< draft-ietf-cose-x509-01.txt   draft-ietf-cose-x509-02.txt >
Network Working Group J. Schaad Network Working Group J. Schaad
Internet-Draft August Cellars Internet-Draft August Cellars
Intended status: Informational March 11, 2019 Intended status: Informational June 20, 2019
Expires: September 12, 2019 Expires: December 22, 2019
CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Headers for carrying and CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE): Headers for carrying and
referencing X.509 certificates referencing X.509 certificates
draft-ietf-cose-x509-01 draft-ietf-cose-x509-02
Abstract Abstract
The CBOR Signing And Encrypted Message (COSE) structure syntax uses The CBOR Signing And Encrypted Message (COSE) structure uses
the COSE Key structure for placing keys in a message. This document references to keys in general. For some algorithms, additional
extends the way that keys can be identified and transported by properties are defined which carry parts of keys as needed. The COSE
providing attributes that refer to or contain X.509 certificates. Key structure is used for transporting keys outside of COSE messages.
This document extends the way that keys can be identified and
transported by providing attributes that refer to or contain X.509
certificates.
Contributing to this document Contributing to this document
The source for this draft is being maintained in GitHub. Suggested The source for this draft is being maintained in GitHub. Suggested
changes should be submitted as pull requests at <https://github.com/ changes should be submitted as pull requests at <https://github.com/
cose-wg/X509>. Instructions are on that page as well. Editorial cose-wg/X509>. Instructions are on that page as well. Editorial
changes can be managed in GitHub, but any substantial issues need to changes can be managed in GitHub, but any substantial issues need to
be discussed on the COSE mailing list. be discussed on the COSE mailing list.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 45
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 22, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 28 skipping to change at page 2, line 33
1.1. Requirements Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Open Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Open Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. X.509 COSE Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. X.509 COSE Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. X.509 certificates and static-static ECDH . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. X.509 certificates and static-static ECDH . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. COSE Header Parameter Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. COSE Header Parameter Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. COSE Header Algorithm Parameter Registry . . . . . . . . 8 4.2. COSE Header Algorithm Parameter Registry . . . . . . . . 8
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
In the process of writing [RFC8152] discussions where held on the In the process of writing [RFC8152] discussions where held on the
question of X.509 certificates [RFC5280] and if there was a needed to question of X.509 certificates [RFC5280] and if there was a needed to
provide for them. At the time there were no use cases presented that provide for them. At the time there were no use cases presented that
appeared to have a sufficient need for these attributes. Since that appeared to have a sufficient need for these attributes. Since that
time a number of cases where X.509 certificate support is necessary time a number of cases where X.509 certificate support is necessary
have been defined. This document provides a set of attributes that have been defined. This document provides a set of attributes that
will allow applications to transport and refer to X.509 certificates will allow applications to transport and refer to X.509 certificates
skipping to change at page 3, line 21 skipping to change at page 3, line 26
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
1.2. Open Questions 1.2. Open Questions
Should we define an extended key usage? Should we define an extended key usage?
Are there any special certificate valiation text to be added?
Specific security considerations issues.
Revocation info? Revocation info?
Ties to a COSE_Key?
2. X.509 COSE Headers 2. X.509 COSE Headers
The use of X.509 certificates allows for an existing trust The use of X.509 certificates allows for an existing trust
infrastructure to be used with COSE. This includes the full suite of infrastructure to be used with COSE. This includes the full suite of
enrollment protocols, trust anchors, trust chaining and revocation enrollment protocols, trust anchors, trust chaining and revocation
checking that have been defined over time by the IETF and other checking that have been defined over time by the IETF and other
organizations. The key structures that have been defined in COSE organizations. The key structures that have been defined in COSE
currently do not support all of these properties although some may be currently do not support all of these properties although some may be
found in COSE Web Tokens (CWT) [RFC8392]. found in COSE Web Tokens (CWT) [RFC8392].
skipping to change at page 8, line 12 skipping to change at page 8, line 12
IANA is requested to register the new COSE Header items in Table 1 in IANA is requested to register the new COSE Header items in Table 1 in
the "COSE Header Parameters" registry. the "COSE Header Parameters" registry.
4.2. COSE Header Algorithm Parameter Registry 4.2. COSE Header Algorithm Parameter Registry
IANA is requested to register the new COSE Header items in Table 2 in IANA is requested to register the new COSE Header items in Table 2 in
the "COSE Header Algorithm Parameters" registry. the "COSE Header Algorithm Parameters" registry.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
There are security considerations: Establishing trust in a certificate is a vital part of processing.
Trust cannot be assumed whenever a new self-signed certificate
appears on the client, instead a well defined process is required.
One common way for a new trust anchor to be added (or removed) from a
device is by doing a new firmware upgrade.
Self-signed certificates and Trust Anchors In constrained systems, there is a trade-off between the order of
checking the signature and checking the certificate for validity.
Validating certificates can require that network resources be
accessed in order to get revocation information or retrieve
certificates during path building. Doing the network access can
consume resources dealing with power and network bandwidth. On the
other hand, an oracle can potentially be built based on if the
network resources are only accessed if the signature validation
passes. In any event, both the signature and certificate validation
MUST be checked before acting on any requests.
As called out in the COSE algorithms document
[I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs] basic checking on the keys in a
certificate needs to be performed prior to using them. These can
include validating that points are on curves for elliptical curve
algorithms and that sizes of keys are acceptable for RSA. The use of
unvalidated keys can lead either to loss of security or excessive
consumption of resources.
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[I-D.schaad-cose-rfc8152bis-struct] [I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct]
Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE) - Schaad, J., "CBOR CBOR Object Signing and Encryption
Structures and Process", draft-schaad-cose-rfc8152bis- (COSE): Structures and Process", draft-ietf-cose-
struct-01 (work in progress), December 2018. rfc8152bis-struct-02 (work in progress), March 2019.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., [RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008, (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
skipping to change at page 8, line 52 skipping to change at page 9, line 27
[I-D.ietf-acme-acme] [I-D.ietf-acme-acme]
Barnes, R., Hoffman-Andrews, J., McCarney, D., and J. Barnes, R., Hoffman-Andrews, J., McCarney, D., and J.
Kasten, "Automatic Certificate Management Environment Kasten, "Automatic Certificate Management Environment
(ACME)", draft-ietf-acme-acme-18 (work in progress), (ACME)", draft-ietf-acme-acme-18 (work in progress),
December 2018. December 2018.
[I-D.ietf-cbor-cddl] [I-D.ietf-cbor-cddl]
Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise data Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise data
definition language (CDDL): a notational convention to definition language (CDDL): a notational convention to
express CBOR and JSON data structures", draft-ietf-cbor- express CBOR and JSON data structures", draft-ietf-cbor-
cddl-07 (work in progress), February 2019. cddl-08 (work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs]
Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE):
Initial Algorithms", draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs-02
(work in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis] [I-D.ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis]
Schaad, J., Ramsdell, B., and S. Turner, "Secure/ Schaad, J., Ramsdell, B., and S. Turner, "Secure/
Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 4.0 Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 4.0
Message Specification", draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-12 Message Specification", draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-12
(work in progress), September 2018. (work in progress), September 2018.
[I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13] [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13]
Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The
Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version
1.3", draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-30 (work in progress), 1.3", draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-31 (work in progress), March
November 2018. 2019.
[I-D.selander-ace-cose-ecdhe] [I-D.selander-ace-cose-ecdhe]
Selander, G., Mattsson, J., and F. Palombini, "Ephemeral Selander, G., Mattsson, J., and F. Palombini, "Ephemeral
Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC)", draft-selander-ace- Diffie-Hellman Over COSE (EDHOC)", draft-selander-ace-
cose-ecdhe-12 (work in progress), February 2019. cose-ecdhe-13 (work in progress), March 2019.
[RFC2585] Housley, R. and P. Hoffman, "Internet X.509 Public Key [RFC2585] Housley, R. and P. Hoffman, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP", Infrastructure Operational Protocols: FTP and HTTP",
RFC 2585, DOI 10.17487/RFC2585, May 1999, RFC 2585, DOI 10.17487/RFC2585, May 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2585>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2585>.
[RFC8152] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)", [RFC8152] Schaad, J., "CBOR Object Signing and Encryption (COSE)",
RFC 8152, DOI 10.17487/RFC8152, July 2017, RFC 8152, DOI 10.17487/RFC8152, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8152>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8152>.
 End of changes. 13 change blocks. 
26 lines changed or deleted 49 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/