Key Confirmation in Key Exchange: A Formal Treatment and Implications for TLS 1.3
Marc Fischlin, Felix Günther, Benedikt Schmidt, Bogdan Warinschi
Abstract
Key exchange protocols allow two parties at remote locations to compute a shared secret key. The common security notions for such protocols are secrecy and authenticity, but many widely deployed protocols and standards name another property, called key confirmation, as a major design goal. This property should guarantee that a party in the key exchange protocol is assured that another party also holds the shared key. Remarkably, while secrecy and authenticity definitions have been studied extensively, key confirmation has been treated rather informally so far. In this work, we provide the first rigorous formalization of key confirmation, leveraging the game-based security framework well-established for secrecy and authentication notions for key exchange. We define two flavors of key confirmation, full and almost-full key confirmation, taking into account the inevitable asymmetry of the roles of the parties with respect to the transmission of the final protocol message. These notions capture the strongest level of key confirmation reasonably expectable for the two communication partners of the key exchange. We demonstrate the benefits of having precise security definitions for key-confirmation by applying them to the next version of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol, version 1.3, currently developed by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Our analysis shows that the full handshake as specified in the TLS 1.3 draft draft-ietf-tls-tls13-10 achieves desirable notions of key confirmation for both clients and servers. While key confirmation is generally understood and in the TLS 1.3 draft described as being obtained from the Finished messages exchanged, interestingly we can show that the full TLS 1.3 handshake provides key confirmation even without those messages, shedding a formal light on the security properties different handshake messages entail. We further demonstrate the usefulness of rigorous definition by revisiting a folklore approach to establish key confirmation (as discussed for example in SP 800-56A of NIST). We provide a formalization as a generic protocol transformation and show that the resulting protocols enjoy strong key confirmation guarantees, thus confirming its beneficial use in both theoretical and practical protocol designs.
Ask about this paper
Ask your agent about it.
Lune has read the top-tier papers around this one, so every answer names the papers it rests on.
Your agent calls
Lunesearch_papers
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers get 84d80bbc-bd31-49f6-84a6-4dab03a2337fCited by top-tier papers7
- A Comprehensive Symbolic Analysis of TLS 1.3Cas Cremers, Marko Horvat, Jonathan Hoyland, Sam Scott et al.CCS 2017 · 247 citations
- Verified Models and Reference Implementations for the TLS 1.3 Standard CandidateKarthikeyan Bhargavan, Bruno Blanchet, Nadim KobeissiS&P 2017 · 233 citations
- Implementing and Proving the TLS 1.3 Record LayerAntoine Delignat-Lavaud, Cédric Fournet, Markulf Kohlweiss, Jonathan Protzenko et al.S&P 2017 · 20 citations
- A PKI-based Framework for Establishing Efficient MPC ChannelsDaniel Masny, Gaven J. WatsonCCS 2021 · 3 citations
- A Unified Symbolic Analysis of WireGuardPascal Lafourcade, Dhekra Mahmoud, Sylvain RuhaultNDSS 2024
Related papers
- A Unilateral-to-Mutual Authentication Compiler for Key Exchange (with Applications to Client Authentication in TLS 1.3)Hugo KrawczykCCS 2016 · 24 citations
- Multiple Handshakes Security of TLS 1.3 CandidatesXinyu Li, Jing Xu, Zhenfeng Zhang, Dengguo Feng et al.S&P 2016 · 32 citations
- Quantifying the Security Cost of Migrating Protocols to PracticeChristopher Patton, Thomas ShrimptonCRYPTO 2020 · 2 citations
- Downgrade Resilience in Key-Exchange ProtocolsKarthikeyan Bhargavan, Christina Brzuska, Cédric Fournet, Matthew Green et al.S&P 2016 · 54 citations
- Formally Verifying the State Machine of TLS 1.3 Handshake in OpenSSLJingjing Guan, Hui Li, Xiangdong Li, Xiaolei Wang et al.INFOCOM 2025 · 3 citations
