, this enables endpoints to safely keep an observation active beyond a possible change of Gid (i.e., of ID Context), following a group rekeying (see Section 3.2). In fact, it ensures that every notification cryptographically matches with only one observation request, rather than with multiple ones that were protected with different keying material but share the same 'request_kid' and 'request_piv' values.¶

• The new element 'OSCORE_option', containing the value of the OSCORE Option present in the protected message, encoded as a binary string. This prevents the attack described in Section 12.7 when using the group mode, as further explained in Section 12.7.2.¶

  Note for implementation: this construction requires the OSCORE option of the message to be generated and finalized before computing the ciphertext of the COSE_Encrypt0 object (when using the group mode or the pairwise mode) and before calculating the countersignature (when using the group mode). Also, the aad_array needs to be large enough to contain the largest possible OSCORE option.¶

• The new element 'sender_cred', containing the sender's authentication credential. This parameter MUST be set to a CBOR byte string, which encodes the sender's authentication credential in its original binary representation made available to other endpoints in the group (see Section 2.3).¶
• The new element 'gm_cred', containing the Group Manager's authentication credential. If no Group Manager maintains the group, this parameter MUST encode the CBOR simple value "null" (0xf6). Otherwise, this parameter MUST be set to a CBOR byte string, which encodes the Group Manager's authentication credential in its original binary representation made available to other endpoints in the group (see Section 2.3). This prevents the attack described in Section 12.8.¶

5.1. Examples of Compressed COSE Objects

This section covers a list of OSCORE Header Compression examples of Group OSCORE used in group mode (see Section 5.1.1) or in pairwise mode (see Section 5.1.2).¶

The examples assume that the COSE_Encrypt0 object is set (which means the CoAP message and cryptographic material is known). Note that the examples do not include the full CoAP unprotected message or the full Security Context, but only the input necessary to the compression mechanism, i.e., the COSE_Encrypt0 object. The output is the compressed COSE object as defined in Section 5 and divided into two parts, since the object is transported in two CoAP fields: OSCORE option and payload.¶

The examples assume that the plaintext (see Section 5.3 of [RFC8613]) is 6 bytes long, and that the AEAD tag is 8 bytes long, hence resulting in a ciphertext which is 14 bytes long. When using the group mode, the COSE_Countersignature0 byte string as described in Section 4 is assumed to be 64 bytes long.¶

   * Before compression (96 bytes):

      [
      h'',
      { 4:h'25', 6:h'05', 10:h'44616c', 11:h'de9e ... f1' },
      h'aea0155667924dff8a24e4cb35b9'
      ]

   * After compression (85 bytes):

      Flag byte: 0b00111001 = 0x39 (1 byte)

      Option Value: 0x39 05 03 44 61 6c 25 (7 bytes)

      Payload: 0xaea0155667924dff8a24e4cb35b9 de9e ... f1
      (14 bytes + size of the encrypted countersignature)

   * Before compression (88 bytes):

      [
      h'',
      { 4:h'52', 11:h'ca1e ... b3' },
      h'60b035059d9ef5667c5a0710823b'
      ]

   * After compression (80 bytes):

      Flag byte: 0b00101000 = 0x28 (1 byte)

      Option Value: 0x28 52 (2 bytes)

      Payload: 0x60b035059d9ef5667c5a0710823b ca1e ... b3
      (14 bytes + size of the encrypted countersignature)

   * Before compression (29 bytes):

      [
      h'',
      { 4:h'25', 6:h'05', 10:h'44616c' },
      h'aea0155667924dff8a24e4cb35b9'
      ]

   * After compression (21 bytes):

      Flag byte: 0b00011001 = 0x19 (1 byte)

      Option Value: 0x19 05 03 44 61 6c 25 (7 bytes)

      Payload: 0xaea0155667924dff8a24e4cb35b9 (14 bytes)

   * Before compression (18 bytes):

      [
      h'',
      {},
      h'60b035059d9ef5667c5a0710823b'
      ]

   * After compression (14 bytes):

      Flag byte: 0b00000000 = 0x00 (1 byte)

      Option Value: 0x (0 bytes)

      Payload: 0x60b035059d9ef5667c5a0710823b (14 bytes)

6.1. Supporting Observe

When Observe [RFC7641] is used, a client maintains for each ongoing observation one Notification Number for each different server. Then, separately for each server, the client uses the associated Notification Number to perform ordering and replay protection of notifications received from that server (see Section 8.4.1).¶

Group OSCORE allows to preserve an observation active indefinitely, even in case the group is rekeyed, with consequent change of ID Context, or in case the observer client obtains a new Sender ID.¶

As defined in Section 8 when discussing support for Observe, this is achieved by the client and server(s) storing the 'kid' and 'kid context' used in the original Observe request, throughout the whole duration of the observation.¶

Upon leaving the group or before re-joining the group, a group member MUST terminate all the ongoing observations that it has started in the group as observer client.¶

6.2. Update of Replay Window

Sender Sequence Numbers seen by a server as Partial IV values in request messages can spontaneously increase at a fast pace, for example when a client exchanges unicast messages with other servers using the Group OSCORE Security Context. As in OSCORE [RFC8613], a server always needs to accept such increases and accordingly updates the Replay Window in each of its Recipient Contexts.¶

As discussed in Section 2.5.1, a newly created Recipient Context would have an invalid Replay Window, if its installation has required to delete another Recipient Context. Hence, the server is not able to verify if a request from the client associated with the new Recipient Context is a replay. When this happens, the server MUST validate the Replay Window of the new Recipient Context, before accepting messages from the associated client (see Section 2.5.1).¶

Furthermore, when the Group Manager establishes a new Security Context for the group (see Section 2.5.3.2), every server re-initializes the Replay Window in each of its Recipient Contexts.¶

6.3. Message Freshness

When receiving a request from a client for the first time, the server is not synchronized with the client's Sender Sequence Number, i.e., it is not able to verify if that request is fresh. This applies to a server that has just joined the group, with respect to already present clients, and recurs as new clients are added as group members.¶

During its operations in the group, the server may also lose synchronization with a client's Sender Sequence Number. This can happen, for instance, if the server has rebooted or has deleted its previously synchronized version of the Recipient Context for that client (see Section 2.5.1).¶

If the application requires message freshness, e.g., according to time- or event-based policies, the server has to (re-)synchronize with a client's Sender Sequence Number before delivering request messages from that client to the application. To this end, the server can use the approach in Section 10 based on the Echo Option for CoAP [RFC9175], as a variant of the approach defined in Appendix B.1.2 of [RFC8613] applicable to Group OSCORE.¶

8.1. Protecting the Request

A client transmits a secure group request as described in Section 8.1 of [RFC8613], with the following modifications.¶

• In step 2, the Additional Authenticated Data is modified as described in Section 4 of this document.¶
• In step 4, the encryption of the COSE object is modified as described in Section 4 of this document. The encoding of the compressed COSE object is modified as described in Section 5 of this document. In particular, the Group Flag MUST be set to 1. The Signature Encryption Algorithm from the Common Context MUST be used.¶
• In step 5, the countersignature is computed and the format of the OSCORE message is modified as described in Section 4 and Section 5 of this document. In particular the payload of the OSCORE message includes also the encrypted countersignature (see Section 4.1).¶

8.2. Verifying the Request

Upon receiving a secure group request with the Group Flag set to 1, following the procedure in Section 7, a server proceeds as described in Section 8.2 of [RFC8613], with the following modifications.¶

• In step 2, the decoding of the compressed COSE object follows Section 5 of this document. In particular:¶

  • If the server discards the request due to not retrieving a Security Context associated with the OSCORE group, the server MAY respond with a 4.01 (Unauthorized) error message. When doing so, the server MAY set an Outer Max-Age option with value zero, and MAY include a descriptive string as diagnostic payload.¶
  • If the received 'kid context' matches an existing ID Context (Gid) but the received 'kid' does not match any Recipient ID in this Security Context, then the server MAY create a new Recipient Context for this Recipient ID and initialize it according to Section 3 of [RFC8613], and also retrieve the authentication credential associated with the Recipient ID to be stored in the new Recipient Context. Such a configuration is application specific. If the application does not specify dynamic derivation of new Recipient Contexts, then the server SHALL stop processing the request.¶
• In step 4, the Additional Authenticated Data is modified as described in Section 4 of this document.¶

• In step 6, the server also verifies the countersignature, by using the public key from the client's authentication credential stored in the associated Recipient Context. In particular:¶

  • If the server does not have the public key of the client yet, the server MUST stop processing the request and MAY respond with a 5.03 (Service Unavailable) response. The response MAY include a Max-Age Option, indicating to the client the number of seconds after which to retry. If the Max-Age Option is not present, a retry time of 60 seconds will be assumed by the client, as default value defined in Section 5.10.5 of [RFC7252].¶
  • The server MUST perform signature verification before decrypting the COSE object, as defined below. Implementations that cannot perform the two steps in this order MUST ensure that no access to the plaintext is possible before a successful signature verification and MUST prevent any possible leak of time-related information that can yield side-channel attacks.¶

  • The server retrieves the encrypted countersignature ENC_SIGNATURE from the message payload, and computes the original countersignature SIGNATURE as¶

    SIGNATURE = ENC_SIGNATURE XOR KEYSTREAM¶

    where KEYSTREAM is derived as per Section 4.1.1.¶

    The server verifies the original countersignature SIGNATURE.¶

  • If the signature verification fails, the server SHALL stop processing the request, SHALL NOT update the Replay Window, and MAY respond with a 4.00 (Bad Request) response. The server MAY set an Outer Max-Age option with value zero. The diagnostic payload MAY contain a string, which, if present, MUST be "Decryption failed" as if the decryption had failed.¶
  • When decrypting the COSE object using the Recipient Key, the Signature Encryption Algorithm from the Common Context MUST be used.¶
• Additionally, if the used Recipient Context was created upon receiving this group request and the message is not verified successfully, the server MAY delete that Recipient Context. Such a configuration, which is specified by the application, mitigates attacks that aim at overloading the server's storage.¶

A server SHOULD NOT process a request if the received Recipient ID ('kid') is equal to its own Sender ID in its own Sender Context. For an example where this is not fulfilled, see Section 9.2.1 of [I-D.ietf-core-observe-multicast-notifications].¶

8.3. Protecting the Response

If a server generates a CoAP message in response to a Group OSCORE request, then the server SHALL follow the description in Section 8.3 of [RFC8613], with the modifications described in this section.¶

Note that the server always protects a response with the Sender Context from its latest Security Context, and that establishing a new Security Context resets the Sender Sequence Number to 0 (see Section 3.2).¶

• In step 2, the Additional Authenticated Data is modified as described in Section 4 of this document.¶
• In step 3, if the server is using a different Security Context for the response compared to what was used to verify the request (see Section 3.2), then the server MUST include its Sender Sequence Number as Partial IV in the response and use it to build the AEAD nonce to protect the response. This prevents the AEAD nonce from the request from being reused.¶

• In step 4, the encryption of the COSE object is modified as described in Section 4 of this document. The encoding of the compressed COSE object is modified as described in Section 5 of this document. In particular, the Group Flag MUST be set to 1. The Signature Encryption Algorithm from the Common Context MUST be used.¶

  If the server is using a different ID Context (Gid) for the response compared to what was used to verify the request (see Section 3.2), then the new ID Context MUST be included in the 'kid context' parameter of the response.¶

  The server can obtain a new Sender ID from the Group Manager, when individually rekeyed (see Section 2.5.3.1) or when re-joining the group. In such a case, the server can help the client to synchronize, by including the 'kid' parameter in a response protected in group mode, even when the request was protected in pairwise mode (see Section 9.3).¶

  That is, when responding to a request protected in pairwise mode, the server SHOULD include the 'kid' parameter in a response protected in group mode, if it is replying to that client for the first time since the assignment of its new Sender ID.¶

• In step 5, the countersignature is computed and the format of the OSCORE message is modified as described in Section 4 and Section 5 of this document. In particular the payload of the OSCORE message includes also the encrypted countersignature (see Section 4.1).¶

8.4. Verifying the Response

Upon receiving a secure response message with the Group Flag set to 1, following the procedure in Section 7, the client proceeds as described in Section 8.4 of [RFC8613], with the following modifications.¶

Note that a client may receive a response protected with a Security Context different from the one used to protect the corresponding request, and that, upon the establishment of a new Security Context, the client re-initializes its Replay Windows in its Recipient Contexts (see Section 3.2).¶

• In step 2, the decoding of the compressed COSE object is modified as described in Section 5 of this document. In particular, a 'kid' may not be present, if the response is a reply to a request protected in pairwise mode. In such a case, the client assumes the response 'kid' to be the Recipient ID for the server to which the request protected in pairwise mode was intended for.¶

  If the response 'kid context' matches an existing ID Context (Gid) but the received/assumed 'kid' does not match any Recipient ID in this Security Context, then the client MAY create a new Recipient Context for this Recipient ID and initialize it according to Section 3 of [RFC8613], and also retrieve the authentication credential associated with the Recipient ID to be stored in the new Recipient Context. If the application does not specify dynamic derivation of new Recipient Contexts, then the client SHALL stop processing the response.¶

• In step 3, the Additional Authenticated Data is modified as described in Section 4 of this document.¶

• In step 5, the client also verifies the countersignature, by using the public key from the server's authentication credential stored in the associated Recipient Context. In particular:¶

  • The client MUST perform signature verification before decrypting the COSE object, as defined below. Implementations that cannot perform the two steps in this order MUST ensure that no access to the plaintext is possible before a successful signature verification and MUST prevent any possible leak of time-related information that can yield side-channel attacks.¶

  • The client retrieves the encrypted countersignature ENC_SIGNATURE from the message payload, and computes the original countersignature SIGNATURE as¶

    SIGNATURE = ENC_SIGNATURE XOR KEYSTREAM¶

    where KEYSTREAM is derived as per Section 4.1.1.¶

    The client verifies the original countersignature SIGNATURE.¶

  • If the verification of the countersignature fails, the server SHALL stop processing the response, and SHALL NOT update the Notification Number associated with the server if the response is an Observe notification [RFC7641].¶

  • After a successful verification of the countersignature, the client performs also the following actions if the response is not an Observe notification.¶

    • In case the request was protected in pairwise mode and the 'kid' parameter is present in the response, the client checks whether this received 'kid' is equal to the expected 'kid', i.e., the known Recipient ID for the server to which the request was intended for.¶
    • In case the request was protected in pairwise mode and the 'kid' parameter is not present in the response, the client checks whether the server that has sent the response is the same one to which the request was intended for. This can be done by checking that the public key used to verify the countersignature of the response is equal to the public key included in the authentication credential Recipient Auth Cred, which was taken as input to derive the Pairwise Sender Key used for protecting the request (see Section 2.4.1).¶

    In either case, if the client determines that the response has come from a different server than the expected one, then the client SHALL discard the response and SHALL NOT deliver it to the application. Otherwise, the client hereafter considers the received 'kid' as the current Recipient ID for the server.¶

  • When decrypting the COSE object using the Recipient Key, the Signature Encryption Algorithm from the Common Context MUST be used.¶
• Additionally, if the used Recipient Context was created upon receiving this response and the message is not verified successfully, the client MAY delete that Recipient Context. Such a configuration, which is specified by the application, mitigates attacks that aim at overloading the client's storage.¶

8.5. External Signature Checkers

When receiving a message protected in group mode, a signature checker (see Section 3.1) proceeds as follows.¶

• The signature checker retrieves the encrypted countersignature ENC_SIGNATURE from the message payload, and computes the original countersignature SIGNATURE as¶

  SIGNATURE = ENC_SIGNATURE XOR KEYSTREAM¶

  where KEYSTREAM is derived as per Section 4.1.1.¶

• The signature checker verifies the original countersignature SIGNATURE, by using the public key of the sender endpoint as included in that endpoint's authentication credential. The signature checker determines the right authentication credential based on the ID Context (Gid) and the Sender ID of the sender endpoint.¶

Note that the following applies when attempting to verify the countersignature of a response message.¶

• The response may not include a Partial IV and/or an ID Context. In such a case, the signature checker considers the same values from the corresponding request, i.e., the request matching with the response by CoAP Token value.¶
• The response may not include a Sender ID. This can happen when the response protected in group mode matches a request protected in pairwise mode (see Section 9.1), with a case in point provided by [I-D.amsuess-core-cachable-oscore]. In such a case, the signature checker needs to use other means (e.g., source addressing information of the server endpoint) to identify the correct authentication credential including the public key to use for verifying the countersignature of the response.¶

The particular actions following a successful or unsuccessful verification of the countersignature are application specific and out of the scope of this document.¶

9.1. Pre-Conditions

In order to protect an outgoing message in pairwise mode, the sender needs to know the authentication credential and the Recipient ID for the recipient endpoint, as stored in the Recipient Context associated with that endpoint (see Section 2.4.4).¶

Furthermore, the sender needs to know the individual address of the recipient endpoint. This information may not be known at any given point in time. For instance, right after having joined the group, a client may know the authentication credential and Recipient ID for a given server, but not the addressing information required to reach it with an individual, one-to-one request.¶

To make addressing information of individual endpoints available, servers in the group MAY expose a resource to which a client can send a group request targeting a set of servers, identified by their 'kid' values specified in the request payload. The specified set may be empty, hence identifying all the servers in the group. Further details of such an interface are out of scope for this document.¶

9.2. Main Differences from OSCORE

The pairwise mode protects messages between two members of a group, essentially following [RFC8613], but with the following notable differences.¶

• The 'kid' and 'kid context' parameters of the COSE object are used as defined in Section 4.2 of this document.¶
• The external_aad defined in Section 4.3 of this document is used for the encryption process.¶
• The Pairwise Sender/Recipient Keys used as Sender/Recipient keys are derived as defined in Section 2.4 of this document.¶

9.3. Protecting the Request

When using the pairwise mode, the request is protected as defined in Section 8.1 of [RFC8613], with the differences summarized in Section 9.2 of this document. The following difference also applies.¶

• If Observe [RFC7641] is supported, what is defined in Section 8.1.1 of this document holds.¶

9.4. Verifying the Request

Upon receiving a request with the Group Flag set to 0, following the procedure in Section 7, the server MUST process it as defined in Section 8.2 of [RFC8613], with the differences summarized in Section 9.2 of this document. The following differences also apply.¶

• If the server discards the request due to not retrieving a Security Context associated with the OSCORE group or to not supporting the pairwise mode, the server MAY respond with a 4.01 (Unauthorized) error message or a 4.02 (Bad Option) error message, respectively. When doing so, the server MAY set an Outer Max-Age option with value zero, and MAY include a descriptive string as diagnostic payload.¶
• If a new Recipient Context is created for this Recipient ID, new Pairwise Sender/Recipient Keys are also derived (see Section 2.4.1). The new Pairwise Sender/Recipient Keys are deleted if the Recipient Context is deleted as a result of the message not being successfully verified.¶
• If Observe [RFC7641] is supported, what is defined in Section 8.2.1 of this document holds.¶

9.5. Protecting the Response

When using the pairwise mode, a response is protected as defined in Section 8.3 of [RFC8613], with the differences summarized in Section 9.2 of this document. The following differences also apply.¶

• If the server is using a different Security Context for the response compared to what was used to verify the request (see Section 3.2), then the server MUST include its Sender Sequence Number as Partial IV in the response and use it to build the AEAD nonce to protect the response. This prevents the AEAD nonce from the request from being reused.¶
• If the server is using a different ID Context (Gid) for the response compared to what was used to verify the request (see Section 3.2), then the new ID Context MUST be included in the 'kid context' parameter of the response.¶

• The server can obtain a new Sender ID from the Group Manager, when individually rekeyed (see Section 2.5.3.1) or when re-joining the group. In such a case, the server can help the client to synchronize, by including the 'kid' parameter in a response protected in pairwise mode, even when the request was also protected in pairwise mode.¶

  That is, when responding to a request protected in pairwise mode, the server SHOULD include the 'kid' parameter in a response protected in pairwise mode, if it is replying to that client for the first time since the assignment of its new Sender ID.¶

• If Observe [RFC7641] is supported, what is defined in Section 8.3.1 of this document holds.¶

9.6. Verifying the Response

Upon receiving a response with the Group Flag set to 0, following the procedure in Section 7, the client MUST process it as defined in Section 8.4 of [RFC8613], with the differences summarized in Section 9.2 of this document. The following differences also apply.¶

• The client may receive a response protected with a Security Context different from the one used to protect the corresponding request. Also, upon the establishment of a new Security Context, the client re-initializes its Replay Windows in its Recipient Contexts (see Section 2.2).¶
• The same as described in Section 8.4 holds with respect to handling the 'kid' parameter of the response, when received as a reply to a request protected in pairwise mode. The client can also in this case check whether the replying server is the expected one, by relying on the server's public key. However, since the response is protected in pairwise mode, the public key is not used for verifying a countersignature as in Section 8.4. Instead, the expected server's authentication credential - namely Recipient Auth Cred and including the server's public key - was taken as input to derive the Pairwise Recipient Key used to decrypt and verify the response (see Section 2.4.1).¶
• If a new Recipient Context is created for this Recipient ID, new Pairwise Sender/Recipient Keys are also derived (see Section 2.4.1). The new Pairwise Sender/Recipient Keys are deleted if the Recipient Context is deleted as a result of the message not being successfully verified.¶
• If Observe [RFC7641] is supported, what is defined in Section 8.4.1 of this document holds. The client can also in this case identify a server to be the same one across a change of Sender ID, by relying on the server's public key. As to the expected server's authentication credential, the same holds as specified above for non-notification responses.¶

12.1. Security of the Group Mode

The group mode defined in Section 8 relies on commonly shared group keying material to protect communication within a group. Using the group mode has the implications discussed below. The following refers to group members as the endpoints in the group storing the latest version of the group keying material.¶

• Messages are encrypted at a group level (group-level data confidentiality), i.e., they can be decrypted by any member of the group, but not by an external adversary or other external entities.¶

• If the used encryption algorithm provides integrity protection, then it also ensures group authentication and proof of group membership, but not source authentication. That is, it ensures that a message sent to a group has been sent by a member of that group, but not necessarily by the alleged sender. In fact, any group member is able to derive the Sender Key used by the actual sender endpoint, and thus can compute a valid authentication tag. Therefore, the message content could originate from any of the current group members.¶

  Furthermore, if the used encryption algorithm does not provide integrity protection, then it does not ensure any level of message authentication or proof of group membership.¶

  On the other hand, proof of group membership is always ensured by construction through the strict management of the group keying material (see Section 3.2). That is, the group is rekeyed in case of members' leaving, and the current group members are informed of former group members. Thus, a current group member storing the latest group keying material does not store the authentication credential of any former group member.¶

  This allows a recipient endpoint to rely on the stored authentication credentials and public keys included therin, in order to always confidently assert the group membership of a sender endpoint when processing an incoming message, i.e., to assert that the sender endpoint was a group member when it signed the message. In turn, this prevents a former group member to possibly re-sign and inject in the group a stored message that was protected with old keying material.¶

• Source authentication of messages sent to a group is ensured through a countersignature, which is computed by the sender using its own private key and then appended to the message payload. Also, the countersignature is encrypted by using a keystream derived from the group keying material (see Section 4.1). This ensures group privacy, i.e., an attacker cannot track an endpoint over two groups by linking messages between the two groups, unless being also a member of those groups.¶

The security properties of the group mode are summarized below.¶

1. Asymmetric source authentication, by means of a countersignature.¶
2. Symmetric group authentication, by means of an authentication tag (only for encryption algorithms providing integrity protection).¶
3. Symmetric group confidentiality, by means of symmetric encryption.¶
4. Proof of group membership, by strictly managing the group keying material, as well as by means of integrity tags when using an encryption algorithm that provides also integrity protection.¶
5. Group privacy, by encrypting the countersignature.¶

The group mode fulfills the security properties above while also displaying the following benefits. First, the use of an encryption algorithm that does not provide integrity protection results in a minimal communication overhead, by limiting the message payload to the ciphertext and the encrypted countersignature. Second, it is possible to deploy semi-trusted entities such as signature checkers (see Section 3.1), which can break property 5, but cannot break properties 1, 2 and 3.¶

12.2. Security of the Pairwise Mode

The pairwise mode defined in Section 9 protects messages by using pairwise symmetric keys, derived from the static-static Diffie-Hellman shared secret computed from the asymmetric keys of the sender and recipient endpoint (see Section 2.4).¶

The used encryption algorithm MUST provide integrity protection. Therefore, the pairwise mode ensures both pairwise data-confidentiality and source authentication of messages, without using countersignatures. Furthermore, the recipient endpoint achieves proof of group membership for the sender endpoint, since only current group members have the required keying material to derive a valid Pairwise Sender/Recipient Key.¶

The long-term storing of the Diffie-Hellman shared secret is a potential security issue. In fact, if the shared secret of two group members is leaked, a third group member can exploit it to impersonate any of those two group members, by deriving and using their pairwise key. The possibility of such leakage should be contemplated, as more likely to happen than the leakage of a private key, which could be rather protected at a significantly higher level than generic memory, e.g., by using a Trusted Platform Module. Therefore, there is a trade-off between the maximum amount of time a same shared secret is stored and the frequency of its re-computing.¶

12.3. Uniqueness of (key, nonce)

The proof for uniqueness of (key, nonce) pairs in Appendix D.4 of [RFC8613] is also valid in group communication scenarios. That is, given an OSCORE group:¶

• Uniqueness of Sender IDs within the group is enforced by the Group Manager. In fact, from the moment when a Gid is assigned to a group until the moment a new Gid is assigned to that same group, the Group Manager does not reassign a Sender ID within the group (see Section 3.2).¶
• The case A in Appendix D.4 of [RFC8613] concerns all group requests and responses including a Partial IV (e.g., Observe notifications). In this case, same considerations from [RFC8613] apply here as well.¶
• The case B in Appendix D.4 of [RFC8613] concerns responses not including a Partial IV (e.g., single response to a group request). In this case, same considerations from [RFC8613] apply here as well.¶

As a consequence, each message encrypted/decrypted with the same Sender Key is processed by using a different (ID_PIV, PIV) pair. This means that nonces used by any fixed encrypting endpoint are unique. Thus, each message is processed with a different (key, nonce) pair.¶

12.4. Management of Group Keying Material

The approach described in this document should take into account the risk of compromise of group members. In particular, this document specifies that a key management scheme for secure revocation and renewal of Security Contexts and group keying material MUST be adopted.¶

[I-D.ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore] specifies a simple rekeying scheme for renewing the Security Context in a group.¶

Alternative rekeying schemes which are more scalable with the group size may be needed in dynamic, large groups where endpoints can join and leave at any time, in order to limit the impact on performance due to the Security Context and keying material update.¶

12.5. Update of Security Context and Key Rotation

A group member can receive a message shortly after the group has been rekeyed, and new security parameters and keying material have been distributed by the Group Manager.¶

This may result in a client using an old Security Context to protect a request, and a server using a different new Security Context to protect a corresponding response. As a consequence, clients may receive a response protected with a Security Context different from the one used to protect the corresponding request.¶

In particular, a server may first get a request protected with the old Security Context, then install the new Security Context, and only after that produce a response to send back to the client. In such a case, as specified in Section 8.3, the server MUST protect the potential response using the new Security Context. Specifically, the server MUST include its Sender Sequence Number as Partial IV in the response and use it to build the AEAD nonce to protect the response. This prevents the AEAD nonce from the request from being reused with the new Security Context.¶

The client will process that response using the new Security Context, provided that it has installed the new security parameters and keying material before the message processing.¶

In case block-wise transfer [RFC7959] is used, the same considerations from Section 10.3 of [I-D.ietf-ace-key-groupcomm] hold.¶

Furthermore, as described below, a group rekeying may temporarily result in misaligned Security Contexts between the sender and recipient of a same message.¶

12.6. Collision of Group Identifiers

In case endpoints are deployed in multiple groups managed by different non-synchronized Group Managers, it is possible for Group Identifiers of different groups to coincide.¶

This does not impair the security of the AEAD algorithm. In fact, as long as the Master Secret is different for different groups and this condition holds over time, AEAD keys are different among different groups.¶

In case multiple groups use the same IP multicast address, the entity assigning that address may help limiting the chances to experience such collisions of Group Identifiers. In particular, it may allow the Group Managers of those groups using the same IP multicast address to share their respective list of assigned Group Identifiers currently in use.¶

12.7. Cross-group Message Injection

A same endpoint is allowed to and would likely use the same pair (private key, authentication credential) in multiple OSCORE groups, possibly administered by different Group Managers.¶

When a sender endpoint sends a message protected in pairwise mode to a recipient endpoint in an OSCORE group, a malicious group member may attempt to inject the message to a different OSCORE group also including the same endpoints (see Section 12.7.1).¶

This practically relies on altering the content of the OSCORE option, and having the same MAC in the ciphertext still correctly validating, which has a success probability depending on the size of the MAC.¶

As discussed in Section 12.7.2, the attack is practically infeasible if the message is protected in group mode, thanks to the countersignature also bound to the OSCORE option through the Additional Authenticated Data used in the signing process (see Section 4.3).¶

12.8. Prevention of Group Cloning Attack

Both when using the group mode and the pairwise mode, the message protection covers also the Group Manager's authentication credential. This is included in the Additional Authenticated Data used in the signing process and/or in the integrity-protected encryption process (see Section 4.3).¶

By doing so, an endpoint X member of a group G1 cannot perform the following attack.¶

1. X sets up a group G2 where it acts as Group Manager.¶
2. X makes G2 a "clone" of G1, i.e., G1 and G2 use the same algorithms and have the same Master Secret, Master Salt and ID Context.¶
3. X collects a message M sent to G1 and injects it in G2.¶
4. Members of G2 accept M and believe it to be originated in G2.¶

The attack above is effectively prevented, since message M is protected by including the authentication credential of G1's Group Manager in the Additional Authenticated Data. Therefore, members of G2 do not successfully verify and decrypt M, since they correctly use the authentication credential of X as Group Manager of G2 when attempting to.¶

12.9. Group OSCORE for Unicast Requests

If a request is intended to be sent over unicast as addressed to a single group member, it is NOT RECOMMENDED for the client to protect the request by using the group mode as defined in Section 8.1.¶

This does not include the case where the client sends a request over unicast to a proxy, to be forwarded to multiple intended recipients over multicast [I-D.ietf-core-groupcomm-bis]. In this case, the client MUST protect the request with the group mode, even though it is sent to the proxy over unicast (see Section 8).¶

If the client uses the group mode with its own Sender Key to protect a unicast request to a group member, an on-path adversary can, right then or later on, redirect that request to one/many different group member(s) over unicast, or to the whole OSCORE group over multicast. By doing so, the adversary can induce the target group member(s) to perform actions intended for one group member only. Note that the adversary can be external, i.e., (s)he does not need to also be a member of the OSCORE group.¶

This is due to the fact that the client is not able to indicate the single intended recipient in a way which is secure and possible to process for Group OSCORE on the server side. In particular, Group OSCORE does not protect network addressing information such as the IP address of the intended recipient server. It follows that the server(s) receiving the redirected request cannot assert whether that was the original intention of the client, and would thus simply assume so.¶

The impact of such an attack depends especially on the REST method of the request, i.e., the Inner CoAP Code of the OSCORE request message. In particular, safe methods such as GET and FETCH would trigger (several) unintended responses from the targeted server(s), while not resulting in destructive behavior. On the other hand, non safe methods such as PUT, POST and PATCH/iPATCH would result in the target server(s) taking active actions on their resources and possible cyber-physical environment, with the risk of destructive consequences and possible implications for safety.¶

A client can instead use the pairwise mode as defined in Section 9.3, in order to protect a request sent to a single group member by using pairwise keying material (see Section 2.4). This prevents the attack discussed above by construction, as only the intended server is able to derive the pairwise keying material used by the client to protect the request. A client supporting the pairwise mode SHOULD use it to protect requests sent to a single group member over unicast, instead of using the group mode. For an example where this is not fulfilled, see Section 9.2.1 of [I-D.ietf-core-observe-multicast-notifications].¶

With particular reference to block-wise transfers [RFC7959], Section 3.8 of [I-D.ietf-core-groupcomm-bis] points out that, while an initial request including the CoAP Block2 option can be sent over multicast, any other request in a transfer has to occur over unicast, individually addressing the servers in the group.¶

Additional considerations are discussed in Section 10, with respect to requests including a CoAP Echo Option [RFC9175] that have to be sent over unicast, as a challenge-response method for servers to achieve synchronization of clients' Sender Sequence Number.¶

12.10. End-to-end Protection

The same considerations from Section 12.1 of [RFC8613] hold for Group OSCORE.¶

Additionally, (D)TLS and Group OSCORE can be combined for protecting message exchanges occurring over unicast. However, it is not possible to combine (D)TLS and Group OSCORE for protecting message exchanges where messages are (also) sent over multicast.¶

12.11. Master Secret

Group OSCORE derives the Security Context using the same construction as OSCORE, and by using the Group Identifier of a group as the related ID Context. Hence, the same required properties of the Security Context parameters discussed in Section 3.3 of [RFC8613] hold for this document.¶

With particular reference to the OSCORE Master Secret, it has to be kept secret among the members of the respective OSCORE group and the Group Manager responsible for that group. Also, the Master Secret must have a good amount of randomness, and the Group Manager can generate it offline using a good random number generator. This includes the case where the Group Manager rekeys the group by generating and distributing a new Master Secret. Randomness requirements for security are described in [RFC4086].¶

12.12. Replay Protection

As in OSCORE [RFC8613], also Group OSCORE relies on Sender Sequence Numbers included in the COSE message field 'Partial IV' and used to build AEAD nonces.¶

Note that the Partial IV of an endpoint does not necessarily grow monotonically. For instance, upon exhaustion of the endpoint Sender Sequence Number, the Partial IV also gets exhausted. As discussed in Section 2.5.3, this results either in the endpoint being individually rekeyed and getting a new Sender ID, or in the establishment of a new Security Context in the group. Therefore, uniqueness of (key, nonce) pairs (see Section 12.3) is preserved also when a new Security Context is established.¶

Since one-to-many communication such as multicast usually involves unreliable transports, the simplification of the Replay Window to a size of 1 suggested in Section 7.4 of [RFC8613] is not viable with Group OSCORE, unless exchanges in the group rely only on unicast messages.¶

As discussed in Section 6.2, a Replay Window may be initialized as not valid, following the loss of mutable Security Context Section 2.5.1. In particular, Section 2.5.1.1 and Section 2.5.1.2 define measures that endpoints need to take in such a situation, before resuming to accept incoming messages from other group members.¶

12.13. Message Freshness

As discussed in Section 6.3, a server may not be able to assert whether an incoming request is fresh, in case it does not have or has lost synchronization with the client's Sender Sequence Number.¶

If freshness is relevant for the application, the server may (re-)synchronize with the client's Sender Sequence Number at any time, by using the approach described in Section 10 and based on the CoAP Echo Option [RFC9175], as a variant of the approach defined in Appendix B.1.2 of [RFC8613] applicable to Group OSCORE.¶

12.14. Client Aliveness

Building on Section 12.5 of [RFC8613], a server may use the CoAP Echo Option [RFC9175] to verify the aliveness of the client that originated a received request, by using the approach described in Section 10 of this document.¶

12.15. Cryptographic Considerations

The same considerations from Section 12.6 of [RFC8613] about the maximum Sender Sequence Number hold for Group OSCORE.¶

As discussed in Section 2.5.2, an endpoint that experiences an exhaustion of its own Sender Sequence Numbers MUST NOT protect further messages including a Partial IV, until it has derived a new Sender Context. This prevents the endpoint to reuse the same AEAD nonces with the same Sender Key.¶

In order to renew its own Sender Context, the endpoint SHOULD inform the Group Manager, which can either renew the whole Security Context by means of group rekeying, or provide only that endpoint with a new Sender ID value. In either case, the endpoint derives a new Sender Context, and in particular a new Sender Key.¶

Additionally, the same considerations from Section 12.6 of [RFC8613] hold for Group OSCORE, about building the AEAD nonce and the secrecy of the Security Context parameters.¶

The group mode uses the "encrypt-then-sign" construction, i.e., the countersignature is computed over the COSE_Encrypt0 object (see Section 4.1). This is motivated by enabling additional entities acting as signature checkers (see Section 3.1), which do not join a group as members but are allowed to verify countersignatures of messages protected in group mode without being able to decrypt them (see Section 8.5).¶

If the encryption algorithm used in group mode provides integrity protection, countersignatures of COSE_Encrypt0 with short authentication tags do not provide the security properties associated with the same algorithm used in COSE_Sign (see Section 6 of [I-D.ietf-cose-countersign]). To provide 128-bit security against collision attacks, the tag length MUST be at least 256-bits. A countersignature of a COSE_Encrypt0 with AES-CCM-16-64-128 provides at most 32 bits of integrity protection.¶

The derivation of pairwise keys defined in Section 2.4.1 is compatible with ECDSA and EdDSA asymmetric keys, but is not compatible with RSA asymmetric keys.¶

For the public key translation from Ed25519 (Ed448) to X25519 (X448) specified in Section 2.4.1, variable time methods can be used since the translation operates on public information. Any byte string of appropriate length is accepted as a public key for X25519 (X448) in [RFC7748]. It is therefore not necessary for security to validate the translated public key (assuming the translation was successful).¶

The security of using the same key pair for Diffie-Hellman and for signing (by considering the ECDH procedure in Section 2.4 as a Key Encapsulation Mechanism (KEM)) is demonstrated in [Degabriele] and [Thormarker].¶

Applications using ECDH (except X25519 and X448) based KEM in Section 2.4 are assumed to verify that a peer endpoint's public key is on the expected curve and that the shared secret is not the point at infinity. The KEM in [Degabriele] checks that the shared secret is different from the point at infinity, as does the procedure in Section 5.7.1.2 of [NIST-800-56A] which is referenced in Section 2.4.¶

Extending Theorem 2 of [Degabriele], [Thormarker] shows that the same key pair can be used with X25519 and Ed25519 (X448 and Ed448) for the KEM specified in Section 2.4. By symmetry in the KEM used in this document, both endpoints can consider themselves to have the recipient role in the KEM - as discussed in Section 7 of [Thormarker] - and rely on the mentioned proofs for the security of their key pairs.¶

Theorem 3 in [Degabriele] shows that the same key pair can be used for an ECDH based KEM and ECDSA. The KEM uses a different KDF than in Section 2.4, but the proof only depends on that the KDF has certain required properties, which are the typical assumptions about HKDF, e.g., that output keys are pseudorandom. In order to comply with the assumptions of Theorem 3, received public keys MUST be successfully validated, see Section 5.6.2.3.4 of [NIST-800-56A]. The validation MAY be performed by a trusted Group Manager. For [Degabriele] to apply as it is written, public keys need to be in the expected subgroup. For this we rely on cofactor DH, Section 5.7.1.2 of [NIST-800-56A] which is referenced in Section 2.4.¶

HashEdDSA variants of Ed25519 and Ed448 are not used by COSE, see Section 2.2 of [RFC9053], and are not covered by the analysis in [Thormarker]. Hence, they MUST NOT be used with the public keys used to derive pairwise keys as specified in this document.¶

12.16. Message Segmentation

The same considerations from Section 12.7 of [RFC8613] hold for Group OSCORE.¶

12.17. Privacy Considerations

Group OSCORE ensures end-to-end integrity protection and encryption of the message payload and all options that are not used for proxy operations. In particular, options are processed according to the same class U/I/E that they have for OSCORE. Therefore, the same privacy considerations from Section 12.8 of [RFC8613] hold for Group OSCORE, with the following addition.¶

• When protecting a message in group mode, the countersignature is encrypted by using a keystream derived from the group keying material (see Section 4.1 and Section 4.1.1). This ensures group privacy. That is, an attacker cannot track an endpoint over two groups by linking messages between the two groups, unless being also a member of those groups.¶

Furthermore, the following privacy considerations hold about the OSCORE option, which may reveal information on the communicating endpoints.¶

• The 'kid' parameter, which is intended to help a recipient endpoint to find the right Recipient Context, may reveal information about the Sender Endpoint. When both a request and the corresponding responses include the 'kid' parameter, this may reveal information about both a client sending a request and all the possibly replying servers sending their own individual response.¶
• The 'kid context' parameter, which is intended to help a recipient endpoint to find the right Security Context, reveals information about the sender endpoint. In particular, it reveals that the sender endpoint is a member of a particular OSCORE group, whose current Group ID is indicated in the 'kid context' parameter.¶

When receiving a group request, each of the recipient endpoints can reply with a response that includes its Sender ID as 'kid' parameter. All these responses will be matchable with the request through the Token. Thus, even if these responses do not include a 'kid context' parameter, it becomes possible to understand that the responder endpoints are in the same group of the requester endpoint.¶

Furthermore, using the approach described in Section 10 to achieve Sender Sequence Number synchronization with a client may reveal when a server device goes through a reboot. This can be mitigated by the server device storing the precise state of the Replay Window of each known client on a clean shutdown.¶

Finally, the approach described in Section 12.6 to prevent collisions of Group Identifiers from different Group Managers may reveal information about events in the respective OSCORE groups. In particular, a Group Identifier changes when the corresponding group is rekeyed. Thus, Group Managers might use the shared list of Group Identifiers to infer the rate and patterns of group membership changes triggering a group rekeying, e.g., due to newly joined members or evicted (compromised) members. In order to alleviate this privacy concern, it should be hidden from the Group Managers which exact Group Manager has currently assigned which Group Identifiers in its OSCORE groups.¶

13.1. OSCORE Flag Bits Registry

IANA is asked to add the following value entry to the "OSCORE Flag Bits" registry within the "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters" registry group.¶

+--------------+------------+-----------------------------+-----------+
| Bit Position |    Name    |         Description         | Reference |
+--------------+------------+-----------------------------+-----------+
|       2      | Group Flag | For using a Group OSCORE    | [This     |
|              |            | Security Context, set to 1  | Document] |
|              |            | if the message is protected |           |
|              |            | with the group mode         |           |
+--------------+------------+-----------------------------+-----------+

A.1. Assumptions

The following points are assumed to be already addressed and are out of the scope of this document.¶

• Multicast communication topology: this document considers both 1-to-N (one sender and multiple recipients) and M-to-N (multiple senders and multiple recipients) communication topologies. The 1-to-N communication topology is the simplest group communication scenario that would serve the needs of a typical Low-power and Lossy Network (LLN). Examples of use cases that benefit from secure group communication are provided in Appendix B.¶

  In a 1-to-N communication model, only a single client transmits data to the CoAP group, in the form of request messages; in an M-to-N communication model (where M and N do not necessarily have the same value), M clients transmit data to the CoAP group. According to [I-D.ietf-core-groupcomm-bis], any possible proxy entity is supposed to know about the clients. Also, every client expects and is able to handle multiple response messages associated with a same request sent to the CoAP group.¶

• Group size: security solutions for group communication should be able to adequately support different and possibly large security groups. The group size is the current number of members in a security group. In the use cases mentioned in this document, the number of clients (normally the controlling devices) is expected to be much smaller than the number of servers (i.e., the controlled devices). A security solution for group communication that supports 1 to 50 clients would be able to properly cover the group sizes required for most use cases that are relevant for this document. The maximum group size is expected to be in the range of 2 to 100 devices. Security groups larger than that should be divided into smaller independent groups. One should not assume that the set of members of a security group remains fixed. That is, the group membership is subject to changes, possibly on a frequent basis.¶
• Communication with the Group Manager: an endpoint must use a secure dedicated channel when communicating with the Group Manager, also when not registered as a member of the security group.¶
• Provisioning and management of Security Contexts: a Security Context must be established among the members of the security group. A secure mechanism must be used to generate, revoke and (re-)distribute keying material, communication policies and security parameters in the security group. The actual provisioning and management of the Security Context is out of the scope of this document.¶
• Multicast data security ciphersuite: all members of a security group must use the same ciphersuite to provide authenticity, integrity and confidentiality of messages in the group. The ciphersuite is specified as part of the Security Context.¶
• Backward security: a new device joining the security group should not have access to any old Security Contexts used before its joining. This ensures that a new member of the security group is not able to decrypt confidential data sent before it has joined the security group. The adopted key management scheme should ensure that the Security Context is updated to ensure backward confidentiality. The actual mechanism to update the Security Context and renew the group keying material in the security group upon a new member's joining has to be defined as part of the group key management scheme.¶
• Forward security: entities that leave the security group should not have access to any future Security Contexts or message exchanged within the security group after their leaving. This ensures that a former member of the security group is not able to decrypt confidential data sent within the security group anymore. Also, it ensures that a former member is not able to send protected messages to the security group anymore. The actual mechanism to update the Security Context and renew the group keying material in the security group upon a member's leaving has to be defined as part of the group key management scheme.¶

A.2. Security Objectives

The approach described in this document aims at fulfilling the following security objectives:¶

• Data replay protection: group request messages or response messages replayed within the security group must be detected.¶
• Data confidentiality: messages sent within the security group shall be encrypted.¶
• Group-level data confidentiality: the group mode provides group-level data confidentiality since messages are encrypted at a group level, i.e., in such a way that they can be decrypted by any member of the security group, but not by an external adversary or other external entities.¶
• Pairwise data confidentiality: the pairwise mode especially provides pairwise data confidentiality, since messages are encrypted using pairwise keying material shared between any two group members, hence they can be decrypted only by the intended single recipient.¶
• Source message authentication: messages sent within the security group shall be authenticated. That is, it is essential to ensure that a message is originated by a member of the security group in the first place, and in particular by a specific, identifiable member of the security group.¶
• Message integrity: messages sent within the security group shall be integrity protected. That is, it is essential to ensure that a message has not been tampered with, either by a group member, or by an external adversary or other external entities which are not members of the security group.¶
• Message ordering: it must be possible to determine the ordering of messages coming from a single sender. In accordance with OSCORE [RFC8613], this results in providing absolute freshness of responses that are not notifications, as well as relative freshness of group requests and notification responses. It is not required to determine ordering of messages from different senders.¶

E.1. Version -14 to -15

• Updated references and editorial fixes.¶

E.2. Version -13 to -14

• Replaced "node" with "endpoint" where appropriate.¶
• Replaced "owning" with "storing" (of keying material).¶
• Distinction between "authentication credential" and "public key".¶
• Considerations on storing whole authentication credentials.¶
• Considerations on Denial of Service.¶
• Recycling of Group IDs by tracking the "Birth Gid" of each group member is now optional to support and use for the Group Manager.¶
• Fine-grained suppression of error responses.¶
• Changed section title "Mandatory-to-Implement Compliance Requirements" to "Implementation Compliance".¶
• "Challenge-Response Synchronization" moved to the document body.¶
• RFC 7641 and draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag as normative references.¶
• Clarifications and editorial improvements.¶

E.3. Version -12 to -13

• Fixes in the derivation of the Group Encryption Key.¶
• Added Mandatory-to-Implement compliance requirements.¶
• Changed UCCS to CCS.¶

E.4. Version -11 to -12

• No mode of operation is mandatory to support.¶
• Revised parameters of the Security Context, COSE object and external_aad.¶
• Revised management of keying material for the Group Manager.¶
• Informing of former members when rekeying the group.¶
• Admit encryption-only algorithms in group mode.¶
• Encrypted countersignature through a keystream.¶
• Added public key of the Group Manager as key material and protected data.¶
• Clarifications about message processing, especially notifications.¶
• Guidance for message processing of external signature checkers.¶
• Updated derivation of pairwise keys, with more security considerations.¶
• Termination of ongoing observations as client, upon leaving or before re-joining the group.¶
• Recycling Group IDs by tracking the "Birth Gid" of each group member.¶
• Expanded security and privacy considerations about the group mode.¶
• Removed appendices on skipping signature verification and on COSE capabilities.¶
• Fixes and editorial improvements.¶

E.5. Version -10 to -11

• Loss of Recipient Contexts due to their overflow.¶
• Added diagram on keying material components and their relation.¶
• Distinction between anti-replay and freshness.¶
• Preservation of Sender IDs over rekeying.¶
• Clearer cause-effect about reset of SSN.¶
• The GM provides public keys of group members with associated Sender IDs.¶
• Removed 'par_countersign_key' from the external_aad.¶
• One single format for the external_aad, both for encryption and signing.¶
• Presence of 'kid' in responses to requests protected with the pairwise mode.¶
• Inclusion of 'kid_context' in notifications following a group rekeying.¶
• Pairwise mode presented with OSCORE as baseline.¶
• Revised examples with signature values.¶
• Decoupled growth of clients' Sender Sequence Numbers and loss of synchronization for server.¶
• Sender IDs not recycled in the group under the same Gid.¶
• Processing and description of the Group Flag bit in the OSCORE option.¶
• Usage of the pairwise mode for multicast requests.¶
• Clarifications on synchronization using the Echo option.¶
• General format of context parameters and external_aad elements, supporting future registered COSE algorithms (new Appendix).¶
• Fixes and editorial improvements.¶

E.6. Version -09 to -10

• Removed 'Counter Signature Key Parameters' from the Common Context.¶
• New parameters in the Common Context covering the DH secret derivation.¶
• New countersignature header parameter from draft-ietf-cose-countersign.¶
• Stronger policies non non-recycling of Sender IDs and Gid.¶
• The Sender Sequence Number is reset when establishing a new Security Context.¶
• Added 'request_kid_context' in the aad_array.¶
• The server can respond with 5.03 if the client's public key is not available.¶
• The observer client stores an invariant identifier of the group.¶
• Relaxed storing of original 'kid' for observer clients.¶
• Both client and server store the 'kid_context' of the original observation request.¶
• The server uses a fresh PIV if protecting the response with a Security Context different from the one used to protect the request.¶
• Clarifications on MTI algorithms and curves.¶
• Removed optimized requests.¶
• Overall clarifications and editorial revision.¶

E.7. Version -08 to -09

• Pairwise keys are discarded after group rekeying.¶
• Signature mode renamed to group mode.¶
• The parameters for countersignatures use the updated COSE registries. Newly defined IANA registries have been removed.¶
• Pairwise Flag bit renamed as Group Flag bit, set to 1 in group mode and set to 0 in pairwise mode.¶
• Dedicated section on updating the Security Context.¶
• By default, sender sequence numbers and replay windows are not reset upon group rekeying.¶
• An endpoint implementing only a silent server does not support the pairwise mode.¶
• Separate section on general message reception.¶
• Pairwise mode moved to the document body.¶
• Considerations on using the pairwise mode in non-multicast settings.¶
• Optimized requests are moved as an appendix.¶
• Normative support for the signature and pairwise mode.¶
• Revised methods for synchronization with clients' sender sequence number.¶
• Appendix with example values of parameters for countersignatures.¶
• Clarifications and editorial improvements.¶

E.8. Version -07 to -08

• Clarified relation between pairwise mode and group communication (Section 1).¶
• Improved definition of "silent server" (Section 1.1).¶
• Clarified when a Recipient Context is needed (Section 2).¶
• Signature checkers as entities supported by the Group Manager (Section 2.3).¶
• Clarified that the Group Manager is under exclusive control of Gid and Sender ID values in a group, with Sender ID values under each Gid value (Section 2.3).¶
• Mitigation policies in case of recycled 'kid' values (Section 2.4).¶
• More generic exhaustion (not necessarily wrap-around) of sender sequence numbers (Sections 2.5 and 10.11).¶
• Pairwise key considerations, as to group rekeying and Sender Sequence Numbers (Section 3).¶
• Added reference to static-static Diffie-Hellman shared secret (Section 3).¶
• Note for implementation about the external_aad for signing (Sectino 4.3.2).¶
• Retransmission by the application for group requests over multicast as Non-confirmable (Section 7).¶
• A server MUST use its own Partial IV in a response, if protecting it with a different context than the one used for the request (Section 7.3).¶
• Security considerations: encryption of pairwise mode as alternative to group-level security (Section 10.1).¶
• Security considerations: added approach to reduce the chance of global collisions of Gid values from different Group Managers (Section 10.5).¶
• Security considerations: added implications for block-wise transfers when using the signature mode for requests over unicast (Section 10.7).¶
• Security considerations: (multiple) supported signature algorithms (Section 10.13).¶
• Security considerations: added privacy considerations on the approach for reducing global collisions of Gid values (Section 10.15).¶
• Updates to the methods for synchronizing with clients' sequence number (Appendix E).¶
• Simplified text on discovery services supporting the pairwise mode (Appendix G.1).¶
• Editorial improvements.¶

E.9. Version -06 to -07

• Updated abstract and introduction.¶
• Clarifications of what pertains a group rekeying.¶
• Derivation of pairwise keying material.¶
• Content re-organization for COSE Object and OSCORE header compression.¶
• Defined the Pairwise Flag bit for the OSCORE option.¶
• Supporting CoAP Observe for group requests and responses.¶
• Considerations on message protection across switching to new keying material.¶
• New optimized mode based on pairwise keying material.¶
• More considerations on replay protection and Security Contexts upon key renewal.¶
• Security considerations on Group OSCORE for unicast requests, also as affecting the usage of the Echo option.¶
• Clarification on different types of groups considered (application/security/CoAP).¶
• New pairwise mode, using pairwise keying material for both requests and responses.¶

E.10. Version -05 to -06

• Group IDs mandated to be unique under the same Group Manager.¶
• Clarifications on parameter update upon group rekeying.¶
• Updated external_aad structures.¶
• Dynamic derivation of Recipient Contexts made optional and application specific.¶
• Optional 4.00 response for failed signature verification on the server.¶
• Removed client handling of duplicated responses to multicast requests.¶
• Additional considerations on public key retrieval and group rekeying.¶
• Added Group Manager responsibility on validating public keys.¶
• Updates IANA registries.¶
• Reference to RFC 8613.¶
• Editorial improvements.¶

E.11. Version -04 to -05

• Added references to draft-dijk-core-groupcomm-bis.¶
• New parameter Counter Signature Key Parameters (Section 2).¶
• Clarification about Recipient Contexts (Section 2).¶
• Two different external_aad for encrypting and signing (Section 3.1).¶
• Updated response verification to handle Observe notifications (Section 6.4).¶
• Extended Security Considerations (Section 8).¶
• New "Counter Signature Key Parameters" IANA Registry (Section 9.2).¶

E.12. Version -03 to -04

• Added the new "Counter Signature Parameters" in the Common Context (see Section 2).¶
• Added recommendation on using "deterministic ECDSA" if ECDSA is used as countersignature algorithm (see Section 2).¶
• Clarified possible asynchronous retrieval of keying material from the Group Manager, in order to process incoming messages (see Section 2).¶
• Structured Section 3 into subsections.¶
• Added the new 'par_countersign' to the aad_array of the external_aad (see Section 3.1).¶
• Clarified non reliability of 'kid' as identity identifier for a group member (see Section 2.1).¶
• Described possible provisioning of new Sender ID in case of Partial IV wrap-around (see Section 2.2).¶
• The former signature bit in the Flag Byte of the OSCORE option value is reverted to reserved (see Section 4.1).¶
• Updated examples of compressed COSE object, now with the sixth less significant bit in the Flag Byte of the OSCORE option value set to 0 (see Section 4.3).¶
• Relaxed statements on sending error messages (see Section 6).¶
• Added explicit step on computing the countersignature for outgoing messages (see Sections 6.1 and 6.3).¶
• Handling of just created Recipient Contexts in case of unsuccessful message verification (see Sections 6.2 and 6.4).¶
• Handling of replied/repeated responses on the client (see Section 6.4).¶
• New IANA Registry "Counter Signature Parameters" (see Section 9.1).¶

E.13. Version -02 to -03

• Revised structure and phrasing for improved readability and better alignment with draft-ietf-core-object-security.¶
• Added discussion on wrap-Around of Partial IVs (see Section 2.2).¶
• Separate sections for the COSE Object (Section 3) and the OSCORE Header Compression (Section 4).¶
• The countersignature is now appended to the encrypted payload of the OSCORE message, rather than included in the OSCORE Option (see Section 4).¶
• Extended scope of Section 5, now titled " Message Binding, Sequence Numbers, Freshness and Replay Protection".¶
• Clarifications about Non-confirmable messages in Section 5.1 "Synchronization of Sender Sequence Numbers".¶
• Clarifications about error handling in Section 6 "Message Processing".¶
• Compacted list of responsibilities of the Group Manager in Section 7.¶
• Revised and extended security considerations in Section 8.¶
• Added IANA considerations for the OSCORE Flag Bits Registry in Section 9.¶
• Revised Appendix D, now giving a short high-level description of a new endpoint set-up.¶

E.14. Version -01 to -02

• Terminology has been made more aligned with RFC7252 and draft-ietf-core-object-security: i) "client" and "server" replace the old "multicaster" and "listener", respectively; ii) "silent server" replaces the old "pure listener".¶
• Section 2 has been updated to have the Group Identifier stored in the 'ID Context' parameter defined in draft-ietf-core-object-security.¶
• Section 3 has been updated with the new format of the Additional Authenticated Data.¶
• Major rewriting of Section 4 to better highlight the differences with the message processing in draft-ietf-core-object-security.¶
• Added Sections 7.2 and 7.3 discussing security considerations about uniqueness of (key, nonce) and collision of group identifiers, respectively.¶
• Minor updates to Appendix A.1 about assumptions on multicast communication topology and group size.¶
• Updated Appendix C on format of group identifiers, with practical implications of possible collisions of group identifiers.¶
• Updated Appendix D.2, adding a pointer to draft-palombini-ace-key-groupcomm about retrieval of nodes' public keys through the Group Manager.¶
• Minor updates to Appendix E.3 about Challenge-Response synchronization of sequence numbers based on the Echo option from draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag.¶

E.15. Version -00 to -01

• Section 1.1 has been updated with the definition of group as "security group".¶

• Section 2 has been updated with:¶

  • Clarifications on establishment/derivation of Security Contexts.¶
  • A table summarizing the the additional context elements compared to OSCORE.¶

• Section 3 has been updated with:¶

  • Examples of request and response messages.¶
  • Use of CounterSignature0 rather than CounterSignature.¶
  • Additional Authenticated Data including also the signature algorithm, while not including the Group Identifier any longer.¶
• Added Section 6, listing the responsibilities of the Group Manager.¶
• Added Appendix A (former section), including assumptions and security objectives.¶
• Appendix B has been updated with more details on the use cases.¶
• Added Appendix C, providing an example of Group Identifier format.¶
• Appendix D has been updated to be aligned with draft-palombini-ace-key-groupcomm.¶