Compressed Data Content Type for Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
A standard envelope for compressing data before it is signed or encrypted in a CMS message.
Gutmann, P., "Compressed Data Content Type for Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC 3274, DOI 10.17487/RFC3274, June 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3274>.
@misc{rfc3274,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 3274,
howpublished = {RFC 3274},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC3274},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3274},
author = {P. Gutmann},
title = {{Compressed Data Content Type for Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)}},
pagetotal = 6,
year = 2002,
month = jun,
} RFC text
Contents
Network Working Group P. Gutmann
Request for Comments: 3274 University of Auckland
Category: Standards Track June 2002
Compressed Data Content Type for
Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document defines a format for using compressed data as a
Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) content type. Compressing data
before transmission provides a number of advantages, including the
elimination of data redundancy which could help an attacker, speeding
up processing by reducing the amount of data to be processed by later
steps (such as signing or encryption), and reducing overall message
size. Although there have been proposals for adding compression at
other levels (for example at the MIME or SSL level), these don't
address the problem of compression of CMS content unless the
compression is supplied by an external means (for example by
intermixing MIME and CMS).
1. Introduction
This document describes a compressed data content type for CMS. This
is implemented as a new ContentInfo type and is an extension to the
types currently defined in CMS [RFC2630]. CMS implementations SHOULD
include support for the CompressedData content type.
The format of the messages are described in ASN.1 [ASN1].
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
"RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be
interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
1.1 Compressed Data Content Type
The compressed-data content type consists of content of any type,
compressed using a specified algorithm. The following object
identifier identifies the compressed-data content type:
id-ct-compressedData OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) ct(1) 9 }
The compressed-data content type shall have ASN.1 type
CompressedData:
CompressedData ::= SEQUENCE {
version CMSVersion,
compressionAlgorithm CompressionAlgorithmIdentifier,
encapContentInfo EncapsulatedContentInfo
}
The fields of type CompressedData have the following meanings:
version is the syntax version number. It MUST be 0. Details of
the CMSVersion type are discussed in CMS [RFC2630], section
10.2.5.
compressionAlgorithm is a compression algorithm identifier, as
defined in section 2.
encapContentInfo is the content which is compressed. Details of
the EncapsulatedContentInfo type are discussed in CMS [RFC2630],
section 5.2.
Implementations SHOULD use the SMIMECapabilities attribute to
indicate their ability to process compressed content types. Details
of SMIMECapabilities are discussed in MSG [RFC2633], section 2.5.2.
A compression SMIMECapability consists of the AlgorithmIdentifier for
the supported compression algorithm. In the case of the algorithm
specified in this document, this is id-alg-zlibCompression, as
specified in section 2. Alternatively, the use of compression may be
handled by prior arrangement (for example as part of an
interoperability profile).
The SMIMECapability SEQUENCE representing the ability to process
content compressed with the algorithm identified by id-alg-
zlibCompression MUST be DER-encoded as the following hexadecimal
string:
30 0D 06 0B 2A 86 48 86 F7 0D 01 09 10 03 08
(but see also the implementation note in section 2.1).
2. Compression Types
CMS implementations that support the CompressedData content type MUST
include support for the ZLIB compression algorithm [RFC1950]
[RFC1951], which has a freely-available, portable and efficient
reference implementation. The following object identifier identifies
ZLIB:
id-alg-zlibCompress OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) alg(3) 8 }
This algorithm has no parameters. The parameters field SHOULD be
encoded as omitted, but MAY be encoded as NULL (see the
implementation note in section 2.1).
2.1. Implementation notes
ZLIB allows for a number of compression levels ranging from good but
slow compression, to less good but fast compression. The compression
level is always compatible with the decompression algorithm, so there
is no need to specify the compression level as an algorithm
parameter.
There are two possible encodings for the ZLIB null parameters field
which arise from the fact that when the 1988 syntax for
AlgorithmIdentifier was translated into the 1997 syntax, the OPTIONAL
associated with the AlgorithmIdentifier parameters got lost. Later
it was recovered via a defect report, but by then, everyone thought
that algorithm parameters were mandatory. Because of this, some
implementations will encode null parameters as an ASN.1 NULL element
and some will omit them entirely (see for example section 12 of CMS
[RFC2630]). Although the correct encoding is to omit the parameters
field, implementations may encounter encodings which use an ASN.1
NULL element for the parameters.
3. Security Considerations
This RFC is not concerned with security, except for the fact that
compressing data before encryption can enhance the security provided
by other processing steps by reducing the quantity of known plaintext
available to an attacker. However, implementations should be aware
of possible security threats of combining security sensitive material
with possibly untrusted data before the compression and encryption.
This is because information about the sensitive data may be inferred
from knowing the untrusted data and the compression ratio.
4. IANA Considerations
The CompressedData content type and compression algorithms are
identified by object identifiers (OIDs). OIDs were assigned from an
arc contributed to the S/MIME Working Group by RSA Security. Should
additional compression algorithms be introduced, the advocates for
such algorithms are expected to assign the necessary OIDs from their
own arcs. No action by the IANA is necessary for this document or
any anticipated updates.
References
[ASN1] CCITT Recommendation X.208: Specification of Abstract
Syntax Notation One (ASN.1), 1988.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key Words for Use in RFC's to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC1950] Deutsch, P. and J-L Gailly, "ZLIB Compressed Data Format
Specification version 3.3", RFC 1950, May 1996.
[RFC1951] Deutsch, P., "DEFLATE Compressed Data Format Specification
version 1.3", RFC 1951, May 1996.
[RFC2630] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax", RFC 2630, June
1999.
[RFC2633] Rmasdell, B., "S/MIME Version 3 Message Specification", RFC
2633, June 1999.
Appendix A: ASN.1 Module
CompressedDataContent
{ iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9)
smime(16) modules(0) compress(11) }
DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::=
BEGIN
IMPORTS
CMSVersion, EncapsulatedContentInfo FROM CryptographicMessageSyntax
{ iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549)
pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) modules(0) cms(1) }
AlgorithmIdentifier FROM AuthenticationFramework
{ joint-iso-itu-t ds(5) module(1) authenticationFramework(7) 3 };
CompressedData ::= SEQUENCE {
version CMSVersion, -- Always set to 0
compressionAlgorithm CompressionAlgorithmIdentifier,
encapContentInfo EncapsulatedContentInfo
}
CompressionAlgorithmIdentifier ::= AlgorithmIdentifier
-- Algorithm Identifiers
id-alg-zlibCompress OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) alg(3) 8 }
-- Content Type Object Identifiers
id-ct-compressedData OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) ct(1) 9 }
END
Author Address
Peter Gutmann
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
Auckland, New Zealand
EMail: pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
AI ELI5
On this page
§1Why Compress Inside CMS
RFC 3274 describes a compressed-data content type for the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS, defined in RFC 2630). It is implemented as a new ContentInfo type and extends the types CMS already defines. CMS implementations SHOULD include support for it.
The abstract lists the benefits of compressing before transmission: it removes data redundancy that could help an attacker, it speeds up later steps such as signing or encryption because there is less data, and it reduces overall message size. Proposals to add compression at the MIME or SSL level do not help CMS content unless the compression is supplied by an external means.
Packing a suitcase tighter means a smaller bag to carry and lock. This RFC gives CMS a proper way to pack the suitcase first.
§1.1The CompressedData Type
The content type is identified by the object identifier id-ct-compressedData, and its ASN.1 type is CompressedData, a SEQUENCE of three fields.
version: the syntax version number. It MUST be 0.compressionAlgorithm: an identifier for the algorithm used.encapContentInfo: the content that is compressed, which can be content of any type.
The format is written in ASN.1, and Appendix A gives the full ASN.1 module.
The envelope has three boxes: a version number, the name of the squishing method, and the squished message itself.
- versionCMSVersion; MUST be 0.
- compressionAlgorithmIdentifies the algorithm; ZLIB is required.
- encapContentInfoThe content that was compressed.
§2ZLIB Compression
CMS implementations that support CompressedData MUST support the ZLIB algorithm, defined in RFC 1950 and RFC 1951. The RFC points out that it has a freely available, portable and efficient reference implementation. It is identified by id-alg-zlibCompress and takes no parameters.
ZLIB offers compression levels from good but slow to less good but fast. The level is always compatible with the decompressor, so it does not need to be given as a parameter.
The parameters field SHOULD be omitted, but MAY be encoded as an ASN.1 NULL. The RFC explains that when the 1988 AlgorithmIdentifier syntax was translated into the 1997 syntax, the OPTIONAL on the parameters got lost and was later recovered, so some implementations encode NULL and some omit the field. Receivers may meet either encoding.
Everyone has to understand one standard squishing method, ZLIB. There are fast squishes and thorough squishes, but any of them can be unsqueezed the same way.
§1.2Advertising Support
Implementations SHOULD use the SMIMECapabilities attribute (see RFC 2633) to say they can process compressed content. A compression capability is just the AlgorithmIdentifier of the supported algorithm, which for this document is the ZLIB identifier.
That capability MUST be DER-encoded as the hexadecimal string 30 0D 06 0B 2A 86 48 86 F7 0D 01 09 10 03 08. Alternatively, compression may be handled by prior arrangement, for example as part of an interoperability profile.
A program can tell others "I can unsqueeze ZLIB" with a fixed secret-code string, or people can simply agree beforehand.
§3Security Considerations
The RFC says it is not concerned with security, except that compressing before encryption can enhance the protection from other processing steps by reducing the quantity of known plaintext available to an attacker.
It also warns that combining security-sensitive material with possibly untrusted data before compression and encryption is risky. Information about the sensitive data may be inferred from knowing the untrusted data and the compression ratio.
Squishing first hides some patterns, but if a sneaky person can add their own words next to your secret, how small it squishes can give hints about the secret.
§4Identifiers and IANA
The content type and algorithms are identified by object identifiers. They were assigned from an arc contributed to the S/MIME Working Group by RSA Security. If more compression algorithms appear, their advocates are expected to assign OIDs from their own arcs. No action by the IANA is necessary for this document or any anticipated updates.
Each kind of envelope and squishing method has its own name tag. New methods make their own tags, so no central office needs to be asked.