



SSHM                                                       P. Kampanakis
Internet-Draft                                                       AWS
Intended status: Informational                                D. Stebila
Expires: 30 August 2026                           University of Waterloo
                                                               T. Hansen
                                                                     AWS
                                                        26 February 2026


              PQ/T Hybrid Key Exchange with ML-KEM in SSH
                  draft-ietf-sshm-mlkem-hybrid-kex-10

Abstract

   This document defines Post-Quantum Traditional (PQ/T) Hybrid key
   exchange methods based on the quantum-resistant Module-Lattice-Based
   Key-Encapsulation Mechanism (ML-KEM) standard and traditional
   Elliptic-curve Diffie–Hellman (ECDH) key exchange schemes.  These
   methods are defined for use in the SSH Transport Layer Protocol.

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/.

   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 30 August 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.










Kampanakis, et al.       Expires 30 August 2026                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                   PQ SSH                    February 2026


   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.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  PQ/T Hybrid Key Exchange  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  PQ/T Hybrid Key Exchange Method Abstraction . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  PQ/T Hybrid Key Exchange Message Numbers  . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  PQ/T Hybrid Key Exchange Method Names . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.3.1.  mlkem768nistp256-sha256 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.3.2.  mlkem1024nistp384-sha384  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.3.3.  mlkem768x25519-sha256 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.4.  Shared Secret K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.5.  Key Derivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   3.  Message Size  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Appendix A.  Other Combiners  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Appendix B.  FIPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC4251] performs key establishment using key
   exchange methods based on (Elliptic Curve) Diffie-Hellman style
   schemes defined in [RFC5656] and [RFC8731].  The cryptographic
   security of these key exchanges relies on certain instances of the
   discrete logarithm problem being computationally infeasible to solve
   for adversaries.

   However, if sufficiently large quantum computers become available,
   these instances would no longer be computationally infeasible
   rendering the current key exchange and authentication methods in SSH
   insecure.  While large quantum computers are not available today an
   adversary could record the encrypted communication sent between the
   client and server in an SSH session and later decrypt it when



Kampanakis, et al.       Expires 30 August 2026                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                   PQ SSH                    February 2026


   sufficiently large quantum computers become available.  This kind of
   attack is known as a 'harvest-now-decrypt-later' attack
   [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqc-engineers].

   This document addresses the problem by extending the SSH Transport
   Layer Protocol key exchange (Section 7 of [RFC4253]) with Post-
   Quantum Traditional (PQ/T) Hybrid [RFC9794] key exchange methods.  It
   follows the migration considerations laid out in Section 4.3 of
   [I-D.ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis].  The security provided by each key
   exchange scheme in a PQ/T Hybrid key exchange method is independent.
   This means that the PQ/T Hybrid key exchange method will always be at
   least as secure as the most secure key exchange scheme executed as
   part of the exchange.  [PQ-PROOF] [PQ-PROOF2] contain proofs of
   security for such PQ/T Hybrid key exchange schemes.

   In the context of the [NIST_PQ], key exchange algorithms are
   formulated as key encapsulation mechanisms (KEMs), which consist of
   three algorithms:

   *  'KeyGen() -> (pk, sk)': A probabilistic key generation algorithm,
      which generates a public key 'pk' and a secret key 'sk'.

   *  'Encaps(pk) -> (ct, ss)': A probabilistic encapsulation algorithm,
      which takes as input a public key 'pk' and outputs a ciphertext
      'ct' and shared secret 'ss'.

   *  'Decaps(sk, ct) -> ss': A decapsulation algorithm, which takes as
      input a secret key 'sk' and ciphertext 'ct' and outputs a shared
      secret 'ss', or in some cases a distinguished error value.

   The main security property for KEMs is indistinguishability under
   adaptive chosen ciphertext attack (IND-CCA2), which means that shared
   secret values should be indistinguishable from random strings even
   given the ability to have arbitrary ciphertexts decapsulated.  IND-
   CCA2 corresponds to security against an active attacker, and the
   public key / secret key pair can be treated as a long-term key or
   reused.  A weaker security notion is indistinguishability under
   chosen plaintext attack (IND-CPA), which means that the shared secret
   values should be indistinguishable from random strings given a copy
   of the public key.  IND-CPA roughly corresponds to security against a
   passive attacker, and sometimes corresponds to one-time key exchange.










Kampanakis, et al.       Expires 30 August 2026                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                   PQ SSH                    February 2026


   The post-quantum KEM used in the document is ML-KEM.  ML-KEM was
   standardized in 2024 [FIPS203] with three parameter variants, ML-KEM-
   512, ML-KEM-768, and ML-KEM-1024.  This specification's PQ/T Hybrid
   key exchange message abstraction, key derivation, and input to the
   SSH hash calculation, H, align with the ones defined in
   [I-D.ietf-sshm-ntruprime-ssh] which uses a different quantum-
   resistant KEM.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   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 [RFC8174] [RFC2119] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  PQ/T Hybrid Key Exchange

2.1.  PQ/T Hybrid Key Exchange Method Abstraction

   This section defines the abstract structure of a PQ/T Hybrid key
   exchange method.  This structure must be instantiated with two key
   exchange schemes.  The byte and string types are to be interpreted in
   this document as described in [RFC4251].

   In a PQ/T Hybrid key exchange, instead of SSH_MSG_KEXDH_INIT
   [RFC4253] or SSH_MSG_KEX_ECDH_INIT [RFC5656], the client sends

          byte     SSH_MSG_KEX_HYBRID_INIT
          string   C_INIT

   where C_INIT is the concatenation of C_PK2 and C_PK1 (C_INIT =
   C_PK2 || C_PK1, where || depicts concatenation).  C_PK1 and C_PK2
   represent the ephemeral client public keys used for each key exchange
   of the PQ/T Hybrid mechanism.  Typically, C_PK1 represents a
   traditional / classical (i.e., ECDH) key exchange public key.  C_PK2
   represents the 'pk' output of the corresponding post-quantum KEM's
   'KeyGen' at the client.

   Instead of SSH_MSG_KEXDH_REPLY [RFC4253] or SSH_MSG_KEX_ECDH_REPLY
   [RFC5656], the server sends

          byte     SSH_MSG_KEX_HYBRID_REPLY
          string   K_S, server's public host key
          string   S_REPLY
          string   the signature on the exchange hash





Kampanakis, et al.       Expires 30 August 2026                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                   PQ SSH                    February 2026


   where S_REPLY is the concatenation of S_CT2 and S_PK1 (S_REPLY =
   S_CT2 || S_PK1).  Typically, S_PK1 represents the ephemeral (EC)DH
   server public key.  S_CT2 represents the ciphertext 'ct' output of
   the corresponding KEM's 'Encaps' algorithm generated by the server
   which encapsulates a secret to the client's public key C_PK2.  Before
   producing S_CT2, to prevent length extension attack attempts, the
   server MUST check that the length of the C_INIT is the sum of the
   expected length of each public key in the negotiated method, C_PK1
   and C_PK2.  It also MUST perform the encapsulation key checks defined
   in Section 7.2 of [FIPS203].  If any of these checks fail, the client
   MUST abort using a disconnect message (SSH_MSG_DISCONNECT) with a
   SSH_DISCONNECT_KEY_EXCHANGE_FAILED as the reason.

   C_PK1, S_PK1, C_PK2, and S_CT2 are used to establish two shared
   secrets, K_CL and K_PQ.  K_CL is the output from the classical ECDH
   exchange using C_PK1 and S_PK1.  K_PQ is the post-quantum shared
   secret decapsulated from S_CT2.  Before decapsulating, to prevent
   length extension attack attempts, the client MUST check that the
   length of the S_REPLY is the sum of the expected length of the
   traditional public key, S_PK1, and the ML-KEM ciphertext, S_CT2, in
   the negotiated method.  The client MUST abort using a disconnect
   message (SSH_MSG_DISCONNECT) with a
   SSH_DISCONNECT_KEY_EXCHANGE_FAILED as the reason if the check fails
   or decapsulation fails for any other reason.  K_CL and K_PQ are used
   together to generate the shared secret K according to Section 2.4.

   For all method names, both the client and server MUST process the
   ECDH and X25519 public keys (C_PK1, S_PK1) as described in Section 4
   of [RFC5656] and Section 3 of [RFC8731] respectively, including
   validity and length checks and SSH disconnect messages if the checks
   fail.

2.2.  PQ/T Hybrid Key Exchange Message Numbers

   The message numbers 30-49 are key exchange method specific as
   specified in [RFC4250].  These numbers may be redefined by any key
   exchange method [RFC4253] without requiring an IANA registration
   process.  This document defines the following key exchange message
   numbers:

         #define SSH_MSG_KEX_HYBRID_INIT               30
         #define SSH_MSG_KEX_HYBRID_REPLY              31

2.3.  PQ/T Hybrid Key Exchange Method Names

   The PQ/T Hybrid key exchange method names defined in this document
   (to be used in SSH_MSG_KEXINIT [RFC4253]) are




Kampanakis, et al.       Expires 30 August 2026                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                   PQ SSH                    February 2026


         mlkem768nistp256-sha256
         mlkem1024nistp384-sha384
         mlkem768x25519-sha256

   These instantiate the abstract PQ/T Hybrid key exchanges defined in
   Section 2.1.

2.3.1.  mlkem768nistp256-sha256

   mlkem768nistp256-sha256 defines that the traditional client and
   server public keys C_PK1, S_PK1 belong to the NIST P-256 curve
   [nist-sp800-186].  The private and public keys are generated as
   described therein.  The public keys are defined as octet strings for
   NIST P-256 as per [RFC5656]; point compression may be used.  The K_CL
   shared secret is generated from the exchanged C_PK1 and S_PK1 public
   keys as defined in [RFC5656] (key agreement method ecdh-
   sha2-nistp256).

   The post-quantum C_PK2 and S_CT2 represent ML-KEM-768 public key and
   ciphertext from the client and server respectively which are encoded
   as octet strings.  The K_PQ shared secret is decapsulated from the
   ciphertext S_CT2 using the client post-quantum KEM private key as
   defined in [FIPS203].

   The HASH function used in the key exchange [RFC4253] is SHA-256
   [nist-sha2] [RFC6234].

2.3.2.  mlkem1024nistp384-sha384

   mlkem1024nistp384-sha384 defines that the traditional client and
   server public keys C_PK1, S_PK1 belong to the NIST P-384 curve
   [nist-sp800-186].  The private and public keys are generated as
   described therein.  The public keys are defined as octet strings for
   NIST P-384 as per [RFC5656]; point compression may be used.  The K_CL
   shared secret is generated from the exchanged C_PK1 and S_PK1 public
   keys as defined in [RFC5656] (key agreement method ecdh-
   sha2-nistp384).

   The post-quantum C_PK2 and S_CT2 represent ML-KEM-1024 public key and
   ciphertext from the client and server respectively which are encoded
   as octet strings.  The K_PQ shared secret is decapsulated from the
   ciphertext S_CT2 using the client post-quantum KEM private key as
   defined in [FIPS203].

   The HASH function used in the key exchange [RFC4253] is SHA-384
   [nist-sha2] [RFC6234].





Kampanakis, et al.       Expires 30 August 2026                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                   PQ SSH                    February 2026


2.3.3.  mlkem768x25519-sha256

   mlkem768x25519-sha256 defines that the traditional client and server
   public keys C_PK1, S_PK1 belong to the Curve25519 curve [RFC7748].
   Private and public keys are generated as described therein.  The
   public keys are defined as strings of 32 bytes as per [RFC8731].  The
   K_CL shared secret is generated from the exchanged C_PK1 and S_PK1
   public keys as defined in [RFC8731] (key agreement method
   curve25519-sha256).

   The post-quantum C_PK2 and S_CT2 represent ML-KEM-768 public key and
   ciphertext from the client and server respectively which are encoded
   as octet strings.  The K_PQ shared secret is decapsulated from the
   ciphertext S_CT2 using the client post-quantum KEM private key as
   defined in [FIPS203].

   The HASH function used in the key exchange [RFC4253] is SHA-256
   [nist-sha2] [RFC6234].

2.4.  Shared Secret K

   The PQ/T Hybrid key exchange establishes K_CL and K_PQ from the ECDH
   and ML-KEM key exchanges respectively.  The shared secret, K, is the
   HASH output of the concatenation of the two shared secrets K_CL and
   K_PQ as

           K = HASH(K_PQ || K_CL)

   This is similar, but not the same (for efficiency), logic as in TLS
   1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design].  In [I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design],
   the classical and post-quantum exchanged secrets are concatenated and
   used in the key schedule whereas in this document they are
   concatenated and hashed before being used in SSH's key derivation
   methodology.

   The ECDH shared secret was traditionally encoded as an integer
   (mpint) as per [RFC4253], [RFC5656], and [RFC8731] and used in
   deriving the key.  In this specification, the two shared secrets,
   K_PQ and K_CL, are fed into the hash function to derive K, but they
   are encoded as fixed-length byte arrays, not as integers.  Byte
   arrays are defined in Section 5 of [RFC4251].  Specifically for K_CL,
   the conversion from mpint to a byte array is done by taking the mpint
   that the corresponding standalone key exchange method would have
   output and re-encoding it as a fixed-size (32 bytes for Curve25519
   and secp256r1 or 48 bytes for secp384r1) byte array always big-
   endian.





Kampanakis, et al.       Expires 30 August 2026                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                   PQ SSH                    February 2026


2.5.  Key Derivation

   The derivation of encryption keys MUST be done from the shared secret
   K according to Section 7.2 in [RFC4253] with a modification on the
   exchange hash H.

   The PQ/T Hybrid key exchange hash H is the result of computing the
   HASH, where HASH is the hash algorithm specified in the named PQ/T
   Hybrid key exchange method name, over the concatenation of the
   following

         string V_C, client identification string (CR and LF excluded)
         string V_S, server identification string (CR and LF excluded)
         string I_C, payload of the client's SSH_MSG_KEXINIT
         string I_S, payload of the server's SSH_MSG_KEXINIT
         string K_S, server's public host key
         string C_INIT, client message octet string
         string S_REPLY, server message octet string
         string K, SSH shared secret

   K, the shared secret used in H, was traditionally encoded as an
   integer (mpint) as per [RFC4253], [RFC5656], and [RFC8731].  In this
   specification, K is the hash output of the two concatenated byte
   arrays (Section 2.4) which is not an integer.  Thus, K is encoded as
   a string using the process described in Section 5 of [RFC4251] and is
   then fed along with other data in H to the key exchange method's HASH
   function to generate encryption keys.

3.  Message Size

   An SSH implementation adhering to [RFC4253] must be able to support
   packets with an uncompressed payload length of 32768 bytes or less
   and a total packet size of 35000 bytes or less (including
   'packet_length', 'padding_length', 'payload', 'random padding', and
   'mac').  These numbers represent what must be minimally supported by
   SSH applications.  Although some post-quantum key exchange schemes
   could produce large messages, this document does not define method
   names (Section 2.3) which can lead to packets exceeding the minimally
   specified lengths in Section 6.1 of [RFC4253].  Thus, this document
   does not define new behavior for cases where a PQ/T Hybrid key
   exchange message causes a packet to exceed the minimally supported
   length.









Kampanakis, et al.       Expires 30 August 2026                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                   PQ SSH                    February 2026


4.  Acknowledgements

   The authors want to thank Gerardo Ravago from AWS for implementing
   the draft and finding issues.  We also want to thank Damien Miller
   and Markus Friedl for their feedback and for implementing some of the
   SSH key exchange methods in this document in OpenSSH.  Special
   acknowledgements go to Simon Tatham from Putty, Loganaden Velvindron,
   John Mattsson, Simon Josefsson, and Watson Ladd for their valuable
   suggestions.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This memo requests IANA to register new method names
   "mlkem768nistp256-sha256", "mlkem1024nistp384-sha384", and
   "mlkem768x25519-sha256" in the "Key Exchange Method Names" registry
   for SSH [IANA-SSH] with a "Reference" field to this RFC and the "OK
   to implement" field of "SHOULD".

6.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations given in [RFC5656] and [RFC8731] also
   apply to the ECDH part of the P/T Hybrid key exchange schemes defined
   in this document.

   As it is commonly done with (EC)DH keys today, generating an
   ephemeral key exchange keypair for ECDH and ML-KEM per connection is
   REQUIRED by this specification.  Additionally, implementations MUST
   NOT reuse randomness in the generation of ML-KEM ciphertexts.  As a
   reminder, the security properties of the protocol in this document,
   SSH itself, and the cryptographic algorithms used, including ML-KEM,
   depend on the availability and proper use of cryptographically secure
   random data.  The generation of quality random numbers for the
   traditional and ML-KEM keypairs and the ML-KEM ciphertext can be
   difficult; see Section 3.3 of [FIPS203] for additional information
   around randomness generation for ML-KEM.

   Implementations MUST use the encodings for K_PQ, K_CL, and K
   specified in this document to prevent potential side-channel attacks.
   The way a derived binary secret string is encoded (i.e., adding or
   removing zero bytes for encoding) before it is hashed may lead to a
   variable-length secret which raises the potential for a side-channel
   attack.  In broad terms, when the secret is longer, the hash function
   may need to process more blocks internally which could determine the
   length of what is hashed.  This could leak the most significant bit
   of the derived secret and/or allow detection of when the most
   significant bytes are zero.  In some unfortunate circumstances, this
   has led to timing attacks, e.g. the Lucky Thirteen [LUCKY13] and
   Raccoon [RACCOON] attacks.  In [RFC8731] and [RFC5656], the ECDH



Kampanakis, et al.       Expires 30 August 2026                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                   PQ SSH                    February 2026


   shared secrets were mpint and fixed-length integer encoded
   respectively which raised a potential for such side-channel attacks.
   This problem is addressed in this document by encoding K_PQ and K_CL
   as fixed-length byte arrays and K as a string.

   [PQ-PROOF] [PQ-PROOF2] contain proofs of security for PQ/T Hybrid key
   exchange schemes.  [PQ-PROOF2] discusses how the key combination to
   derive K and the derivation of SSH symmetric keys in this document
   can be proven IND-CPA and IND-CCA2 secure with some assumptions.
   IND-CPA is achieved if we assume the HASH calls perform as a KDF
   which is a reasonable assumption.  IND-CCA2 security is achieved by
   assuming the HASH is a random oracle which is a stronger assumption
   especially for variants of the SHA-2 family which introduce length
   extension risks.  To leverage a HASH which is more suitable as a
   random oracle, we could use SHAKE256 or introduce HMAC-SHA-256 as
   proposed in options (2b) and (2c) in Appendix A.  This document uses
   SHA-2 which is ubiquitous although it makes an IND-CCA2 proof need
   stronger assumptions because even SSH's traditional key derivation
   has not been proven to be IND-CCA2.

   X25519, the traditional elliptic curve key exchange used in one of
   the PQ/T hybrid methods specified in this document, is generally
   considered easier to implement securely without side-channels than
   its NIST counterparts (with P256, P384).  Historically,
   implementations of P256 and P384 have suffered various implementation
   issues which have been addressed over time.  Optimized X25119
   implementations are also more efficient than P256 and P384.  Thus,
   X25519 has seen more adoption than P256 and P384 across cryptographic
   use-cases.  NIST curves are sometimes preferred for regulatory
   compliance.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [FIPS203]  National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
              "Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism
              Standard", NIST Federal Information Processing Standards,
              13 August 2024, <https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/FIPS/
              NIST.FIPS.203.pdf>.

   [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/info/rfc2119>.






Kampanakis, et al.       Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                   PQ SSH                    February 2026


   [RFC4251]  Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH)
              Protocol Architecture", RFC 4251, DOI 10.17487/RFC4251,
              January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4251>.

   [RFC4253]  Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH)
              Transport Layer Protocol", RFC 4253, DOI 10.17487/RFC4253,
              January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4253>.

   [RFC5656]  Stebila, D. and J. Green, "Elliptic Curve Algorithm
              Integration in the Secure Shell Transport Layer",
              RFC 5656, DOI 10.17487/RFC5656, December 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5656>.

   [RFC6234]  Eastlake 3rd, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms
              (SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6234, May 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6234>.

   [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/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8731]  Adamantiadis, A., Josefsson, S., and M. Baushke, "Secure
              Shell (SSH) Key Exchange Method Using Curve25519 and
              Curve448", RFC 8731, DOI 10.17487/RFC8731, February 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8731>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.connolly-cfrg-xwing-kem]
              Connolly, D., Schwabe, P., and B. Westerbaan, "X-Wing:
              general-purpose hybrid post-quantum KEM", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-connolly-cfrg-xwing-kem-
              09, 1 September 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-connolly-
              cfrg-xwing-kem-09>.

   [I-D.hoffman-c2pq]
              Hoffman, P. E., "The Transition from Classical to Post-
              Quantum Cryptography", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-hoffman-c2pq-07, 26 May 2020,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hoffman-c2pq-
              07>.

   [I-D.ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis]
              Claise, B., Clarke, J., Farrel, A., Barguil, S.,
              Pignataro, C., and R. Chen, "Guidelines for Considering
              Operations and Management in IETF Specifications", Work in



Kampanakis, et al.       Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                   PQ SSH                    February 2026


              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis-02,
              19 February 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis-02>.

   [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqc-engineers]
              Banerjee, A., Reddy.K, T., Schoinianakis, D., Hollebeek,
              T., and M. Ounsworth, "Post-Quantum Cryptography for
              Engineers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              pquip-pqc-engineers-14, 25 August 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pquip-
              pqc-engineers-14>.

   [I-D.ietf-sshm-ntruprime-ssh]
              Friedl, M., Mojzis, J., and S. Josefsson, "Secure Shell
              (SSH) Key Exchange Method Using Hybrid Streamlined NTRU
              Prime sntrup761 and X25519 with SHA-512:
              sntrup761x25519-sha512", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-sshm-ntruprime-ssh-06, 30 September 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sshm-
              ntruprime-ssh-06>.

   [I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design]
              Stebila, D., Fluhrer, S., and S. Gueron, "Hybrid key
              exchange in TLS 1.3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design-16, 7 September 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-
              hybrid-design-16>.

   [I-D.josefsson-chempat]
              Josefsson, S., "Chempat: Generic Instantiated PQ/T Hybrid
              Key Encapsulation Mechanisms", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-josefsson-chempat-04, 20 October 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-josefsson-
              chempat-04>.

   [IANA-SSH] IANA, "Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Parameters", 2021,
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ssh-parameters/ssh-
              parameters.xhtml>.

   [LUCKY13]  Al Fardan, N.J. and K.G. Paterson, "Lucky Thirteen:
              Breaking the TLS and DTLS record protocols", 2013,
              <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/
              iel7/6547086/6547088/06547131.pdf>.

   [nist-sha2]
              NIST, "FIPS PUB 180-4", 2015,
              <https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/FIPS/
              NIST.FIPS.180-4.pdf>.



Kampanakis, et al.       Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                   PQ SSH                    February 2026


   [NIST-SP-800-133r2]
              National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
              "Recommendation for Cryptographic Key Generation", June
              2020, <https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-133r2>.

   [NIST-SP-800-135]
              National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
              "Recommendation for Existing Application-Specific Key
              Derivation Functions", December 2011,
              <https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-135r1>.

   [NIST-SP-800-227]
              National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
              "Recommendations for Key-Encapsulation Mechanisms",
              September 2025, <https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-227>.

   [NIST-SP-800-56C]
              National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
              "Recommendation for Key-Derivation Methods in Key-
              Establishment Schemes", August 2020,
              <https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-56Cr2>.

   [nist-sp800-186]
              NIST, "SP 800-186", 2019,
              <https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/
              NIST.SP.800-186-draft.pdf>.

   [NIST_PQ]  NIST, "Post-Quantum Cryptography", 2020,
              <https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/post-quantum-
              cryptography>.

   [PQ-PROOF] Campagna, M. and A. Petcher, "Security of Hybrid Key
              Encapsulation", 2020, <https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/1364>.

   [PQ-PROOF2]
              Petcher, A. and M. Campagna, "Security of Hybrid Key
              Establishment using Concatenation", 2023,
              <https://eprint.iacr.org/2023/972>.

   [RACCOON]  Merget, R., Brinkmann, M., Aviram, N., Somorovsky, J.,
              Mittmann, J., and J. Schwenk, "Raccoon Attack: Finding and
              Exploiting Most-Significant-Bit-Oracles in TLS-DH(E)",
              September 2020, <https://raccoon-attack.com/>.

   [RFC4086]  Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
              "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>.



Kampanakis, et al.       Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                   PQ SSH                    February 2026


   [RFC4250]  Lehtinen, S. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH)
              Protocol Assigned Numbers", RFC 4250,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4250, January 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4250>.

   [RFC7748]  Langley, A., Hamburg, M., and S. Turner, "Elliptic Curves
              for Security", RFC 7748, DOI 10.17487/RFC7748, January
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7748>.

   [RFC9794]  Driscoll, F., Parsons, M., and B. Hale, "Terminology for
              Post-Quantum Traditional Hybrid Schemes", RFC 9794,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9794, June 2025,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9794>.

Appendix A.  Other Combiners

   Other combiners to derive K and the SSH keys were considered while
   working on this document.  These include

   (1)  K = K_PQ || K_CL.  All SSH keys are derived from K as defined in
        Section 7.2 in [RFC4253].

   (2)  All SSH keys are derived from K as defined in Section 7.2 in
        [RFC4253].

        (a)  K = HASH(K_PQ, K_CL).  This is the option adopted in this
             specification.

        (b)  K = HMAC-HASH(K_PQ, K_CL)

        (c)  K = HMAC-HASH(0, K_PQ || K_CL)

   (3)  K = HKDF-HASH_Extract(0, K_PQ || K_CL).  SSH keys are now
        derived from K using HKDF-HASH(K, H || session_id,
        6*sizeof(HASH)).

   Option (3) follows the Extract-and-Expand logic described in
   [NIST-SP-800-56C].  It deviates from existing SSH key derivation
   significantly and might be viewed as too far from the current SSH
   design.  It probably would be a good approach for SSH to move from
   basic hashing everywhere to use proper KDFs with extract/expand, but
   that should be a separate effort.









Kampanakis, et al.       Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                   PQ SSH                    February 2026


   We also considered combiners like the ones proposed in
   [I-D.josefsson-chempat] and [I-D.connolly-cfrg-xwing-kem].
   [I-D.connolly-cfrg-xwing-kem] has a separate IND-CCA2 security proof.
   Although such combiners may be proven IND-CCA2 secure, to be IND-
   CCA2, the SSH key derivation would still require the assumptions laid
   out in [PQ-PROOF2] and discussed in Section 6.

Appendix B.  FIPS

   [NIST-SP-800-56C] and [NIST-SP-800-135] give NIST recommendations for
   key derivation methods in key exchange protocols.  Some PQ/T Hybrid
   combinations may combine the shared secret from a NIST-approved
   algorithm (e.g., ECDH using the nistp256/secp256r1 curve or ML-KEM)
   with a shared secret from a non-approved algorithm (e.g., X25519).
   [NIST-SP-800-227] lists simple concatenation as an approved way of
   producing a PQ/T Hybrid shared secret in which one of the constituent
   secrets is from an approved algorithm (i.e., secp256r1, secp384r1,
   ML-KEM) and using it in a key derivation/combination method approved
   by [NIST-SP-800-56C] or [NIST-SP-800-133r2].  Although the SSH key
   derivation function does not follow [NIST-SP-800-56C] or
   [NIST-SP-800-133r2], it is approved by [NIST-SP-800-135].  This
   method is the same used in this document to derive SSH keys from the
   quantum-resistant shared secret.  Thus, the SSH key combiner in this
   document appears to be FIPS-approved although it is not specifically
   called out in [NIST-SP-800-227].

Authors' Addresses

   Panos Kampanakis
   AWS
   Email: kpanos@amazon.com


   Douglas Stebila
   University of Waterloo
   Email: dstebila@uwaterloo.ca


   Torben Hansen
   AWS
   Email: htorben@amazon.com










Kampanakis, et al.       Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 15]
