[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04

Network Working Group
Internet-Draft                                                       TCI
Intended status: Experimental                         September 11, 2017
Expires: March 15, 2018

                     Certificate Limitation Policy


   The document provides a specification of the application-level trust
   model.  Being provided at the application level, the limitations of
   trust can be distributed separately using cryptographically protected
   format instead of hardcoding the checks into the application itself.

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 March 15, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

                         Expires March 15, 2018                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        Certificate Limitation Policy       September 2017

1.  Introduction

   Binary trust model standardized as a set of trusted anchors and CRLs/
   OCSP services does not cover all corner cases in the modern crypto
   world.  There is a need in more differentiated limitations.  Some of
   them are suggested [1] by Google when it limits the usage of
   Symantec's certificates.  The CRL profile does not fit the purpose of
   such limitations.  The CRLs are issued by the same CAs that are
   subject to be limited.

   Currently the set of CAs trusted by OS or browsers can be used for
   the validation purposes.  In case when a large enough CA becomes
   untrusted, it cannot be deleted from the storage of trusted CAs
   because it may cause error of validation of many certificates.  The
   measures usually taken in such cases usually include application-
   level limitation of certificates lifetimes, refusing to accept EV-
   certificates in other way than DV, requirements to use Certificate
   Transparency, etc.

   This document suggests a cryptographically signed format dubbed
   Certificate Limitation Profile (CLP) designed for description of such
   limitations.  This format can be used by applications that use
   system-wide set of trust anchors for validating purposes or by
   applications with own wide enough set of trusted anchors in case when
   the trust anchor for the entity found misbehaving cannot be revoked.

   Currently the only way to provide such limitations is hard coding
   them in application itself.  Using of CLPs does not allow to
   completely avoid hard coding but allows to hard code only the minimal
   set of rarely changing data:

      the fact that application uses CLP

      the certificate to verify the signature under the CLP file

      minimal date of the CLP to be used for the current version of

   It will be possible to move the checks for the limitations to the
   external cryptographical libraries, such as OpenSSL, instead of
   checking them at the application level.

2.  Certificate Limitations Profile

   A proposed syntax and overall structure of CLP is very similar to the
   one defined for CRLs [2].

                         Expires March 15, 2018                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        Certificate Limitation Policy       September 2017

      CertificateList  ::=  SEQUENCE  {
           tbsCertList          TBSCertList,
           signatureAlgorithm   AlgorithmIdentifier,
           signatureValue       BIT STRING  }

      TBSCertList  ::=  SEQUENCE  {
           version                 Version,
           signature               AlgorithmIdentifier,
           issuer                  Name,
           thisUpdate              Time,
           limitedCertificates     SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE  {
                userCertificate         CertificateSerialNumber,
                certificateIssuer       Name,
                limitationDate          Time,
                limitationPropagation   Enum,
                fingerprint SEQUENCE {
                    fingerprintAlgorithm AlgorithmIdentifier,
                    fingerprintValue     OCTET STRING
                                     } OPTIONAL,
                limitations          SEQUENCE,
                                   } OPTIONAL,

2.1.  CLP fields


2.2.  CLP signature

   The key used for signing the CLP files should have a special Key
   Usage value and/or an Extended Key Usage value.

2.3.  CLP entry fields

   Each entry in list contains the following fields:

      The issuer of the certificate with limited trust.

      The serial of the certificate with limited trust.

      The fingerprint of the certificate with limited trust (optional).

      limitationPropagation.  This field indicates whether limitations
      are applied to the certificate itself, to all of its descendants
      in the chain of trust, or both.

   and a subset of the following limitations:

                         Expires March 15, 2018                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft        Certificate Limitation Policy       September 2017

      issuedNotAfter - do not trust the certs issued after the specified

      trustNotAfter - do not trust the certs after the specified date

      validityPeriod, days - take minimal value from "native" validity
      period and specified in the limitation file

      ignoredX509Extensions - list of X.509 extensions of limited
      certificate that MUST be ignored for the specified certificate
      (e.g.  EV-indicating extensions)

      requiredX509extensions - list of X.509 extensions that MUST be
      present in the certificate to be trusted.

      requiredNativeChecking - list of the CA-provided checks that MUST
      be applied

      applicationNameConstraints - list of domains allowed to be issued
      by this certificate

      excludedIssueIntermediatory - disallow issuing of the
      Intermediatory certificates

   The limitations are identified by OIDs

2.3.1.  Limitations  issuedNotAfter

   When this limitation is present, any certificate matching the entry
   and issued after the specified date MUST NOT be trusted  trustNotAfter

   When this limitation is present, any certificate matching the entry
   MUST NOT be trusted after the specified date.  validityPeriod

   When this limitation is present, no certificate matching the entry
   should be treated as valid after specified period from its validFrom.  ignoredX509Extensions

   When this limitation is present, the extensions listed in this
   element should be ignored for the matching certificate.

                         Expires March 15, 2018                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        Certificate Limitation Policy       September 2017  requiredX509extensions

   When this limitation is present, the extensions listed in this
   element should be present for the matching certificate.  requiredNativeChecking

   When this limitation is present, it specifies that the certificates
   issued by this CA SHOULD be checked against CRL and/or OCSP,
   depending on contents of the extension.  applicationNameConstraints

   This limitation are applied like Name Constraints [3] limitation
   specified in RFC 5280.

   This section implies 2 variants of checks:

      The list of names that are allowed for the CA to issue
      certificates for

      The list of names that are forbidden for the CA to issue
      certificates for  excludedIssueIntermediatory

   When this limitation is present, the intermediate certificates issued
   by this CA MUST NOT be trusted.

3.  Verification of CLP

   The verification of CLP SHOULD be performed by the application.  The
   application should check whether the provided CLP matches the
   internal requirements and is correclty signed by the specified key.

4.  Verification with CLP

   In case of using CLP the checks enforced by CLP should be applied
   after the other checks.

   The limitation provided by CLP MUST NOT extend the trustworthy of the
   checked certificate.

   The limitations are applied after cryptographic validation of the
   certificate and during building its chain of trust.  If the
   certificate or any of its ascendants in the chain of trust matches
   any record in the CLP, the limitations are applied from the ascendant
   to descendants.  The issuedNotAfter and trustNotAfter limitations are

                         Expires March 15, 2018                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        Certificate Limitation Policy       September 2017

   applied to find out the actual validity periods for the any
   certificate in the chain of trust.  If the CLP prescribes to have a
   particular extension(s) and the certificate does not have it, the
   certificate MUST NOT be trusted.

   Application MAY use more than one CLPs (e.g. app-wide, set of system-
   wide, user-defined).  When multiple CLPs are in use, the limitations
   are applied simultaneously.

   In case when more than one chain of trust are valid for a
   certificate, if any of this chains is valid after applying the
   limitations, the certificate MUST be treated as valid.

5.  ASN.1 notation


6.  Security considerations

   In case when an application uses CLP, it is recommended to specify
   the minimal date of issuing of the CLP document somewhere in code.
   It allows to avoid an attack of CLP rollback when the stale version
   of CLP is used.

   It is recommended to distribute CLPs using the channels that are used
   for distribution of the applications themselves to avoid possible DoS

7.  IANA considerations


8.  Acknoledgements

   Special thanks to Rich Salz, Igor Ustinov, Vasily Dolmatov, Stanislav
   Smyishlyaev, Patrik Faeltstroem, Alexander Venedioukhin, Artem

9.  References

   The current version of the document is available on GitHub

10.  References

                         Expires March 15, 2018                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft        Certificate Limitation Policy       September 2017

10.1.  URIs

   [1] https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/blink-

   [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#section-5

   [3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#section-

Author's Address

   Dmitry Belyavskiy
   Technical Centre of Internet
   8 Marta str., 1 bld. 12
   Moscow  127083

   Email: beldmit@gmail.com

                         Expires March 15, 2018                 [Page 7]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/