[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-ietf-pkix-o...] [Diff1] [Diff2]

Obsoleted by: 6960 PROPOSED STANDARD

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                      S. Santesson
Request for Comments: 6277                                  3xA Security
Updates: 2560                                            P. Hallam-Baker
Category: Standards Track                          Default Deny Security
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                June 2011


          Online Certificate Status Protocol Algorithm Agility

Abstract

   The Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) requires server
   responses to be signed but does not specify a mechanism for selecting
   the signature algorithm to be used.  This may lead to avoidable
   interoperability failures in contexts where multiple signature
   algorithms are in use.  This document specifies rules for server
   signature algorithm selection and an extension that allows a client
   to advise a server that specific signature algorithms are supported.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6277.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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
   (http://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.




Santesson & Hallam-Baker     Standards Track                    [Page 1]

RFC 6277                 OCSP Algorithm Agility                June 2011


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
      1.1. Requirements Language ......................................3
   2. OCSP Algorithm Agility Requirements .............................3
   3. Updates to Mandatory and Optional Cryptographic Algorithms ......4
   4. Client Indication of Preferred Signature Algorithms .............4
   5. Responder Signature Algorithm Selection .........................5
      5.1. Dynamic Response ...........................................5
      5.2. Static Response ............................................6
   6. Acknowledgements ................................................6
   7. Security Considerations .........................................6
      7.1. Use of Insecure Algorithms .................................6
      7.2. Man-in-the-Middle Downgrade Attack .........................7
      7.3. Denial-of-Service Attack ...................................7
   8. References ......................................................7
      8.1. Normative References .......................................7
      8.2. Informative References .....................................8
   Appendix A.  ASN.1 Modules .........................................9
      A.1. ASN.1 Module ...............................................9
      A.2. 1988 ASN.1 Module .........................................10

1.  Introduction

   The Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) [RFC2560] defines a
   protocol for obtaining certificate status information from an online
   service.  An OCSP responder may or may not be issued an OCSP
   responder certificate by the certification authority (CA) that issued
   the certificate whose status is being queried.  An OCSP responder may
   provide pre-signed OCSP responses or may sign responses when queried.

   RFC 2560 [RFC2560] specifies a means for an OCSP responder to
   indicate the signature and digest algorithms used in a response but
   not how those algorithms are specified.  The only algorithm
   requirements established by that protocol specification are that the
   OCSP client SHALL support the Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA) sig-
   alg-oid specified in Section 7.2.2 of [RFC2459] and SHOULD be capable
   of processing RSA signatures as specified in Section 7.2.1 of
   [RFC2459].  The only requirement placed on responders by RFC 2560 is
   that they SHALL support the SHA1 hashing algorithm.

   This document specifies rules for server signature algorithm
   selection and an extension that allows a client to advise a server
   that specific signature algorithms are supported.







Santesson & Hallam-Baker     Standards Track                    [Page 2]

RFC 6277                 OCSP Algorithm Agility                June 2011


1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  OCSP Algorithm Agility Requirements

   Since algorithms other than those that are mandatory to implement are
   allowed and since a client currently has no mechanism to indicate its
   algorithm preferences, there is always a risk that a server choosing
   a non-mandatory algorithm will generate a response that the client
   may not support.

   While an OCSP responder may apply rules for algorithm selection,
   e.g., using the signature algorithm employed by the CA for signing
   certificate revocation lists (CRLs) and certificates, such rules may
   fail in common situations:

   o  The algorithm used to sign the CRLs and certificates may not be
      consistent with the key pair being used by the OCSP responder to
      sign responses.

   o  A request for an unknown certificate provides no basis for a
      responder to select from among multiple algorithm options.

   Without modifying the protocol, the last criterion cannot be resolved
   through the information available from in-band signaling using the
   protocol described in RFC 2560 [RFC2560].

   In addition, an OCSP responder may wish to employ different signature
   algorithms than the one used by the CA to sign certificates and CRLs
   for several reasons:

   o  The responder may employ an algorithm for certificate status
      response that is less computationally demanding than for signing
      the certificate itself.

   o  An implementation may wish to guard against the possibility of a
      compromise resulting from a signature algorithm compromise by
      employing two separate signature algorithms.

   This document describes:

   o  A mechanism that allows a client to indicate the set of preferred
      signature algorithms.





Santesson & Hallam-Baker     Standards Track                    [Page 3]

RFC 6277                 OCSP Algorithm Agility                June 2011


   o  Rules for signature algorithm selection that maximize the
      probability of successful operation in the case that no supported
      preferred algorithm(s) are specified.

3.  Updates to Mandatory and Optional Cryptographic Algorithms

   Section 4.3 ("Mandatory and Optional Cryptographic Algorithms") of
   RFC 2560 [RFC2560] is updated as follows:

   OLD: Clients that request OCSP services SHALL be capable of
        processing responses signed used DSA keys identified by the DSA
        sig-alg-oid specified in section 7.2.2 of [RFC2459].  Clients
        SHOULD also be capable of processing RSA signatures as specified
        in section 7.2.1 of [RFC2459].  OCSP responders SHALL support
        the SHA1 hashing algorithm.

   NEW: Clients that request OCSP services SHALL be capable of
        processing responses signed using RSA with SHA-1 (identified by
        sha1WithRSAEncryption OID specified in [RFC3279]) and RSA with
        SHA-256 (identified by sha256WithRSAEncryption OID specified in
        [RFC4055]).  Clients SHOULD also be capable of processing
        responses signed using DSA keys (identified by the id-dsa-with-
        sha1 OID specified in [RFC3279]).  Clients MAY support other
        algorithms.

4.  Client Indication of Preferred Signature Algorithms

   A client MAY declare a preferred set of algorithms in a request by
   including a preferred signature algorithms extension in
   requestExtensions of the OCSPRequest [RFC2560].

     id-pkix-ocsp-pref-sig-algs OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-ocsp 8 }

     PreferredSignatureAlgorithms ::= SEQUENCE OF
                                      PreferredSignatureAlgorithm

     PreferredSignatureAlgorithm ::= SEQUENCE {
        sigIdentifier        AlgorithmIdentifier,
        pubKeyAlgIdentifier  SMIMECapability OPTIONAL
        }

   The syntax of AlgorithmIdentifier is defined in Section 4.1.1.2 of
   RFC 5280 [RFC5280].  The syntax of SMIMECapability is defined in RFC
   5751 [RFC5751].

   sigIdentifier specifies the signature algorithm the client prefers,
   e.g., algorithm=ecdsa-with-sha256.  Parameters are absent for most
   common signature algorithms.



Santesson & Hallam-Baker     Standards Track                    [Page 4]

RFC 6277                 OCSP Algorithm Agility                June 2011


   pubKeyAlgIdentifier specifies the subject public key algorithm
   identifier the client prefers in the server's certificate used to
   validate the OCSP response, e.g., algorithm=id-ecPublicKey and
   parameters= secp256r1.

   pubKeyAlgIdentifier is OPTIONAL and provides means to specify
   parameters necessary to distinguish among different usages of a
   particular algorithm, e.g., it may be used by the client to specify
   what curve it supports for a given elliptic curve algorithm.

   The client MUST support each of the specified preferred signature
   algorithms, and the client MUST specify the algorithms in the order
   of preference, from the most preferred to the least preferred.

   Section 5 of this document describes how a server selects an
   algorithm for signing OCSP responses to the requesting client.

5.  Responder Signature Algorithm Selection

   RFC 2560 [RFC2560] does not specify a mechanism for deciding the
   signature algorithm to be used in an OCSP response.  As previously
   noted, this does not provide a sufficient degree of certainty as to
   the algorithm selected to facilitate interoperability.

5.1.  Dynamic Response

   As long as the selected algorithm meets all security requirements of
   the OCSP responder, a responder MAY maximize the potential for
   ensuring interoperability by selecting a supported signature
   algorithm using the following order of precedence, where the first
   method has the highest precedence:

   1.  Select an algorithm specified as a preferred signing algorithm in
       the client request.

   2.  Select the signing algorithm used to sign a certificate
       revocation list (CRL) issued by the certificate issuer to provide
       status information for the certificate specified by CertID.

   3.  Select the signing algorithm used to sign the OCSPRequest.

   4.  Select a signature algorithm that has been advertised as being
       the default signature algorithm for the signing service using an
       out-of-band mechanism.

   5.  Select a mandatory or recommended signing algorithm specified for
       the version of the OCSP protocol in use.




Santesson & Hallam-Baker     Standards Track                    [Page 5]

RFC 6277                 OCSP Algorithm Agility                June 2011


   A responder SHOULD always apply the lowest-numbered selection
   mechanism that results in the selection of a known and supported
   algorithm that meets the responder's criteria for cryptographic
   algorithm strength.

5.2.  Static Response

   For purposes of efficiency, an OCSP responder is permitted to
   generate static responses in advance of a request.  The case may not
   permit the responder to make use of the client request data during
   the response generation; however, the responder SHOULD still use the
   client request data during the selection of the pre-generated
   response to be returned.  Responders MAY use the historical client
   requests as part of the input to the decisions of what different
   algorithms should be used to sign the pre-generated responses.

6.  Acknowledgements

   The authors acknowledge Santosh Chokhani for the helpful comments
   made on earlier drafts, Sean Turner for proposing the syntax for
   algorithm identifiers, Jim Schaad for providing and testing the ASN.1
   module in Appendix A, and Stephen Kent for valuable review and input.

7.  Security Considerations

   The mechanism used to choose the response signing algorithm MUST be
   considered to be sufficiently secure against cryptanalytic attack for
   the intended application.

   In most applications, it is sufficient for the signing algorithm to
   be at least as secure as the signing algorithm used to sign the
   original certificate whose status is being queried.  However, this
   criteria may not hold in long-term archival applications in which the
   status of a certificate is being queried for a date in the distant
   past, long after the signing algorithm has ceased to be considered
   trustworthy.

7.1.  Use of Insecure Algorithms

   It is not always possible for a responder to generate a response that
   the client is expected to understand and that meets contemporary
   standards for cryptographic security.  In such cases, an OCSP
   responder operator MUST balance the risk of employing a compromised
   security solution and the cost of mandating an upgrade, including the
   risk that the alternative chosen by end users will offer even less
   security or no security.





Santesson & Hallam-Baker     Standards Track                    [Page 6]

RFC 6277                 OCSP Algorithm Agility                June 2011


   In archival applications, it is quite possible that an OCSP responder
   might be asked to report the validity of a certificate on a date in
   the distant past.  Such a certificate might employ a signing method
   that is no longer considered acceptably secure.  In such
   circumstances, the responder MUST NOT generate a signature using a
   signing mechanism that is not considered acceptably secure.

   A client MUST accept any signing algorithm in a response that it
   specified as a preferred signing algorithm in the request.
   Therefore, it follows that a client MUST NOT specify a preferred
   signing algorithm that is either not supported or not considered
   acceptably secure.

7.2.  Man-in-the-Middle Downgrade Attack

   The mechanism to support client indication of preferred signature
   algorithms is not protected against a man-in-the-middle downgrade
   attack.  This constraint is not considered to be a significant
   security concern since the OCSP responder MUST NOT sign OCSP
   responses using weak algorithms even if requested by the client.  In
   addition, the client can reject OCSP responses that do not meet its
   own criteria for acceptable cryptographic security no matter what
   mechanism is used to determine the signing algorithm of the response.

7.3.  Denial-of-Service Attack

   Algorithm agility mechanisms defined in this document introduce a
   slightly increased attack surface for denial-of-service attacks where
   the client request is altered to require algorithms that are not
   supported by the server.  Denial-of-service considerations from RFC
   4732 [RFC4732] are relevant for this document.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2560]  Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A., Galperin, S., and C.
              Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online
              Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP", RFC 2560, June 1999.

   [RFC3279]  Bassham, L., Polk, W., and R. Housley, "Algorithms and
              Identifiers for the Internet X.509 Public Key
              Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
              (CRL) Profile", RFC 3279, April 2002.




Santesson & Hallam-Baker     Standards Track                    [Page 7]

RFC 6277                 OCSP Algorithm Agility                June 2011


   [RFC4055]  Schaad, J., Kaliski, B., and R. Housley, "Additional
              Algorithms and Identifiers for RSA Cryptography for use in
              the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate
              and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 4055,
              June 2005.

   [RFC5280]  Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
              Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
              Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
              (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008.

   [RFC5751]  Ramsdell, B. and S. Turner, "Secure/Multipurpose Internet
              Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2 Message
              Specification", RFC 5751, January 2010.

   [RFC5912]  Hoffman, P. and J. Schaad, "New ASN.1 Modules for the
              Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX)", RFC 5912,
              June 2010.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2459]  Housley, R., Ford, W., Polk, W., and D. Solo, "Internet
              X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and CRL
              Profile", RFC 2459, January 1999.

   [RFC4732]  Handley, M., Ed., Rescorla, E., Ed., and IAB, "Internet
              Denial-of-Service Considerations", RFC 4732, December
              2006.























Santesson & Hallam-Baker     Standards Track                    [Page 8]

RFC 6277                 OCSP Algorithm Agility                June 2011


Appendix A.  ASN.1 Modules

A.1.  ASN.1 Module

 OCSP-AGILITY-2009 { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
     internet(1)  security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
     id-mod-ocsp-agility-2009-93(66) }

 DEFINITIONS EXPLICIT TAGS ::=
 BEGIN

   EXPORTS ALL;   -- export all items from this module
   IMPORTS

   id-pkix-ocsp
     FROM OCSP-2009  -- From OCSP [RFC2560]
      { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5)
        mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0) id-mod-ocsp-02(48) }

   AlgorithmIdentifier{}, SMIMECapability{}, SIGNATURE-ALGORITHM,
   PUBLIC-KEY
     FROM AlgorithmInformation-2009 -- From [RFC5912]
       { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
         security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
         id-mod-algorithmInformation-02(58) }

   EXTENSION
     FROM PKIX-CommonTypes-2009 -- From [RFC5912]
      { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5)
        mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0) id-mod-pkixCommon-02(57)} ;

    --  Add re-preferred-signature-algorithms to the set of extensions
    --  for TBSRequest.requestExtensions

   re-preferred-signature-algorithms EXTENSION ::= {
      SYNTAX PreferredSignatureAlgorithms
      IDENTIFIED BY id-pkix-ocsp-pref-sig-algs  }

   id-pkix-ocsp-pref-sig-algs OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-ocsp 8 }

   PreferredSignatureAlgorithms ::= SEQUENCE OF
                                      PreferredSignatureAlgorithm

   PreferredSignatureAlgorithm ::= SEQUENCE {
    sigIdentifier       AlgorithmIdentifier{SIGNATURE-ALGORITHM, {...}},
    pubKeyAlgIdentifier SMIMECapability{PUBLIC-KEY, {...}} OPTIONAL  }

 END



Santesson & Hallam-Baker     Standards Track                    [Page 9]

RFC 6277                 OCSP Algorithm Agility                June 2011


A.2.  1988 ASN.1 Module

 OCSP-AGILITY-88 { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
     security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
     id-mod-ocsp-agility-2009-88(67) }

 DEFINITIONS EXPLICIT TAGS ::=
 BEGIN

   -- EXPORTS ALL;
   IMPORTS

   id-pkix-ocsp  -- From [RFC2560]
     FROM OCSP
      { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
        security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0) id-mod-ocsp(14)}

   AlgorithmIdentifier
     FROM PKIX1Explicit88 -- From [RFC5280]
      { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5)
        mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0) id-pkix1-explicit(18) };

   SMIMECapability
     FROM SecureMimeMessageV3dot1 -- From [RFC5751]
      { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9)
        smime(16) modules(0) msg-v3dot1(21) }

     id-pkix-ocsp-pref-sig-algs OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-ocsp 8 }

     PreferredSignatureAlgorithms ::= SEQUENCE OF
                                      PreferredSignatureAlgorithm

     PreferredSignatureAlgorithm ::= SEQUENCE {
        sigIdentifier        AlgorithmIdentifier,
        pubKeyAlgIdentifier  SMIMECapability OPTIONAL
        }

 END













Santesson & Hallam-Baker     Standards Track                   [Page 10]

RFC 6277                 OCSP Algorithm Agility                June 2011


Authors' Addresses

   Stefan Santesson
   3xA Security AB
   Sweden

   Email: sts@aaa-sec.com


   Phillip Hallam-Baker
   Default Deny Security

   EMail: hallam@gmail.com






































Santesson & Hallam-Baker     Standards Track                   [Page 11]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/