Transport Layer Security M. Thomson
Internet-Draft Mozilla
Intended status: Informational Y. Rosomakho
Expires: 11 December 2025 Zscaler
H. Tschofenig
H-BRS
9 June 2025
The SSLKEYLOGFILE Format for TLS
draft-ietf-tls-keylogfile-05
Abstract
A format that supports logging information about the secrets used in
a TLS connection is described. Recording secrets to a file in
SSLKEYLOGFILE format allows diagnostic and logging tools that use
this file to decrypt messages exchanged by TLS endpoints. This
format is intended for use in systems where TLS only protects test
data.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
The latest revision of this draft can be found at
https://tlswg.github.io/sslkeylogfile/draft-ietf-tls-keylogfile.html.
Status information for this document may be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-keylogfile/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the Transport Layer
Security Working Group mailing list (mailto:tls@ietf.org), which is
archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/. Subscribe
at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/tlswg/sslkeylogfile.
Status of This Memo
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/.
Thomson, et al. Expires 11 December 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SSLKEYLOGFILE June 2025
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 11 December 2025.
Copyright Notice
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The SSLKEYLOGFILE Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Secret Labels for TLS 1.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Secret Labels for TLS 1.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Secret Labels for ECH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. SSLKEYLOGFILE Media Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. SSLKEYLOGFILE Labels Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
Debugging or analyzing protocols can be challenging when TLS [TLS13]
is used to protect the content of communications. Inspecting the
content of encrypted messages in diagnostic tools can enable more
thorough analysis.
Thomson, et al. Expires 11 December 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SSLKEYLOGFILE June 2025
Over time, multiple TLS implementations have informally adopted a
file format for logging the secret values generated by the TLS key
schedule. In many implementations, the file that the secrets are
logged to is specified in an environment variable named
"SSLKEYLOGFILE", hence the name of SSLKEYLOGFILE format. Note the
use of "SSL" as this convention originally predates the adoption of
TLS as the name of the protocol.
This document describes the SSLKEYLOGFILE format. This format can be
used for TLS 1.2 [TLS12] and TLS 1.3 [TLS13]. The format also
supports earlier TLS versions, though use of earlier versions is
strongly discouraged [RFC8996][RFC9325]. This format can also be
used with DTLS [DTLS13], QUIC [RFC9000][RFC9001], and other protocols
that also use the TLS key schedule. Use of this format could
complement other protocol-specific logging such as QLOG [QLOG].
This document also defines labels that can be used to log information
about exchanges that use Encrypted Client Hello (ECH) [ECH].
1.1. Applicability Statement
The artifact that this document describes - if made available to
entities other than endpoints - completely undermines the core
guarantees that TLS provides. This format is intended for use in
systems where TLS only protects test data. While the access that
this information provides to TLS connections can be useful for
diagnosing problems while developing systems, this mechanism MUST NOT
be used in a production system. For software that is compiled, use
of conditional compilation is the best way to ensure that deployed
binaries cannot be configured to enable key logging.
Section 3 addresses a number of additional concerns that arise from
the use of key logging.
1.2. Conventions and Definitions
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.
Thomson, et al. Expires 11 December 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SSLKEYLOGFILE June 2025
2. The SSLKEYLOGFILE Format
A file in SSLKEYLOGFILE format is a text file. This document
specifies the character encoding as UTF-8 [RFC3629]. Though the
format itself only includes ASCII characters [RFC0020], comments MAY
contain other characters. Though Unicode is permitted in comments,
the file MUST NOT contain a Unicode byte order mark (U+FEFF).
Lines are terminated using the line ending convention of the platform
on which the file is generated. Tools that process these files MUST
accept CRLF (U+13 followed by U+10), CR (U+13), or LF (U+10) as a
line terminator. Lines are ignored if they are empty or if the first
character is an octothorpe character ('#', U+23). Other lines of the
file each contain a single secret.
Implementations that record secrets to a file do so continuously as
those secrets are generated.
Each secret is described using a single line composed of three values
that are separated by a single space character (U+20). These values
are:
label: The label identifies the type of secret that is being
conveyed; see Section 2.1 for a description of the labels that are
defined in this document.
client_random: The 32-byte value of the Random field from the
ClientHello message that established the TLS connection. This
value is encoded as 64 hexadecimal characters. In a log that can
include secrets from multiple connections, this field can be used
to identify a connection.
secret: The value of the identified secret for the identified
connection. This value is encoded in hexadecimal, with a length
that depends on the size of the secret.
For the hexadecimal values of the client_random or secret, no
convention exists for the case of characters 'a' through 'f' (or 'A'
through 'F'). Files can be generated with either, so either form
MUST be accepted when processing a file.
Diagnostic tools that accept files in this format might choose to
ignore lines that do not conform to this format in the interest of
ensuring that secrets can be obtained from corrupted files.
Logged secret values are not annotated with the cipher suite or other
connection parameters. A record of the TLS handshake might therefore
be needed to use the logged secrets.
Thomson, et al. Expires 11 December 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SSLKEYLOGFILE June 2025
2.1. Secret Labels for TLS 1.3
An implementation of TLS 1.3 produces a number of values as part of
the key schedule (see Section 7.1 of [TLS13]). If ECH was
successfully negotiated for a given connection, these labels MUST be
followed by the Random from the Inner ClientHello. Otherwise, the
Random from the Outer ClientHello MUST be used.
Each of the following labels correspond to the equivalent secret
produced by the key schedule:
CLIENT_EARLY_TRAFFIC_SECRET:
This secret is used to protect records sent by the client as early
data, if early data is attempted by the client. Note that a
server that rejects early data will not log this secret, though a
client that attempts early data can do so unconditionally.
EARLY_EXPORTER_SECRET:
This secret is used for early exporters. Like the
CLIENT_EARLY_TRAFFIC_SECRET, this is only generated when early
data is attempted and might not be logged by a server if early
data is rejected.
CLIENT_HANDSHAKE_TRAFFIC_SECRET:
This secret is used to protect handshake records sent by the
client.
SERVER_HANDSHAKE_TRAFFIC_SECRET:
This secret is used to protect handshake records sent by the
server.
CLIENT_TRAFFIC_SECRET_0:
This secret is used to protect application_data records sent by
the client immediately after the handshake completes. This secret
is identified as client_application_traffic_secret_0 in the TLS
1.3 key schedule.
SERVER_TRAFFIC_SECRET_0:
This secret is used to protect application_data records sent by
the server immediately after the handshake completes. This secret
is identified as server_application_traffic_secret_0 in the TLS
1.3 key schedule.
EXPORTER_SECRET:
This secret is used in generating exporters Section 7.5 of
[TLS13].
Thomson, et al. Expires 11 December 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SSLKEYLOGFILE June 2025
These labels all appear in uppercase in the key log, but they
correspond to lowercase labels in the TLS key schedule (Section 7.1
of [TLS13]), except for the application data secrets as noted. For
example, "EXPORTER_SECRET" in the log file corresponds to the secret
named exporter_secret.
Note that the order that labels appear here corresponds to the order
in which they are presented in [TLS13], but there is no guarantee
that implementations will log secrets strictly in this order.
2.2. Secret Labels for TLS 1.2
Implementations of TLS 1.2 [TLS12] (and also earlier versions) use
the label "CLIENT_RANDOM" to identify the "master" secret for the
connection.
2.3. Secret Labels for ECH
With ECH [ECH], additional secrets are derived during the handshake
to encrypt the Inner ClientHello message using Hybrid Public Key
Encryption (HPKE) [HPKE]. A client can log the ECH labels described
below if it offered ECH regardless of server acceptance. The server
can log the labels only if it successfully decrypted the ECH offered
by the client, though it could choose to do so only when it accepts
ECH.
These labels MUST always use the Random from the Outer ClientHello.
ECH_SECRET: This label corresponds to the KEM shared secret used by
HPKE (shared_secret in the algorithms in Section 5.1.1 of [HPKE]).
Length of the secret is defined by the KEM negotiated for use with
ECH.
ECH_CONFIG: The ECHConfig used to construct the ECH extension. The
value is logged in hexadecimal representation.
3. Security Considerations
Access to the content of a file in SSLKEYLOGFILE format allows an
attacker to break the confidentiality and integrity protection on any
TLS connections that are included in the file. This includes both
active connections and connections for which encrypted records were
previously stored. Ensuring adequate access control on these files
therefore becomes very important.
Implementations that support logging this data need to ensure that
logging can only be enabled by those who are authorized. Allowing
logging to be initiated by any entity that is not otherwise
Thomson, et al. Expires 11 December 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SSLKEYLOGFILE June 2025
authorized to observe or modify the content of connections for which
secrets are logged could represent a privilege escalation attack.
Implementations that enable logging also need to ensure that access
to logged secrets is limited, using appropriate file permissions or
equivalent access control mechanisms.
In order to support decryption, the secrets necessary to remove
record protection are logged. However, as the keys that can be
derived from these secrets are symmetric, an adversary with access to
these secrets is also able to encrypt data for an active connection.
This might allow for injection or modification of application data on
a connection that would otherwise be protected by TLS.
As some protocols rely on TLS for generating encryption keys, the
SSLKEYLOGFILE format includes keys that identify the secret used in
TLS exporters or early exporters (Section 7.5 of [TLS13]). Knowledge
of these secrets can enable more than inspection or modification of
encrypted data, depending on how an application protocol uses
exporters. For instance, exporters might be used for session
bindings (e.g., [RFC8471]), authentication (e.g., [RFC9261]), or
other derived secrets that are used in application context. An
adversary that obtains these secrets might be able to use this
information to attack these applications. A TLS implementation might
either choose to omit these secrets in contexts where the information
might be abused or require separate authorization to enable logging
of exporter secrets.
Using an environment variable, such as SSLKEYLOGFILE, to enable
logging implies that access to the launch context for the application
is needed to authorize logging. On systems that support specially-
named files, logs might be directed to these names so that logging
does not result in storage, but enable consumption by other programs.
In both cases, applications might require special authorization or
they might rely on system-level access control to limit access to
these capabilities.
Forward secrecy guarantees provided in TLS 1.3 (see Section 1.2 and
Appendix E.1 of [RFC8446]) and some modes of TLS 1.2 (such as those
in Sections 2.2 and 2.4 of [RFC4492]) do not hold if key material is
recorded. Access to key material allows an attacker to decrypt data
exchanged in any previously logged TLS connections.
Thomson, et al. Expires 11 December 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SSLKEYLOGFILE June 2025
Logging the TLS 1.2 "master" secret provides the recipient of that
secret far greater access to an active connection than TLS 1.3
secrets. In addition to reading and altering protected messages, the
TLS 1.2 "master" secret confers the ability to resume the connection
and impersonate either endpoint, insert records that result in
renegotiation, and forge Finished messages. Implementations can
avoid the risks associated with these capabilities by not logging
this secret value.
Access to the ECH_SECRET record in the SSLKEYLOGFILE allows the
attacker to decrypt the ECH extension and thereby reveal the content
of the Inner ClientHello message, including the payload of the Server
Name Indication (SNI) extension.
Access to the HPKE-established shared secret used in ECH introduces a
potential attack surface against the HPKE library since access to
this keying material is normally not available otherwise.
4. IANA Considerations
This document registers a media type (Section 4.1) and creates a
registry for labels (Section 4.2).
4.1. SSLKEYLOGFILE Media Type
The "application/sslkeylogfile" media type can be used to describe
content in the SSLKEYLOGFILE format. IANA [has added/is requested to
add] the following information to the "Media Types" registry at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types):
Type name: application
Subtype name: sslkeylogfile
Required parameters: N/A
Optional parameters: N/A
Encoding considerations: UTF-8 without BOM, or ASCII only
Security considerations: See Section 3.
Interoperability considerations: Line endings might differ from
platform convention
Published specification: RFC XXXX (RFC Editor: please update)
Applications that use this media type: Diagnostic and analysis tools
that need to decrypt data that is otherwise protected by TLS.
Fragment identifier considerations: N/A
Additional information: Deprecated alias names for this type: N/A
Magic number(s): N/A
File extension(s): N/A
Macintosh file type code(s): N/A
Person & email address to contact for further information: TLS WG (t
Thomson, et al. Expires 11 December 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SSLKEYLOGFILE June 2025
ls@ietf.org)
Intended usage: COMMON
Restrictions on usage: N/A
Author: IETF TLS Working Group
Change controller: IETF
4.2. SSLKEYLOGFILE Labels Registry
IANA is requested to create a new registry "TLS SSLKEYLOGFILE
Labels", within the existing "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Parameters" registry page. This new registry reserves labels used
for SSLKEYLOGFILE entries. The initial contents of this registry are
as follows.
Thomson, et al. Expires 11 December 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SSLKEYLOGFILE June 2025
+=================================+=====================+===========+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=================================+=====================+===========+
| CLIENT_RANDOM | Master secret in | This |
| | TLS 1.2 and | document |
| | earlier | |
+---------------------------------+---------------------+-----------+
| CLIENT_EARLY_TRAFFIC_SECRET | Secret for client | This |
| | early data | document |
| | records | |
+---------------------------------+---------------------+-----------+
| EARLY_EXPORTER_SECRET | Early exporters | This |
| | secret | document |
+---------------------------------+---------------------+-----------+
| CLIENT_HANDSHAKE_TRAFFIC_SECRET | Secret protecting | This |
| | client handshake | document |
+---------------------------------+---------------------+-----------+
| SERVER_HANDSHAKE_TRAFFIC_SECRET | Secret protecting | This |
| | server handshake | document |
+---------------------------------+---------------------+-----------+
| CLIENT_TRAFFIC_SECRET_0 | Secret protecting | This |
| | client records | document |
| | post handshake | |
+---------------------------------+---------------------+-----------+
| SERVER_TRAFFIC_SECRET_0 | Secret protecting | This |
| | server records | document |
| | post handshake | |
+---------------------------------+---------------------+-----------+
| EXPORTER_SECRET | Exporter secret | This |
| | after handshake | document |
+---------------------------------+---------------------+-----------+
| ECH_SECRET | HPKE KEM shared | This |
| | secret used in | document |
| | the ECH | |
+---------------------------------+---------------------+-----------+
| ECH_CONFIG | ECHConfig used | This |
| | for construction | document |
| | of the ECH | |
+---------------------------------+---------------------+-----------+
Table 1
New assignments in the "SSLKEYLOGFILE Labels" registry will be
administered by IANA through Specification Required procedure
[RFC8126]. The role of the designated expert is described in
Section 17 of [RFC8447]. The designated expert [RFC8126] ensures
that the specification is publicly available. It is sufficient to
have an Internet-Draft (that is posted and never published as an RFC)
Thomson, et al. Expires 11 December 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SSLKEYLOGFILE June 2025
or to cite a document from another standards body, industry
consortium, or any other location. An expert may provide more in-
depth reviews, but their approval should not be taken as an
endorsement of the SSLKEYLOGFILE label.
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[ECH] Rescorla, E., Oku, K., Sullivan, N., and C. A. Wood, "TLS
Encrypted Client Hello", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-tls-esni-24, 20 March 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-
esni-24>.
[HPKE] Barnes, R., Bhargavan, K., Lipp, B., and C. Wood, "Hybrid
Public Key Encryption", RFC 9180, DOI 10.17487/RFC9180,
February 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9180>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3629>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[TLS12] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5246>.
[TLS13] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-tls-rfc8446bis-12, 17 February 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-
rfc8446bis-12>.
5.2. Informative References
Thomson, et al. Expires 11 December 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SSLKEYLOGFILE June 2025
[DTLS13] Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The
Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version
1.3", RFC 9147, DOI 10.17487/RFC9147, April 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9147>.
[QLOG] Marx, R., Niccolini, L., Seemann, M., and L. Pardue,
"qlog: Structured Logging for Network Protocols", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-quic-qlog-main-
schema-11, 17 March 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-
qlog-main-schema-11>.
[RFC0020] Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", STD 80,
RFC 20, DOI 10.17487/RFC0020, October 1969,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc20>.
[RFC4492] Blake-Wilson, S., Bolyard, N., Gupta, V., Hawk, C., and B.
Moeller, "Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites
for Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 4492,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4492, May 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4492>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8446>.
[RFC8447] Salowey, J. and S. Turner, "IANA Registry Updates for TLS
and DTLS", RFC 8447, DOI 10.17487/RFC8447, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8447>.
[RFC8471] Popov, A., Ed., Nystroem, M., Balfanz, D., and J. Hodges,
"The Token Binding Protocol Version 1.0", RFC 8471,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8471, October 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8471>.
[RFC8792] Watsen, K., Auerswald, E., Farrel, A., and Q. Wu,
"Handling Long Lines in Content of Internet-Drafts and
RFCs", RFC 8792, DOI 10.17487/RFC8792, June 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8792>.
[RFC8996] Moriarty, K. and S. Farrell, "Deprecating TLS 1.0 and TLS
1.1", BCP 195, RFC 8996, DOI 10.17487/RFC8996, March 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8996>.
Thomson, et al. Expires 11 December 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SSLKEYLOGFILE June 2025
[RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9000>.
[RFC9001] Thomson, M., Ed. and S. Turner, Ed., "Using TLS to Secure
QUIC", RFC 9001, DOI 10.17487/RFC9001, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9001>.
[RFC9261] Sullivan, N., "Exported Authenticators in TLS", RFC 9261,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9261, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9261>.
[RFC9325] Sheffer, Y., Saint-Andre, P., and T. Fossati,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 9325, DOI 10.17487/RFC9325, November
2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9325>.
Appendix A. Example
The following is a sample of a file in this format, including secrets
from two TLS 1.3 connections.
Thomson, et al. Expires 11 December 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SSLKEYLOGFILE June 2025
# NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792
CLIENT_HANDSHAKE_TRAFFIC_SECRET \
cf34899b3dcb8c9fe7160ceaf95d354a294793b67a2e49cb9cca4d69b43593a0 \
be4a28d81ce41242ff31c6d8a6615852178f2cd75eaca2ee8768f9ed51282b38
SERVER_HANDSHAKE_TRAFFIC_SECRET \
cf34899b3dcb8c9fe7160ceaf95d354a294793b67a2e49cb9cca4d69b43593a0 \
258179721fa704e2f1ee16688b4b0419967ddea5624cd5ad0863288dc5ead35f
CLIENT_HANDSHAKE_TRAFFIC_SECRET \
b2eb93b8ddab8c228993567947bca1e133736980c22754687874e3896f7d6d0a \
59ec0981b211a743f22d5a46a1fc77a2b230e16ef0de6d4e418abfe90eff10bf
SERVER_HANDSHAKE_TRAFFIC_SECRET \
b2eb93b8ddab8c228993567947bca1e133736980c22754687874e3896f7d6d0a \
a37fe4d3b6c9a6a372396b1562f6f8a40c1c3f85f1aa9b02d5ed46c4a1301365
CLIENT_TRAFFIC_SECRET_0 \
cf34899b3dcb8c9fe7160ceaf95d354a294793b67a2e49cb9cca4d69b43593a0 \
e9ca165bcb762fab8086068929d26c532e90ef2e2daa762d8b52346951a34c02
SERVER_TRAFFIC_SECRET_0 \
cf34899b3dcb8c9fe7160ceaf95d354a294793b67a2e49cb9cca4d69b43593a0 \
4f93c61ac1393008d4c820f3723db3c67494f06574b65fcc21c9eef22f90071a
EXPORTER_SECRET \
cf34899b3dcb8c9fe7160ceaf95d354a294793b67a2e49cb9cca4d69b43593a0 \
011c900833468f837f7c55d836b2719beebd39b1648fdeda58772f48d94a1ffa
CLIENT_TRAFFIC_SECRET_0 \
b2eb93b8ddab8c228993567947bca1e133736980c22754687874e3896f7d6d0a \
e9160bca1a531d871f5ecf51943d8cfb88833adeccf97701546b5fb93e030d79
SERVER_TRAFFIC_SECRET_0 \
b2eb93b8ddab8c228993567947bca1e133736980c22754687874e3896f7d6d0a \
fb1120b91e48d402fac20faa33880e77bace82c85d6688df0aa99bf5084430e4
EXPORTER_SECRET \
b2eb93b8ddab8c228993567947bca1e133736980c22754687874e3896f7d6d0a \
db1f4fa1a6942fb125d4cc47e02938b6f8030c6956bb81b9e3269f1cf855a8f8
Note that secrets from the two connections might be interleaved as
shown here, because secrets could be logged as they are generated.
The following shows a log entry for a TLS 1.2 connection.
# NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792
CLIENT_RANDOM \
ad52329fcadd34ee3aa07092680287f09954823e26d7b5ae25c0d47714152a6a \
97af4c8618cfdc0b2326e590114c2ec04b43b08b7e2c3f8124cc61a3b068ba966\
9517e744e3117c3ce6c538a2d88dfdf
The following shows a log entry for a TLS 1.3 connection that
successfully negotiated ECH.
Thomson, et al. Expires 11 December 2025 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SSLKEYLOGFILE June 2025
# NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792
ECH_SECRET \
0ba587ee6b65ce21a726630efb881206a7cd995611095b5f4c244bb2b23f1ee1 \
e8828ec09909cc9363179dc13b62498550c8637129345263011a1678370ca52a
ECH_CONFIG \
0ba587ee6b65ce21a726630efb881206a7cd995611095b5f4c244bb2b23f1ee1 \
fe0d003c5500200020d5260ae4cdda08bcbdc37bd0dc53c29aea5f0fdd2b2d594\
e4235e99b134ac904000400010001000d636f7665722e6465666f2e69650000
CLIENT_HANDSHAKE_TRAFFIC_SECRET \
8726180bb24718089a4c5c8c93e0ea1c6d6649d7dd3c978fc1413854a20e9647 \
a195b63ec4270609692a204c08e63e74d9ae58e377d11a383bfe641a63c01140
SERVER_HANDSHAKE_TRAFFIC_SECRET \
8726180bb24718089a4c5c8c93e0ea1c6d6649d7dd3c978fc1413854a20e9647 \
022d1cb827a90f27dadde0c99110c2b7d0f362fdfe420a04818aa223e5f2c14c
CLIENT_TRAFFIC_SECRET_0 \
8726180bb24718089a4c5c8c93e0ea1c6d6649d7dd3c978fc1413854a20e9647 \
c2310f7db71109de88bab6f2f433fdc1704aecc0d57349cbf9113e5033178172
SERVER_TRAFFIC_SECRET_0 \
8726180bb24718089a4c5c8c93e0ea1c6d6649d7dd3c978fc1413854a20e9647 \
04ffc7c154f71ba5f530c7344b0496f60ce71b9b7c6b0e203ea574bfcdf14e27
EXPORTER_SECRET \
8726180bb24718089a4c5c8c93e0ea1c6d6649d7dd3c978fc1413854a20e9647 \
befb5db5ac6785b5dd4c6a8c4693c379ec0a1486b5fd035b25e50c3c95abc500
Acknowledgments
The SSLKEYLOGFILE format originated in the NSS project, but it has
evolved over time as TLS has changed. Many people contributed to
this evolution. The authors are only documenting the format as it is
used while extending it to cover ECH.
Authors' Addresses
Martin Thomson
Mozilla
Email: mt@lowentropy.net
Yaroslav Rosomakho
Zscaler
Email: yrosomakho@zscaler.com
Hannes Tschofenig
University of Applied Sciences Bonn-Rhein-Sieg
Email: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net
Thomson, et al. Expires 11 December 2025 [Page 15]
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4