| Internet-Draft | PQC Recommendations for TLS-based Applic | January 2025 |
| Reddy & Tschofenig | Expires 3 August 2025 | [Page] |
Post-quantum cryptography presents new challenges for applications, end users, and system administrators. This document highlights the unique characteristics of applications and offers best practices for implementing quantum-ready usage profiles in applications that use TLS and key supporting protocols such as DNS.¶
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.¶
Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-reddy-uta-pqc-app/.¶
Discussion of this document takes place on the uta Working Group mailing list (mailto:uta@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/uta/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta/.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 3 August 2025.¶
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
The visible face of the Internet predominantly comprises services operating on a client-server architecture, where a client communicates with an application service. When using protocols such as TLS 1.3 [RFC8446], DTLS 1.3 [RFC9147], or protocols built on these foundations (e.g., QUIC [RFC9001]), clients and servers perform ephemeral public-key exchanges, such as Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH), to derive a shared secret that ensures forward secrecy. Additionally, they validate each other's identities through X.509 certificates, establishing secure communication.¶
The emergence of a Cryptographically Relevant Quantum Computer (CRQC) would render current public-key algorithms insecure and obsolete. This is because the mathematical assumptions underpinning these algorithms, which currently offer high levels of security, would no longer hold in the presence of a CRQC. Consequently, there is an urgent need to update protocols and infrastructure with post-quantum cryptographic (PQC) algorithms. These algorithms are designed to remain secure against both CRQCs and classical computers. The traditional cryptographic primitives requiring replacement are discussed in [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqc-engineers], and the NIST PQC Standardization process has selected algorithms such as ML-KEM, SLH-DSA, and ML-DSA as candidates for future deployment in protocols.¶
Historically, the industry has successfully transitioned between cryptographic protocols, such as upgrading TLS versions and deprecating older ones (e.g., SSLv2), and shifting from RSA to Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC), which improved security and reduced key sizes. However, the transition to PQC presents unique challenges, primarily due to the following:¶
Algorithm Maturity: While NIST has finalized a set of PQC algorithms, ensuring the correctness and security of implementations remains critical. Even the most secure algorithm is vulnerable if implementation flaws introduce security risks.¶
Key and Signature Sizes: Many PQC algorithms require significantly larger key and signature sizes, which can inflate handshake packet sizes and impact network performance. For example, ML-KEM public keys are substantially larger than ECDH keys (see Table 5 in [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqc-engineers]). Similarly, public keys for SLH-DSA and ML-DSA are much larger than those for P256 (see Table 6 in [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqc-engineers]). Signature sizes for algorithms like SLH-DSA and ML-DSA are also considerably larger compared to traditional options like Ed25519 or ECDSA-P256, posing challenges for constrained environments (e.g., IoT) and increasing handshake times in high-latency or lossy networks.¶
Performance Trade-Offs: While some PQC algorithms exhibit slower operations compared to traditional algorithms, others provide specific advantages. For instance, ML-KEM requires less CPU than X25519, and ML-DSA offers faster signature verification times compared to Ed25519, although its signature generation process is slower.¶
Any application transmitting messages over untrusted networks is potentially vulnerable to active or passive attacks by adversaries equipped with CRQCs. The degree of vulnerability varies in significance depending on the application and underlying systems. This document outlines quantum-ready usage profiles for applications designed to protect against passive and on-path attacks leveraging CRQCs. It also discusses how TLS client and server implementations, along with essential supporting applications, can address these challenges using various techniques detailed in subsequent sections.¶
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.¶
This document adopts terminology defined in [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqt-hybrid-terminology]. For the purposes of this document, it is useful to categorize cryptographic algorithms into three distinct classes:¶
Traditional Algorithm: An asymmetric cryptographic algorithm based on integer factorization, finite field discrete logarithms, or elliptic curve discrete logarithms. In the context of TLS, an example of a traditional key exchange algorithm is Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH), which is almost exclusively used in its ephemeral mode, referred to as Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman Ephemeral (ECDHE).¶
Post-Quantum Algorithm: An asymmetric cryptographic algorithm designed to be secure against attacks from both quantum and classical computers. An example of a post-quantum key exchange algorithm is the Module-Lattice Key Encapsulation Mechanism (ML-KEM).¶
Hybrid Algorithm: We distinguish between key exchanges and signature algorithms:¶
Hybrid Key Exchange: A key exchange mechanism that combines two component algorithms - one traditional algorithm and one post-quantum algorithm. The resulting shared secret remains secure as long as at least one of the component key exchange algorithms remains unbroken.¶
PQ/T Hybrid Digital Signature: A multi-algorithm digital signature scheme composed of two or more component signature algorithms, where at least one is a post-quantum algorithm and at least one is a traditional algorithm.¶
Digital signature algorithms play a critical role in X.509 certificates, Certificate Transparency Signed Certificate Timestamps, Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) statements, remote attestation evidence, and any other mechanism that contributes signatures during a TLS handshake or in context of a secure communication establishment.¶
The timeline and driving motivations for transitioning to quantum-ready cryptography differ between data confidentiality and data authentication (e.g., signatures). The risk of "Harvest Now, Decrypt Later" (HNDL) attacks demands immediate action to protect data confidentiality, while the threat to authentication systems, although less urgent, requires forward-thinking planning to mitigate future risks.¶
Encrypted payloads transmitted using Transport Layer Security (TLS) are vulnerable to decryption if an attacker equipped with a CRQC gains access to the traditional asymmetric public keys used in the TLS key exchange along with the transmitted ciphertext. TLS implementations typically use Diffie-Hellman-based key exchange schemes. If an attacker obtains a complete set of encrypted payloads, including the TLS setup, they could theoretically use a CRQC to derive the private key and decrypt the data.¶
The primary concern for data confidentiality is the "Harvest Now, Decrypt Later" scenario, where a malicious actor with sufficient resources stores encrypted data today to decrypt it in the future, once a CRQC becomes available. This means that even data encrypted today is at risk unless quantum-safe strategies are implemented. The window of vulnerability—the effective security lifetime of the encrypted data—can range from seconds to decades, depending on the sensitivity of the data and how long it remains valuable. This highlights the immediate need to adopt quantum-resistant cryptographic measures to ensure long-term confidentiality.¶
For data authentication, the concern shifts to potential on-path attackers equipped with CRQCs capable of breaking traditional authentication mechanisms. Such attackers could impersonate legitimate entities, tricking victims into connecting to the attacker’s device instead of the intended target, resulting in impersonation attacks. While this is not as immediate a threat as "Harvest Now, Decrypt Later" attacks, it remains a significant risk that must be addressed proactively.¶
In client/server certificate-based authentication, the security window between the generation of the signature in the CertificateVerify message and its verification by the peer during the TLS handshake is typically short. However, the security lifetime of digital signatures on X.509 certificates, including those issued by root Certification Authorities (CAs), warrants closer scrutiny. Root CA certificates can have validity periods of 20 years or more, while root Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs) often remain valid for a year or longer. Delegated credentials, such as CRL Signing Certificates or OCSP response signing certificates, generally have shorter lifetimes but still present a potential vulnerability window.¶
While data confidentiality faces the immediate and pressing threat of "Harvest Now, Decrypt Later" attacks, requiring urgent quantum-safe adoption, data authentication poses a longer-term risk that still necessitates careful planning. Both scenarios underscore the importance of transitioning to quantum-resistant cryptographic systems to safeguard data and authentication mechanisms in a post-quantum era.¶
Data in transit may require protection for years, making the potential emergence of CRQCs a critical concern. This necessitates a shift away from traditional algorithms. However, uncertainties regarding the security of PQC algorithm implementations, evolving regulatory requirements, and the ongoing development of cryptanalysis justify a transitional approach where well-established traditional algorithms are used alongside new PQC primitives.¶
Applications utilizing (D)TLS that are vulnerable to "Harvest Now, Decrypt Later" attacks MUST transition to (D)TLS 1.3 and adopt one of the following strategies:¶
Hybrid Key Exchange: Hybrid key exchange combines traditional and PQC key exchange algorithms, offering resilience even if one algorithm is compromised. As defined in [I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design], this approach ensures robust security during the migration to PQC. For TLS 1.3, hybrid Post-Quantum key exchange groups are introduced in [I-D.kwiatkowski-tls-ecdhe-mlkem]:¶
Pure Post-Quantum Key Exchange: For deployments that require exclusively Post-Quantum key exchange, [I-D.connolly-tls-mlkem-key-agreement] defines the following standalone NamedGroups for Post-Quantum key agreement in TLS 1.3: ML-KEM-512, ML-KEM-768, and ML-KEM-1024¶
Hybrid Key Exchange is generally preferred over pure PQC key exchange because it provides defense-in-depth by combining the strengths of both classical and PQC algorithms. This ensures continued security, even if one algorithm is compromised during the transitional period.¶
However, Pure PQC Key Exchange may be required for specific deployments with regulatory or compliance mandates that necessitate the exclusive use of post-quantum cryptography. Examples include high-security environments or sectors governed by stringent cryptographic standards.¶
The client initiates the TLS handshake by sending a list of supported key agreement methods in the key_share extension. One of the key challenges during the migration to PQC is that the client may not know whether the server supports hybrid key exchange. To address this uncertainty, the client can adopt one of the following three strategies:¶
Send Both Traditional and Hybrid Key Exchange Algorithms: In the initial ClientHello message, the client can include both traditional and hybrid key exchange algorithm key shares. This eliminates the need for multiple round trips but comes with its own trade-offs.¶
Advantage: Reduces latency since the server can immediately select an appropriate key exchange method.¶
Challenges:¶
The size of the hybrid key exchange algorithm key share may exceed the Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU), potentially causing the ClientHello message to be fragmented across multiple packets. This fragmentation increases the risk of packet loss and retransmissions, leading to potential delays. During the TLS handshake, the server will respond to the ClientHello with its public key and ciphertext. If these components also exceed the MTU, the ServerHello message may be fragmented, further compounding the risk of delays due to packet loss and retransmissions.¶
Middleboxes that do not handle fragmented ClientHello messages properly may drop them, as this behavior is uncommon.¶
Additionally, this approach requires more computational resources on the client and increases handshake traffic.¶
Indicate Support for Hybrid Key Exchange: Alternatively, the client may initially indicate support for hybrid key exchange and send a traditional key exchange algorithm key share in the first ClientHello message. If the server supports hybrid key exchange, it will use the HelloRetryRequest to request a hybrid key exchange algorithm key share from the client. The client can then send the hybrid key exchange algorithm key share in the second ClientHello message. However, this approach has a disadvantage in that the roundtrip would introduce additional delay compared to the previous technique of sending both traditional and hybrid key exchange algorithm key shares to the server in the initial ClientHello message.¶
Use Server Key Share Preferences Communicated via DNS: [I-D.ietf-tls-key-share-prediction] defines a mechanism where servers communicate their key share preferences through DNS responses. TLS clients can use this information to tailor their initial ClientHello message, reducing the need for additional round trips. By leveraging these DNS-based hints, the client can optimize the handshake process and avoid unnecessary delays.¶
Clients MAY also use information from completed handshakes to cache the server's key exchange algorithm preferences, as described in Section 4.2.7 of [RFC8446]. To minimize the risk of the ClientHello message being split across multiple packets, clients should avoid duplicating PQC KEM public key shares. Strategies for preventing duplication are outlined in Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design]. By carefully managing key shares, the client can reduce the size of the ClientHello message and improve compatibility with network infrastructure.¶
Although CRQCs could potentially decrypt past TLS sessions, client/server authentication based on certificates cannot be retroactively compromised. However, the multi-year process required to establish, certify, and embed new root CAs presents a significant challenge. If CRQCs emerge earlier than anticipated, responding promptly to secure authentication systems would be difficult. While the migration to PQ X.509 certificates allows for more time compared to key exchanges, delaying these preparations should be avoided.¶
The quantum-ready authentication property becomes critical in scenarios where an on-path attacker uses network devices equipped with CRQCs to break traditional authentication protocols. For example, if an attacker determines the private key of a server certificate before its expiration, they could impersonate the server, causing users to believe their connections are legitimate. This impersonation leads to serious security threats, including unauthorized data disclosure, interception of communications, and overall system compromise.¶
The quantum-ready authentication property ensures robust authentication through the use of either a pure Post-Quantum certificate or a PQ/T hybrid certificate:¶
Post-Quantum X.509 Certificates¶
ML-DSA Certificates: Defined in [I-D.ietf-lamps-dilithium-certificates], these use the Module-Lattice Digital Signature Algorithm (ML-DSA). [I-D.tls-westerbaan-mldsa] explains how ML-DSA is applied for authentication in TLS 1.3.¶
SLH-DSA Certificates: Defined in [I-D.ietf-lamps-x509-slhdsa], these use the SLH-DSA algorithm. [I-D.reddy-tls-slhdsa] details how SLH-DSA is used in TLS 1.3 and compares its advantages and disadvantages with ML-DSA in Section 2 of the document¶
Composite certificates are defined in [I-D.ietf-lamps-pq-composite-sigs]. These combine Post-Quantum algorithms like ML-DSA with traditional algorithms such as RSA-PKCS#1v1.5, RSA-PSS, ECDSA, Ed25519, or Ed448, to provide additional protection against vulnerabilities or implementation bugs in a single algorithm. [I-D.reddy-tls-composite-mldsa] specifies how composite signatures, including ML-DSA, are used for TLS 1.3 authentication.¶
Determining whether and when to adopt PQC certificates or PQ/T hybrid schemes depends on several factors, including:¶
Frequency and duration of system upgrades¶
The expected timeline for CRQC availability¶
Operational flexibility to enable or disable algorithms¶
Deployments with limited flexibility benefit significantly from hybrid signatures, which combine traditional algorithms with PQC algorithms. This approach mitigates the risks associated with delays in transitioning to PQC and provides an immediate safeguard against zero-day vulnerabilities.¶
Hybrid signatures enhance resilience during the adoption of PQC by:¶
Providing defense-in-depth: They maintain security even if one algorithm is compromised.¶
Reducing exposure to unforeseen vulnerabilities: They offer immediate protection against potential weaknesses in PQC algorithms.¶
For example, telecom networks—characterized by centralized infrastructure, internal CAs, and close relationships with vendors are well-positioned to manage the overhead of larger PQC keys and signatures. These networks can adopt PQC signature algorithms earlier due to their ability to coordinate and deploy changes effectively.¶
Conversely, the Web PKI ecosystem may delay adoption until more efficient and compact PQC signature algorithms, such as MAYO, UOV, HAWK, or SQISign, become available. This is due to the broader, more decentralized nature of the Web PKI ecosystem, which makes coordination and implementation more challenging.¶
To address the challenge of large PQ or PQ/T hybrid certificate chains during the TLS handshake, the following mechanisms can help optimize the size of the exchanged certificate data:¶
TLS Cached Information Extension ([RFC7924]): This extension enables clients to indicate that they have cached certificate information from a prior connection. The server can then signal the client to reuse the cached data instead of retransmitting the full certificate chain. While this mechanism reduces bandwidth usage, it introduces potential privacy concerns, as it could allow attackers to correlate separate TLS sessions, compromising anonymity for cases where this is a concern.¶
TLS Certificate Compression ([RFC8879]): This specification defines compression schemes to reduce the size of the server's certificate chain. While effective in many scenarios, its impact on PQ or PQ/T hybrid certificates is limited due to the larger sizes of public keys and signatures in PQC. These high-entropy fields, inherent to PQC algorithms, constrain the overall compression effectiveness.¶
Abridged TLS Certificate ({?I-D.ietf-tls-cert-abridge}): This approach minimizes the size of the certificate chain by omitting intermediate certificates that are already known to the client. Instead, the server provides a compact representation of the certificate chain, and the client reconstructs the omitted certificates using a well-known common CA database. This mechanism significantly reduces bandwidth requirements while preserving compatibility with existing certificate validation processes. Additionally, it explores potential methods to compress the end-entity certificate itself, though this aspect remains under discussion within the TLS Working Group.¶
These techniques aim to optimize the exchange of certificate chains during the TLS handshake, particularly in scenarios involving large PQC-related certificates, while balancing efficiency and compatibility.¶
When the server detects that the client does not support PQC or hybrid key exchange, it may send an insufficient_security fatal alert to the client. The client, in turn, can notify end-users that the server they are attempting to access requires a level of security that the client cannot provide due to the lack of PQC support. Additionally, the client may log this event for diagnostic purposes, security auditing, or reporting the issue to the client development team for further analysis.¶
Conversely, if the client detects that the server does not support PQC or hybrid key exchange, it may present an alert or error message to the end-user. This message should explain that the server is incompatible with the PQC security features supported by the client.¶
It is important to design such alerts thoughtfully to ensure they are clear and actionable, avoiding unnecessary warnings that could overwhelm or confuse users. It is also important to note that notifications to end-users may not be applicable or necessary in all scenarios, particularly in the context of machine-to-machine communication.¶
This document primarily focuses on the transition to PQC in applications that utilize TLS, while also covering other essential protocols, such as DNS, that play a critical role in supporting application functionality.¶
The privacy risks associated with exchanging DNS messages in clear text are detailed in [RFC9076]. To mitigate these risks, Transport Layer Security (TLS) is employed to provide privacy for DNS communications. Encrypted DNS protocols, such as DNS-over-HTTPS (DoH) [RFC8484], DNS-over-TLS (DoT) [RFC7858], and DNS-over-QUIC (DoQ) [RFC9250], safeguard messages against eavesdropping and on-path tampering during transit.¶
However, encrypted DNS messages transmitted using TLS may be vulnerable to decryption if an attacker gains access to the public keys used in the TLS key exchange. If an attacker obtains a complete set of encrypted DNS messages, including the TLS handshake details, they could potentially use a CRQC to determine the ephemeral private key used in the key exchange, thereby decrypting the content.¶
To address these vulnerabilities, encrypted DNS protocols MUST support the quantum-ready usage profile discussed in {#confident}.¶
It is important to note that the Post-Quantum security of DNSSEC [RFC9364], which provides authenticity for DNS records, is a distinct issue separate from the requirements for encrypted DNS transport protocols.¶
Hybrid Public-Key Encryption (HPKE) is a cryptographic scheme designed to enable public key encryption of arbitrary-sized plaintexts using a recipient's public key. HPKE employs a non-interactive ephemeral-static Diffie-Hellman key exchange to derive a shared secret. The rationale for standardizing a public key encryption scheme is detailed in the introduction of [RFC9180].¶
HPKE can be extended to support PQ/T Hybrid Post-Quantum Key Encapsulation Mechanisms (KEMs), as described in [I-D.connolly-cfrg-xwing-kem]. This extension ensures compatibility with Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC) while maintaining the resilience provided by hybrid cryptographic approaches.¶
Client TLS libraries and applications can utilize Encrypted Client Hello (ECH) [I-D.ietf-tls-esni] to prevent passive observation of the intended server identity during the TLS handshake. However, this requires the concurrent deployment of Encrypted DNS protocols (e.g., DNS-over-TLS), as passive listeners could otherwise observe DNS queries or responses and deduce the same server identity that ECH is designed to protect. ECH employs HPKE for public key encryption.¶
To safeguard against "Harvest Now, Decrypt Later" attacks, ECH deployments must incorporate support for PQ/T Hybrid Post-Quantum KEMs. In this context, the public_key field in the HpkeKeyConfig structure would need to accommodate a concatenation of traditional and PQC KEM public keys to ensure robust protection against quantum-enabled adversaries.¶
The security considerations outlined in [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqc-engineers] must be carefully evaluated and taken into account.¶
Post-quantum algorithms selected for standardization are relatively new, and their implementations are still in the early stages of maturity. This makes them more susceptible to implementation bugs compared to the well-established and extensively tested cryptographic algorithms currently in use. Furthermore, certain deployments may need to continue using traditional algorithms to meet regulatory requirements, such as Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) [SP-800-56C] or Payment Card Industry (PCI) compliance.¶
Hybrid key exchange provides a practical and flexible solution, offering protection against "Harvest Now, Decrypt Later" attacks while maintaining the ability to respond to potential catastrophic vulnerabilities in any single algorithm. This approach enables a gradual transition to PQC without the need to completely abandon traditional cryptosystems.¶
Thanks to Dan Wing for suggesting a broader scope for the document, and to Mike Ounsworth, Scott Fluhrer, Bas Westerbaan, and Thom Wiggers for their helpful feedback and reviews.¶