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

Versions: 00 draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5750-bis

LAMPS                                                          J. Schaad
Internet-Draft                                            August Cellars
Intended status: Standards Track                             B. Ramsdell
Expires: January 23, 2017                         Brute Squad Labs, Inc.
                                                               S. Turner
                                                                   sn3rd
                                                           July 22, 2016


   Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/ MIME) Version 3.2
                          Certificate Handling
                   draft-schaad-lamps-rfc5750-bis-00

Abstract

   This document specifies conventions for X.509 certificate usage by
   Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) v3.2 agents.
   S/MIME provides a method to send and receive secure MIME messages,
   and certificates are an integral part of S/MIME agent processing.
   S/MIME agents validate certificates as described in RFC 5280, the
   Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and CRL Profile.
   S/MIME agents must meet the certificate processing requirements in
   this document as well as those in RFC 5280.  This document obsoletes
   RFC 3850.

Contributing to this document

   The source for this draft is being maintained in GitHub.  Suggested
   changes should be submitted as pull requests at <https://github.com/
   spasm-wg/smime>.  Instructions are on that page as well.  Editorial
   changes can be managed in GitHub, but any substantial issues need to
   be discussed on the SPASM mailing list.

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 http://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."




Schaad, et al.          Expires January 23, 2017                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       S/MIME 3.2 Certificate Handling           July 2016


   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 23, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.3.  Compatibility with Prior Practice S/MIME  . . . . . . . .   4
     1.4.  Changes from S/MIME v3 to S/MIME v3.1 . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.5.  Changes since S/MIME v3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  CMS Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.1.  Certificate Revocation Lists  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.2.  Certificate Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.2.1.  Historical Note about CMS Certificates  . . . . . . .   7
     2.3.  CertificateSet  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  Using Distinguished Names for Internet Mail . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Certificate Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.1.  Certificate Revocation Lists  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.2.  Certificate Path Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.3.  Certificate and CRL Signing Algorithms and Key Sizes  . .  11
     4.4.  PKIX Certificate Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.4.1.  Basic Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       4.4.2.  Key Usage Certificate Extension . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       4.4.3.  Subject Alternative Name  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       4.4.4.  Extended Key Usage Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     6.2.  Informational References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Appendix A.  Moving S/MIME v2 Certificate Handling to Historic
                Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   Appendix B.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21



Schaad, et al.          Expires January 23, 2017                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       S/MIME 3.2 Certificate Handling           July 2016


1.  Introduction

   S/MIME (Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) v3.2, described
   in [RFC5751], provides a method to send and receive secure MIME
   messages.  Before using a public key to provide security services,
   the S/MIME agent MUST verify that the public key is valid.  S/MIME
   agents MUST use PKIX certificates to validate public keys as
   described in the Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure (PKIX)
   Certificate and CRL Profile [RFC5280].  S/MIME agents MUST meet the
   certificate processing requirements documented in this document in
   addition to those stated in [RFC5280].

   This specification is compatible with the Cryptographic Message
   Syntax (CMS) RFC 5652 [RFC5652] in that it uses the data types
   defined by CMS.  It also inherits all the varieties of architectures
   for certificate-based key management supported by CMS.

1.1.  Definitions

   For the purposes of this document, the following definitions apply.

   ASN.1: Abstract Syntax Notation One, as defined in ITU-T X.680
   [X.680].

   Attribute certificate (AC): An X.509 AC is a separate structure from
   a subject's public key X.509 certificate.  A subject may have
   multiple X.509 ACs associated with each of its public key X.509
   certificates.  Each X.509 AC binds one or more attributes with one of
   the subject's public key X.509 certificates.  The X.509 AC syntax is
   defined in [RFC5755].

   Certificate: A type that binds an entity's name to a public key with
   a digital signature.  This type is defined in the Internet X.509
   Public Key Infrastructure (PKIX) Certificate and CRL Profile
   [RFC5280].  This type also contains the distinguished name of the
   certificate issuer (the signer), an issuer-specific serial number,
   the issuer's signature algorithm identifier, a validity period, and
   extensions also defined in that document.

   Certificate Revocation List (CRL): A type that contains information
   about certificates whose validity an issuer has prematurely revoked.
   The information consists of an issuer name, the time of issue, the
   next scheduled time of issue, a list of certificate serial numbers
   and their associated revocation times, and extensions as defined in
   [RFC5280].  The CRL is signed by the issuer.  The type intended by
   this specification is the one defined in [RFC5280].





Schaad, et al.          Expires January 23, 2017                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       S/MIME 3.2 Certificate Handling           July 2016


   Receiving agent: Software that interprets and processes S/MIME CMS
   objects, MIME body parts that contain CMS objects, or both.

   Sending agent: Software that creates S/MIME CMS objects, MIME body
   parts that contain CMS objects, or both.

   S/MIME agent: User software that is a receiving agent, a sending
   agent, or both.

1.2.  Conventions Used in This Document

   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 [RFC2119].

   We define some additional terms here:

   SHOULD+ This term means the same as SHOULD.  However, the authors
           expect that a requirement marked as SHOULD+ will be promoted
           at some future time to be a MUST.

   SHOULD- This term means the same as SHOULD.  However, the authors
           expect that a requirement marked as SHOULD- will be demoted
           to a MAY in a future version of this document.

   MUST-   This term means the same as MUST.  However, the authors
           expect that this requirement will no longer be a MUST in a
           future document.  Although its status will be determined at a
           later time, it is reasonable to expect that if a future
           revision of a document alters the status of a MUST-
           requirement, it will remain at least a SHOULD or a SHOULD-.

1.3.  Compatibility with Prior Practice S/MIME

   S/MIME version 3.2 agents ought to attempt to have the greatest
   interoperability possible with agents for prior versions of S/MIME.

   S/MIME version 2 is described in RFC 2311 through RFC 2315 inclusive
   [SMIMEv2], S/MIME version 3 is described in RFC 2630 through RFC 2634
   inclusive and RFC 5035 [SMIMEv3], and S/MIME version 3.1 is described
   in RFC 3850, RFC 3851, RFC 3852, RFC 2634, and RFC 5035 [SMIMEv3.1].
   RFC 2311 also has historical information about the development of
   S/MIME.








Schaad, et al.          Expires January 23, 2017                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       S/MIME 3.2 Certificate Handling           July 2016


1.4.  Changes from S/MIME v3 to S/MIME v3.1

   Version 1 and version 2 CRLs MUST be supported.

   Multiple certification authority (CA) certificates with the same
   subject and public key, but with overlapping validity periods, MUST
   be supported.

   Version 2 attribute certificates SHOULD be supported, and version 1
   attributes certificates MUST NOT be used.

   The use of the MD2 digest algorithm for certificate signatures is
   discouraged, and security language was added.

   Clarified use of email address use in certificates.  Certificates
   that do not contain an email address have no requirements for
   verifying the email address associated with the certificate.

   Receiving agents SHOULD display certificate information when
   displaying the results of signature verification.

   Receiving agents MUST NOT accept a signature made with a certificate
   that does not have the digitalSignature or nonRepudiation bit set.

   Clarifications for the interpretation of the key usage and extended
   key usage extensions.

1.5.  Changes since S/MIME v3.1

   Conventions Used in This Document: Moved to Section 1.2.  Added
   definitions for SHOULD+, SHOULD-, and MUST-.

   Section 1.1:  Updated ASN.1 definition and reference.

   Section 1.3:  Added text about v3.1 RFCs.

   Section 3:  Aligned email address text with RFC 5280.  Updated note
               to indicate emailAddress IA5String upper bound is 255
               characters.  Added text about matching email addresses.

   Section 4.2:  Added text to indicate how S/MIME agents locate the
               correct user certificate.

   Section 4.3:  RSA with SHA-256 (PKCS #1 v1.5) added as MUST; DSA with
               SHA-256 added as SHOULD+; RSA with SHA-1, DSA with SHA-1,
               and RSA with MD5 changed to SHOULD-; and RSASSA-PSS with
               SHA-256 added as SHOULD+.  Updated key sizes and changed
               pointer to PKIX RFCs.



Schaad, et al.          Expires January 23, 2017                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       S/MIME 3.2 Certificate Handling           July 2016


   Section 4.4.1:  Aligned with PKIX on use of basic constraints
               extension in CA certificates.  Clarified which extension
               is used to constrain end entities from using their keys
               to perform issuing authority operations.

   Section 5:  Updated security considerations.

   Section 7:  Moved references from Appendix B to Section 6.  Updated
               the references.

   Appendix A: Moved Appendix A to Appendix B.  Added Appendix A to move
               S/MIME v2 Certificate Handling to Historic Status.

2.  CMS Options

   The CMS message format allows for a wide variety of options in
   content and algorithm support.  This section puts forth a number of
   support requirements and recommendations in order to achieve a base
   level of interoperability among all S/MIME implementations.  Most of
   the CMS format for S/MIME messages is defined in [RFC5751].

2.1.  Certificate Revocation Lists

   Receiving agents MUST support the Certificate Revocation List (CRL)
   format defined in [RFC5280].  If sending agents include CRLs in
   outgoing messages, the CRL format defined in [RFC5280] MUST be used.
   In all cases, both v1 and v2 CRLs MUST be supported.

   All agents MUST be capable of performing revocation checks using CRLs
   as specified in [RFC5280].  All agents MUST perform revocation status
   checking in accordance with [RFC5280].  Receiving agents MUST
   recognize CRLs in received S/MIME messages.

   Agents SHOULD store CRLs received in messages for use in processing
   later messages.

2.2.  Certificate Choices

   Receiving agents MUST support v1 X.509 and v3 X.509 certificates as
   profiled in [RFC5280].  End-entity certificates MAY include an
   Internet mail address, as described in Section 3.

   Receiving agents SHOULD support X.509 version 2 attribute
   certificates.  See [RFC5755] for details about the profile for
   attribute certificates.






Schaad, et al.          Expires January 23, 2017                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       S/MIME 3.2 Certificate Handling           July 2016


2.2.1.  Historical Note about CMS Certificates

   The CMS message format supports a choice of certificate formats for
   public key content types: PKIX, PKCS #6 extended certificates
   [PKCS6], and PKIX attribute certificates.

   The PKCS #6 format is not in widespread use.  In addition, PKIX
   certificate extensions address much of the same functionality and
   flexibility as was intended in the PKCS #6.  Thus, sending and
   receiving agents MUST NOT use PKCS #6 extended certificates.

   X.509 version 1 attribute certificates are also not widely
   implemented, and have been superseded with version 2 attribute
   certificates.  Sending agents MUST NOT send version 1 attribute
   certificates.

2.3.  CertificateSet

   Receiving agents MUST be able to handle an arbitrary number of
   certificates of arbitrary relationship to the message sender and to
   each other in arbitrary order.  In many cases, the certificates
   included in a signed message may represent a chain of certification
   from the sender to a particular root.  There may be, however,
   situations where the certificates in a signed message may be
   unrelated and included for convenience.

   Sending agents SHOULD include any certificates for the user's public
   key(s) and associated issuer certificates.  This increases the
   likelihood that the intended recipient can establish trust in the
   originator's public key(s).  This is especially important when
   sending a message to recipients that may not have access to the
   sender's public key through any other means or when sending a signed
   message to a new recipient.  The inclusion of certificates in
   outgoing messages can be omitted if S/MIME objects are sent within a
   group of correspondents that has established access to each other's
   certificates by some other means such as a shared directory or manual
   certificate distribution.  Receiving S/MIME agents SHOULD be able to
   handle messages without certificates using a database or directory
   lookup scheme.

   A sending agent SHOULD include at least one chain of certificates up
   to, but not including, a certification authority (CA) that it
   believes that the recipient may trust as authoritative.  A receiving
   agent MUST be able to handle an arbitrarily large number of
   certificates and chains.

   Agents MAY send CA certificates, that is, cross-certificates, self-
   issued certificates, and self-signed certificates.  Note that



Schaad, et al.          Expires January 23, 2017                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       S/MIME 3.2 Certificate Handling           July 2016


   receiving agents SHOULD NOT simply trust any self-signed certificates
   as valid CAs, but SHOULD use some other mechanism to determine if
   this is a CA that should be trusted.  Also note that when
   certificates contain Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA) public keys
   the parameters may be located in the root certificate.  This would
   require that the recipient possess both the end-entity certificate
   and the root certificate to perform a signature verification, and is
   a valid example of a case where transmitting the root certificate may
   be required.

   Receiving agents MUST support chaining based on the distinguished
   name fields.  Other methods of building certificate chains MAY be
   supported.

   Receiving agents SHOULD support the decoding of X.509 attribute
   certificates included in CMS objects.  All other issues regarding the
   generation and use of X.509 attribute certificates are outside of the
   scope of this specification.  One specification that addresses
   attribute certificate use is defined in [RFC3114].

3.  Using Distinguished Names for Internet Mail

   End-entity certificates MAY contain an Internet mail address as
   described in [RFC5280], Section 4.2.1.6.  The email address SHOULD be
   in the subjectAltName extension, and SHOULD NOT be in the subject
   distinguished name.

   Receiving agents MUST recognize and accept certificates that contain
   no email address.  Agents are allowed to provide an alternative
   mechanism for associating an email address with a certificate that
   does not contain an email address, such as through the use of the
   agent's address book, if available.  Receiving agents MUST recognize
   email addresses in the subjectAltName field.  Receiving agents MUST
   recognize email addresses in the Distinguished Name field in the PKCS
   #9 [RFC2985] emailAddress attribute:

   pkcs-9-at-emailAddress OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=
    { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) 1 }

   Note that this attribute MUST be encoded as IA5String and has an
   upper bound of 255 characters.  The right side of the email address
   SHOULD be treated as ASCII-case-insensitive.

   Sending agents SHOULD make the address in the From or Sender header
   in a mail message match an Internet mail address in the signer's
   certificate.  Receiving agents MUST check that the address in the
   From or Sender header of a mail message matches an Internet mail
   address, if present, in the signer's certificate, if mail addresses



Schaad, et al.          Expires January 23, 2017                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       S/MIME 3.2 Certificate Handling           July 2016


   are present in the certificate.  A receiving agent SHOULD provide
   some explicit alternate processing of the message if this comparison
   fails, which may be to display a message that shows the recipient the
   addresses in the certificate or other certificate details.

   A receiving agent SHOULD display a subject name or other certificate
   details when displaying an indication of successful or unsuccessful
   signature verification.

   All subject and issuer names MUST be populated (i.e., not an empty
   SEQUENCE) in S/MIME-compliant X.509 certificates, except that the
   subject distinguished name (DN) in a user's (i.e., end-entity)
   certificate MAY be an empty SEQUENCE in which case the subjectAltName
   extension will include the subject's identifier and MUST be marked as
   critical.

4.  Certificate Processing

   S/MIME agents need to provide some certificate retrieval mechanism in
   order to gain access to certificates for recipients of digital
   envelopes.  There are many ways to implement certificate retrieval
   mechanisms.  [X.500] directory service is an excellent example of a
   certificate retrieval-only mechanism that is compatible with classic
   X.500 Distinguished Names.  Another method under consideration by the
   IETF is to provide certificate retrieval services as part of the
   existing Domain Name System (DNS).  Until such mechanisms are widely
   used, their utility may be limited by the small number of the
   correspondent's certificates that can be retrieved.  At a minimum,
   for initial S/MIME deployment, a user agent could automatically
   generate a message to an intended recipient requesting the
   recipient's certificate in a signed return message.

   Receiving and sending agents SHOULD also provide a mechanism to allow
   a user to "store and protect" certificates for correspondents in such
   a way so as to guarantee their later retrieval.  In many
   environments, it may be desirable to link the certificate retrieval/
   storage mechanisms together in some sort of certificate database.  In
   its simplest form, a certificate database would be local to a
   particular user and would function in a similar way as an "address
   book" that stores a user's frequent correspondents.  In this way, the
   certificate retrieval mechanism would be limited to the certificates
   that a user has stored (presumably from incoming messages).  A
   comprehensive certificate retrieval/storage solution may combine two
   or more mechanisms to allow the greatest flexibility and utility to
   the user.  For instance, a secure Internet mail agent may resort to
   checking a centralized certificate retrieval mechanism for a
   certificate if it cannot be found in a user's local certificate
   storage/retrieval database.



Schaad, et al.          Expires January 23, 2017                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       S/MIME 3.2 Certificate Handling           July 2016


   Receiving and sending agents SHOULD provide a mechanism for the
   import and export of certificates, using a CMS certs-only message.
   This allows for import and export of full certificate chains as
   opposed to just a single certificate.  This is described in
   [RFC5751].

   Agents MUST handle multiple valid certification authority (CA)
   certificates containing the same subject name and the same public
   keys but with overlapping validity intervals.

4.1.  Certificate Revocation Lists

   In general, it is always better to get the latest CRL information
   from a CA than to get information stored away from incoming messages.
   A receiving agent SHOULD have access to some CRL retrieval mechanism
   in order to gain access to certificate revocation information when
   validating certification paths.  A receiving or sending agent SHOULD
   also provide a mechanism to allow a user to store incoming
   certificate revocation information for correspondents in such a way
   so as to guarantee its later retrieval.

   Receiving and sending agents SHOULD retrieve and utilize CRL
   information every time a certificate is verified as part of a
   certification path validation even if the certificate was already
   verified in the past.  However, in many instances (such as off-line
   verification) access to the latest CRL information may be difficult
   or impossible.  The use of CRL information, therefore, may be
   dictated by the value of the information that is protected.  The
   value of the CRL information in a particular context is beyond the
   scope of this specification but may be governed by the policies
   associated with particular certification paths.

   All agents MUST be capable of performing revocation checks using CRLs
   as specified in [RFC5280].  All agents MUST perform revocation status
   checking in accordance with [RFC5280].  Receiving agents MUST
   recognize CRLs in received S/MIME messages.

4.2.  Certificate Path Validation

   In creating a user agent for secure messaging, certificate, CRL, and
   certification path validation SHOULD be highly automated while still
   acting in the best interests of the user.  Certificate, CRL, and path
   validation MUST be performed as per [RFC5280] when validating a
   correspondent's public key.  This is necessary before using a public
   key to provide security services such as verifying a signature,
   encrypting a content-encryption key (e.g., RSA), or forming a
   pairwise symmetric key (e.g., Diffie-Hellman) to be used to encrypt
   or decrypt a content-encryption key.



Schaad, et al.          Expires January 23, 2017               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       S/MIME 3.2 Certificate Handling           July 2016


   Certificates and CRLs are made available to the path validation
   procedure in two ways: a) incoming messages, and b) certificate and
   CRL retrieval mechanisms.  Certificates and CRLs in incoming messages
   are not required to be in any particular order nor are they required
   to be in any way related to the sender or recipient of the message
   (although in most cases they will be related to the sender).
   Incoming certificates and CRLs SHOULD be cached for use in path
   validation and optionally stored for later use.  This temporary
   certificate and CRL cache SHOULD be used to augment any other
   certificate and CRL retrieval mechanisms for path validation on
   incoming signed messages.

   When verifying a signature and the certificates that are included in
   the message, if a signingCertificate attribute from RFC 2634 [ESS] or
   a signingCertificateV2 attribute from RFC 5035 [ESS] is found in an
   S/MIME message, it SHALL be used to identify the signer's
   certificate.  Otherwise, the certificate is identified in an S/MIME
   message, either using the issuerAndSerialNumber, which identifies the
   signer's certificate by the issuer's distinguished name and the
   certificate serial number, or the subjectKeyIdentifier, which
   identifies the signer's certificate by a key identifier.

   When decrypting an encrypted message, if a
   SMIMEEncryptionKeyPreference attribute is found in an encapsulating
   SignedData, it SHALL be used to identify the originator's certificate
   found in OriginatorInfo.  See [RFC5652] for the CMS fields that
   reference the originator's and recipient's certificates.

4.3.  Certificate and CRL Signing Algorithms and Key Sizes

   Certificates and Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs) are signed by
   the certificate issuer.  Receiving agents:

   -  MUST support RSA with SHA-256

   -  SHOULD+ support DSA with SHA-256

   -  SHOULD+ support RSASSA-PSS with SHA-256

   -  SHOULD- support RSA with SHA-1

   -  SHOULD- support DSA with SHA-1

   -  SHOULD- support RSA with MD5

   The following are the RSA and RSASSA-PSS key size requirements for
   S/MIME receiving agents during certificate and CRL signature
   verification:



Schaad, et al.          Expires January 23, 2017               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft       S/MIME 3.2 Certificate Handling           July 2016


              key size <= 1023 : MAY  (see Section 5)
      1024 <= key size <= 4096 : MUST (see Section 5)
      4096 <  key size         : MAY  (see Section 5)

   The following are the DSA key size requirements for S/MIME receiving
   agents during certificate and CRL signature verification:

               key size <= 1023 : MAY  (see Section 5)
       1024 <= key size <= 3072 : MUST (see Section 5)

   For 512-bit RSA with SHA-1 see [RFC3279] and [FIPS186-2] without
   Change Notice 1, for 512-bit RSA with SHA-256 see [RFC4055] and
   [FIPS186-2] without Change Notice 1, for 1024-bit through 3072-bit
   RSA with SHA-256 see [RFC4055] and [FIPS186-2] with Change Notice 1,
   and for 4096-bit RSA with SHA-256 see [RFC4055] and [RFC3447].  In
   either case, the first reference provides the signature algorithm's
   object identifier and the second provides the signature algorithm's
   definition.

   For 512-bit DSA with SHA-1 see [RFC3279] and [FIPS186-2] without
   Change Notice 1, for 512-bit DSA with SHA-256 see [RFC5758] and
   [FIPS186-2] without Change Notice 1, for 1024-bit DSA with SHA-1 see
   [RFC3279] and [FIPS186-2] with Change Notice 1, for 1024-bit through
   3072 DSA with SHA-256 see [RFC5758] and [FIPS186-3].  In either case,
   the first reference provides the signature algorithm's object
   identifier and the second provides the signature algorithm's
   definition.

   For RSASSA-PSS with SHA-256 see [RFC4056].

4.4.  PKIX Certificate Extensions

   PKIX describes an extensible framework in which the basic certificate
   information can be extended and describes how such extensions can be
   used to control the process of issuing and validating certificates.
   The PKIX Working Group has ongoing efforts to identify and create
   extensions that have value in particular certification environments.
   Further, there are active efforts underway to issue PKIX certificates
   for business purposes.  This document identifies the minimum required
   set of certificate extensions that have the greatest value in the
   S/MIME environment.  The syntax and semantics of all the identified
   extensions are defined in [RFC5280].

   Sending and receiving agents MUST correctly handle the basic
   constraints, key usage, authority key identifier, subject key
   identifier, and subject alternative names certificate extensions when
   they appear in end-entity and CA certificates.  Some mechanism SHOULD




Schaad, et al.          Expires January 23, 2017               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft       S/MIME 3.2 Certificate Handling           July 2016


   exist to gracefully handle other certificate extensions when they
   appear in end-entity or CA certificates.

   Certificates issued for the S/MIME environment SHOULD NOT contain any
   critical extensions (extensions that have the critical field set to
   TRUE) other than those listed here.  These extensions SHOULD be
   marked as non-critical unless the proper handling of the extension is
   deemed critical to the correct interpretation of the associated
   certificate.  Other extensions may be included, but those extensions
   SHOULD NOT be marked as critical.

   Interpretation and syntax for all extensions MUST follow [RFC5280],
   unless otherwise specified here.

4.4.1.  Basic Constraints

   The basic constraints extension serves to delimit the role and
   position that an issuing authority or end-entity certificate plays in
   a certification path.

   For example, certificates issued to CAs and subordinate CAs contain a
   basic constraint extension that identifies them as issuing authority
   certificates.  End-entity certificates contain the key usage
   extension that restrains end entities from using the key when
   performing issuing authority operations (see Section 4.4.2).

   As per [RFC5280], certificates MUST contain a basicConstraints
   extension in CA certificates, and SHOULD NOT contain that extension
   in end- entity certificates.

4.4.2.  Key Usage Certificate Extension

   The key usage extension serves to limit the technical purposes for
   which a public key listed in a valid certificate may be used.
   Issuing authority certificates may contain a key usage extension that
   restricts the key to signing certificates, certificate revocation
   lists, and other data.

   For example, a certification authority may create subordinate issuer
   certificates that contain a key usage extension that specifies that
   the corresponding public key can be used to sign end user
   certificates and sign CRLs.

   If a key usage extension is included in a PKIX certificate, then it
   MUST be marked as critical.

   S/MIME receiving agents MUST NOT accept the signature of a message if
   it was verified using a certificate that contains the key usage



Schaad, et al.          Expires January 23, 2017               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft       S/MIME 3.2 Certificate Handling           July 2016


   extension without either the digitalSignature or nonRepudiation bit
   set.  Sometimes S/MIME is used as a secure message transport for
   applications beyond interpersonal messaging.  In such cases, the
   S/MIME-enabled application can specify additional requirements
   concerning the digitalSignature or nonRepudiation bits within this
   extension.

   If the key usage extension is not specified, receiving clients MUST
   presume that the digitalSignature and nonRepudiation bits are set.

4.4.3.  Subject Alternative Name

   The subject alternative name extension is used in S/MIME as the
   preferred means to convey the email address(es) that correspond(s) to
   the entity for this certificate.  Any email addresses present MUST be
   encoded using the rfc822Name CHOICE of the GeneralName type as
   described in [RFC5280], Section 4.2.1.6.  Since the SubjectAltName
   type is a SEQUENCE OF GeneralName, multiple email addresses MAY be
   present.

4.4.4.  Extended Key Usage Extension

   The extended key usage extension also serves to limit the technical
   purposes for which a public key listed in a valid certificate may be
   used.  The set of technical purposes for the certificate therefore
   are the intersection of the uses indicated in the key usage and
   extended key usage extensions.

   For example, if the certificate contains a key usage extension
   indicating digital signature and an extended key usage extension that
   includes the email protection OID, then the certificate may be used
   for signing but not encrypting S/MIME messages.  If the certificate
   contains a key usage extension indicating digital signature but no
   extended key usage extension, then the certificate may also be used
   to sign but not encrypt S/MIME messages.

   If the extended key usage extension is present in the certificate,
   then interpersonal message S/MIME receiving agents MUST check that it
   contains either the emailProtection or the anyExtendedKeyUsage OID as
   defined in [RFC5280].  S/MIME uses other than interpersonal messaging
   MAY require the explicit presence of the extended key usage extension
   or other OIDs to be present in the extension or both.

5.  Security Considerations

   All of the security issues faced by any cryptographic application
   must be faced by a S/MIME agent.  Among these issues are protecting
   the user's private key, preventing various attacks, and helping the



Schaad, et al.          Expires January 23, 2017               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft       S/MIME 3.2 Certificate Handling           July 2016


   user avoid mistakes such as inadvertently encrypting a message for
   the wrong recipient.  The entire list of security considerations is
   beyond the scope of this document, but some significant concerns are
   listed here.

   When processing certificates, there are many situations where the
   processing might fail.  Because the processing may be done by a user
   agent, a security gateway, or other program, there is no single way
   to handle such failures.  Just because the methods to handle the
   failures have not been listed, however, the reader should not assume
   that they are not important.  The opposite is true: if a certificate
   is not provably valid and associated with the message, the processing
   software should take immediate and noticeable steps to inform the end
   user about it.

   Some of the many places where signature and certificate checking
   might fail include:

   -  no Internet mail addresses in a certificate match the sender of a
      message, if the certificate contains at least one mail address

   -  no certificate chain leads to a trusted CA

   -  no ability to check the CRL for a certificate

   -  an invalid CRL was received

   -  the CRL being checked is expired

   -  the certificate is expired

   -  the certificate has been revoked

   There are certainly other instances where a certificate may be
   invalid, and it is the responsibility of the processing software to
   check them all thoroughly, and to decide what to do if the check
   fails.

   It is possible for there to be multiple unexpired CRLs for a CA.  If
   an agent is consulting CRLs for certificate validation, it SHOULD
   make sure that the most recently issued CRL for that CA is consulted,
   since an S/MIME message sender could deliberately include an older
   unexpired CRL in an S/MIME message.  This older CRL might not include
   recently revoked certificates, which might lead an agent to accept a
   certificate that has been revoked in a subsequent CRL.

   When determining the time for a certificate validity check, agents
   have to be careful to use a reliable time.  Unless it is from a



Schaad, et al.          Expires January 23, 2017               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft       S/MIME 3.2 Certificate Handling           July 2016


   trusted agent, this time MUST NOT be the SigningTime attribute found
   in an S/MIME message.  For most sending agents, the SigningTime
   attribute could be deliberately set to direct the receiving agent to
   check a CRL that could have out-of-date revocation status for a
   certificate, or cause an improper result when checking the Validity
   field of a certificate.

   In addition to the Security Considerations identified in [RFC5280],
   caution should be taken when processing certificates that have not
   first been validated to a trust anchor.  Certificates could be
   manufactured by untrusted sources for the purpose of mounting denial
   of service or other attacks.  For example, keys selected to require
   excessive cryptographic processing, or extensive lists of CRL
   Distribution Point (CDP) and/or Authority Information Access (AIA)
   addresses in the certificate, could be used to mount denial-of-
   service attacks.  Similarly, attacker-specified CDP and/or AIA
   addresses could be included in fake certificates to allow the
   originator to detect receipt of the message even if signature
   verification fails.

   The 4096-bit RSA key size requirement for certificate and CRL
   verification is larger than the 2048-bit RSA key sizes for message
   signature generation/verification or message encryption/decryption in
   [RFC5751] because many root CAs included in certificate stores have
   already issued root certificates with the 4096-bit key.  The standard
   that defines comparable key sizes for DSA is not yet available.  In
   particular, [FIPS186-2] without Change Notice 1 allowed DSA key sizes
   between 512 and 1024 bits, [FIPS186-2] with Change Notice 1 only
   allowed DSA key sizes of 1024 bits, and [FIPS186-3] allowed DSA key
   sizes from 1024 to 3072 bits.  Further, 4096-bit keys are normally
   only used by Root certificates and not by subordinate CA
   certificates, thereby lengthening the root CA certificate's validity
   period.

   RSA and DSA keys of less than 1024 bits are now considered by many
   experts to be cryptographically insecure (due to advances in
   computing power), and should no longer be used to sign certificates
   or CRLs.  Such keys were previously considered secure, so processing
   previously received signed and encrypted mail may require processing
   certificates or CRLs signed with weak keys.  Implementations that
   wish to support previous versions of S/MIME or process old messages
   need to consider the security risks that result from accepting
   certificates and CRLs with smaller key sizes (e.g., spoofed
   certificates) versus the costs of denial of service.  If an
   implementation supports verification of certificates or CRLs
   generated with RSA and DSA keys of less than 1024 bits, it MUST warn
   the user.  Implementers should consider providing a stronger warning
   for weak signatures on certificates and CRLs associated with newly



Schaad, et al.          Expires January 23, 2017               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft       S/MIME 3.2 Certificate Handling           July 2016


   received messages than the one provided for certificates and CRLs
   associated with previously stored messages.  Server implementations
   (e.g., secure mail list servers) where user warnings are not
   appropriate SHOULD reject messages with weak cryptography.

   If an implementation is concerned about compliance with National
   Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) key size
   recommendations, then see [SP800-57].

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [FIPS186-2]
              National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
              "Digital Signature Standard (DSS) [With Change Notice 1]",
              Federal Information Processing Standards
              Publication 186-2, January 2000.

   [FIPS186-3]
              National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
              "Digital Signature Standard (DSS)", Federal Information
              Processing Standards Publication 186-3, June 2009.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2634]  Hoffman, P., Ed., "Enhanced Security Services for S/MIME",
              RFC 2634, DOI 10.17487/RFC2634, June 1999,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2634>.

   [RFC2985]  Nystrom, M. and B. Kaliski, "PKCS #9: Selected Object
              Classes and Attribute Types Version 2.0", RFC 2985,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2985, November 2000,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2985>.

   [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, DOI 10.17487/RFC3279, April
              2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3279>.

   [RFC3447]  Jonsson, J. and B. Kaliski, "Public-Key Cryptography
              Standards (PKCS) #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications
              Version 2.1", RFC 3447, DOI 10.17487/RFC3447, February
              2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3447>.



Schaad, et al.          Expires January 23, 2017               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft       S/MIME 3.2 Certificate Handling           July 2016


   [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,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4055, June 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4055>.

   [RFC4056]  Schaad, J., "Use of the RSASSA-PSS Signature Algorithm in
              Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC 4056,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4056, June 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4056>.

   [RFC5035]  Schaad, J., "Enhanced Security Services (ESS) Update:
              Adding CertID Algorithm Agility", RFC 5035,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5035, August 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5035>.

   [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, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.

   [RFC5652]  Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70,
              RFC 5652, DOI 10.17487/RFC5652, September 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5652>.

   [RFC5751]  Ramsdell, B. and S. Turner, "Secure/Multipurpose Internet
              Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2 Message
              Specification", RFC 5751, DOI 10.17487/RFC5751, January
              2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5751>.

   [RFC5755]  Farrell, S., Housley, R., and S. Turner, "An Internet
              Attribute Certificate Profile for Authorization",
              RFC 5755, DOI 10.17487/RFC5755, January 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5755>.

   [RFC5758]  Dang, Q., Santesson, S., Moriarty, K., Brown, D., and T.
              Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure:
              Additional Algorithms and Identifiers for DSA and ECDSA",
              RFC 5758, DOI 10.17487/RFC5758, January 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5758>.

   [X.680]    "Information Technology - Abstract Syntax Notation One
              (ASN.1): Specification of basic notation.  ITU-T
              Recommendation X.680 (2002) | ISO/IEC 8824-1:2002.".





Schaad, et al.          Expires January 23, 2017               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft       S/MIME 3.2 Certificate Handling           July 2016


6.2.  Informational References

   [ESS]      "Enhanced Security Services for S/ MIME".

              This is the set of documents dealing with enhanged
              security services and refers to [RFC2634] and [RFC5035].

   [PKCS6]    RSA Laboratories, "PKCS #6: Extended-Certificate Syntax
              Standard", November 1993.

   [RFC2311]  Dusse, S., Hoffman, P., Ramsdell, B., Lundblade, L., and
              L. Repka, "S/MIME Version 2 Message Specification",
              RFC 2311, DOI 10.17487/RFC2311, March 1998,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2311>.

   [RFC2312]  Dusse, S., Hoffman, P., Ramsdell, B., and J. Weinstein,
              "S/MIME Version 2 Certificate Handling", RFC 2312,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2312, March 1998,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2312>.

   [RFC2313]  Kaliski, B., "PKCS #1: RSA Encryption Version 1.5",
              RFC 2313, DOI 10.17487/RFC2313, March 1998,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2313>.

   [RFC2314]  Kaliski, B., "PKCS #10: Certification Request Syntax
              Version 1.5", RFC 2314, DOI 10.17487/RFC2314, March 1998,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2314>.

   [RFC2315]  Kaliski, B., "PKCS #7: Cryptographic Message Syntax
              Version 1.5", RFC 2315, DOI 10.17487/RFC2315, March 1998,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2315>.

   [RFC2630]  Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax", RFC 2630,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2630, June 1999,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2630>.

   [RFC2631]  Rescorla, E., "Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method",
              RFC 2631, DOI 10.17487/RFC2631, June 1999,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2631>.

   [RFC2632]  Ramsdell, B., Ed., "S/MIME Version 3 Certificate
              Handling", RFC 2632, DOI 10.17487/RFC2632, June 1999,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2632>.

   [RFC2633]  Ramsdell, B., Ed., "S/MIME Version 3 Message
              Specification", RFC 2633, DOI 10.17487/RFC2633, June 1999,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2633>.




Schaad, et al.          Expires January 23, 2017               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft       S/MIME 3.2 Certificate Handling           July 2016


   [RFC3114]  Nicolls, W., "Implementing Company Classification Policy
              with the S/MIME Security Label", RFC 3114,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3114, May 2002,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3114>.

   [RFC3850]  Ramsdell, B., Ed., "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.1 Certificate Handling",
              RFC 3850, DOI 10.17487/RFC3850, July 2004,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3850>.

   [RFC3851]  Ramsdell, B., Ed., "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.1 Message Specification",
              RFC 3851, DOI 10.17487/RFC3851, July 2004,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3851>.

   [RFC3852]  Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)",
              RFC 3852, DOI 10.17487/RFC3852, July 2004,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3852>.

   [SMIMEv2]  "S/MIME version v2".

              This group of documents represents S/MIME version 2.  This
              set of documents are [RFC2311], [RFC2312], [RFC2313],
              [RFC2314], and [RFC2315].

   [SMIMEv3]  "S/MIME version 3".

              This group of documents represents S/MIME version 3.  This
              set of documents are [RFC2630], [RFC2631], [RFC2632],
              [RFC2633], [RFC2634], and [RFC5035].

   [SMIMEv3.1]
              "S/MIME version 3.1".

              This group of documents represents S/MIME version 3.1.
              This set of documents are [RFC2634], [RFC3850], [RFC3851],
              [RFC3852], and [RFC5035].

   [SP800-57]
              National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
              "Special Publication 800-57: Recommendation for Key
              Management", August 2005.

   [X.500]    "ITU-T Recommendation X.500 (1997) | ISO/IEC 9594- 1:1997,
              Information technology - Open Systems Interconnection -
              The Directory: Overview of concepts, models and
              services.".




Schaad, et al.          Expires January 23, 2017               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft       S/MIME 3.2 Certificate Handling           July 2016


Appendix A.  Moving S/MIME v2 Certificate Handling to Historic Status

   The S/MIME v3 [SMIMEv3], v3.1 [SMIMEv3.1], and v3.2 (this document)
   are backwards compatible with the S/MIME v2 Certificate Handling
   Specification [SMIMEv2], with the exception of the algorithms
   (dropped RC2/40 requirement and added DSA and RSASSA-PSS
   requirements).  Therefore, it is recommended that RFC 2312 [SMIMEv2]
   be moved to Historic status.

Appendix B.  Acknowledgments

   Many thanks go out to the other authors of the S/MIME v2 RFC: Steve
   Dusse, Paul Hoffman, and Jeff Weinstein.  Without v2, there wouldn't
   be a v3, v3.1, or v3.2.

   A number of the members of the S/MIME Working Group have also worked
   very hard and contributed to this document.  Any list of people is
   doomed to omission, and for that I apologize.  In alphabetical order,
   the following people stand out in my mind because they made direct
   contributions to this document.

   Bill Flanigan, Trevor Freeman, Elliott Ginsburg, Alfred Hoenes, Paul
   Hoffman, Russ Housley, David P.  Kemp, Michael Myers, John Pawling,
   Denis Pinkas, and Jim Schaad.

Authors' Addresses

   Jim Schaad
   August Cellars

   Email: ietf@augustcellars.com


   Blake Ramsdell
   Brute Squad Labs, Inc.

   Email: blaker@gmail.com


   Sean Turner
   sn3rd

   Email: sean@sn3rd.com








Schaad, et al.          Expires January 23, 2017               [Page 21]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/