Network Working Group H. Tschofenig
Internet-Draft E. Lear
Intended status: Informational IAB Security Program
Expires: May 23, 2014 November 19, 2013
Evolving the Web Public Key Infrastructure
draft-tschofenig-iab-webpki-evolution-01.txt
Abstract
The problems with the WebPKI have received the attention by the
Internet security community when DigiNotar, a Dutch certification
authority, had a security breach in 2011 and in the same year a
Comodo affiliate was compromised. Both cases led to fraudulent
issuance of certificates and raise questions regarding the strength
of the WebPKI used by so many applications.
Almost 2 years have passed since these incidents and various
standardization activities have happened in the meanwhile offering
new technical solutions to make the public key infrastructure more
resilient.
The important question, however, is which of the technical solutions
will get widespread deployment? In this document we compare the
different technical solutions in an attempt to engage the impacted
stakeholders to trigger deployment actions to improve the status quo.
This document does not include any recommendations what techniques to
use.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 23, 2014.
Tschofenig & Lear Expires May 23, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft WebPKI Evolution November 2013
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Technical Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Public Key Pinning for HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Trust Assertions for Certificate Keys (TACK) . . . . . . 6
3.3. Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Sovereign Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.6. Mutually Endorsing CA Infrastructure (MECAI) . . . . . . 9
3.7. DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) . . . . 10
3.8. Certificate Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.9. DetecTor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. Public Key Pinning for HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Trust Assertions for Certificate Keys (TACK) . . . . . . 12
4.3. Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4. Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.5. Sovereign Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.6. Mutually Endorsing CA Infrastructure (MECAI) . . . . . . 13
4.7. DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) . . . . 14
4.8. Certificate Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.9. DetecTor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.10. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Tschofenig & Lear Expires May 23, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft WebPKI Evolution November 2013
1. Introduction
High-profile data breaches and security incidents on the Web are
gaining increasing attention from the public, the press, and
governments. A few examples may illustrate the problems: DigiNotar,
a Dutch certification authority, had a security breach [DigiNotar]
and in the same year a Comodo affiliate was compromised [Comodo].
Both cases led to fraudulent issuance of certificates.
The Web Public Key Infrastructure (WebPKI) makes use of trusted third
parties, the certification authority (CAs), to bind a subject name to
a public key. A CA may, however, be compromised despite the best
security practices and operational procedures. The main problem,
however, is that any CA can issue a certificate for any domain name.
One compromised CA is therefore able to impact the security of the
entire public key infrastructure. In the case of DigiNotar the
attacker was able to issue certificates for Google services even
though Google never made use of services from DigiNotar.
Furthermore, over time browser vendors and operating systems
increased the number of trust anchors (TAs) that are pre-installed.
Depending on software the number of trust anchors may exceed 600, as
reported by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in their SSL
Observatory study [SSL-Observatory]. While the larger number
provides choice for subjects regarding the CA they can select for
obtaining a certificate there is also a downside: with today's WebPKI
set-up it is sufficient to compromise a single CA to impact the
security for all relying parties. Many users were surprised about
the large number of trust anchors installed in normal operating
systems and browsers without having an easy way to adjust that list
to their preferences. Worse, most end users would not know what
criteria to use to manage the trust anchor stores, even with better
interfaces.
To re-state the problem statement: Every CA can issue certificates
for any relying party even though that relying party may have never
been in a relationship with the issuing CA. (Note that the trust
anchor of that CA needs to be provisioned into the trust anchor
store.)
Tschofenig & Lear Expires May 23, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft WebPKI Evolution November 2013
These developments have led to a number of protocol design activities
for improving the WebPKI. In this document we briefly summarize the
available technical solutions and include an assessment about who
needs to make changes, what type of benefits are provided, and what
dependencies exist. The investigated solutions include DANE
[RFC6698], Certificate Transparency [RFC6962], Public Key Pinning
[I-D.ietf-websec-key-pinning], TACK [I-D.perrin-tls-tack],
Perspectives [Perspectives], Sovereign Keys [SovereignKeys], MECAI
[MECAI], Convergence [Convergence], and DetecTor [DetecTor].
There are many challenges with security on the Web, including user
interface problems with certificate warnings, insecure use of
cookies, cross-site scripting attacks, and injection attacks. This
document focuses only on improving the WebPKI. It is also worth
reminding ourselves that the WebPKI is not only used for Web
applications but also for a range of other applications, including
smart phone apps.
The main purpose of this document is to provide an overview of some
technical solutions. This description will help us to develop a
roadmap for the deployment of the best solutions to improve the
overall security of the public key infrastructure.
Final note: There are also process solutions, such as stricter audits
of CAs with the aim to improve operational practices, and these are
not described in this document. These measures will be useful in
addition to technical solutions but alone they will, however, not
address the underlying problem.
2. Terminology
This document uses the following terms from from RFC 5280 [RFC5280]:
end entity: user of PKI certificates and/or end user system that is
the subject of a certificate.
CA: certification authority
This document also re-uses the term "Leap of faith" from RFC 5386
[RFC5386]:
"Leap of faith is the term generally used when a user accepts the
assertion that a given key identifies a peer on the first
communication (despite a lack of strong evidence for that
assertion), and then remembers this association for future
communications."
Tschofenig & Lear Expires May 23, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft WebPKI Evolution November 2013
This security property has become fairly popular with use of
Secure Shell [RFC4251], which made use of the leap of faith
property.
RFC 6973 [RFC6973] provides a definition of the term 'relying party':
"The relying party is an entity that relies on assertions of
individuals' identities from identity providers in order to
provide services to individuals. In effect, the relying party
delegates aspects of identity management to the identity
provider(s). Such delegation requires protocol exchanges, trust,
and a common understanding of semantics of information exchanged
between the relying party and the identity provider."
In the context of this document the relying party is a TLS client,
for example, used to protect the communication from a Web server.
Although a lot of focus is on the Web there are other non-HTTP-
based services that are included in the definition and may
benefits from improvements discussed in this document.
The terms 'trust anchor' and 'trust anchor store' are defined in
[RFC6024]:
"A trust anchor represents an authoritative entity via a public
key and associated data. The public key is used to verify digital
signatures, and the associated data is used to constrain the types
of information for which the trust anchor is authoritative."
"A trust anchor store is a set of one or more trust anchors stored
in a device. A device may have more than one trust anchor store,
each of which may be used by one or more applications."
3. Technical Solutions
3.1. Public Key Pinning for HTTP
[I-D.ietf-websec-key-pinning] describes a solution for instructing
user agents (UAs) to remember ("pin") certificates (end entity
certificates or CA certs) for a given period of time. This pin is
provided to the client with the initial interaction with a Web server
using a newly defined HTTP headers. During that time, UAs will
require that the TLS server presents a certificate chain including at
least one Subject Public Key Info structure the fingerprint of which
matches one of the pinned fingerprints for that server.
While the specification provides a number of instructions for the
Website operator the basic operation is rather simple and assumes a
leap-of-faith policy. To deal with the change of certificates or
Tschofenig & Lear Expires May 23, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft WebPKI Evolution November 2013
other failure scenarios, the concept of a backup pin is utilized. A
Backup Pin is a fingerprint for the public key of a secondary, not-
yet-deployed key pair. The operator keeps the backup key pair
offline, and sets a pin for it in the Public-Key-Pins header. If an
operator loses control of his/her primary private key, he/she can
deploy the backup key pair. An interesting feature of the
specification is to report pin validation failure to a URI using an
HTTP POST.
When a pin validation failure occurs the expectation is that the user
is notified about the inconsistency (with optionally reporting taking
place in the background).
This document is the product of the IETF Web Security working group.
3.2. Trust Assertions for Certificate Keys (TACK)
Similarly to the key pinning solution described in Section 3.1 TACK
[I-D.perrin-tls-tack], also aims to enables a TLS server to support
"pinning" to a self-chosen signing key.
A TLS server operator creates a so-called "TACK signing key" (TSK)
and signs its own keys using this TSK. A TACK pin then associates a
hostname, a TSK, and various parameters (including pin creation time,
and lifetime of the pin). A TLS server operator may change a key for
a server at any point in time since the TSK will be unchanged. Each
server thereby acts as its own CA and issues end entity certificates
to itself. Clients store the TACK pins in their pin stores, which
they obtain via a TLS extension from the server directly. When TACK
pins are obtained from the TLS server directly, they follow a leap-
of-faith approach.
To enable incremental deployment, a TLS client uses the extension
mechanism of TLS to indicate support for the TACK extension by
including a new TLS extension type in the ClientHello message. A TLS
server that does not support TACK will reply with an ordinary
certificate. In case the TLS server supports the extension it
replies with the newly defined tack structure, which contains the
TACK pin for that server.
This specification is an individual submission to the IETF.
3.3. Perspectives
Perspectives [Perspectives] aims to utilize notaries (i.e., public
servers) that monitor and record the history of public keys used by
services. A notary cryptographically signs statements saying that at
time t it observed service S using public key K. While the
Tschofenig & Lear Expires May 23, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft WebPKI Evolution November 2013
description focuses on the use of raw public keys (in the style of
SSH) the same concept also works with certificates.
The basic approach is simple: When a TLS client starts to interact
with a TLS server it is presented with a key/certificate that it had
not seen before. To verify that the key/certificate is the same as
observed by other vantage points in the network it contacts notary
servers. These notaries provide key/certificate information they
have obtained about the specific website earlier. Subsequently,
clients cache the information returned by notaries for future use.
Since the security and availability of the proposed system depends on
the location, the independence, and the number of notaries the
following approach is suggested. Notaries are organized in groups,
each group having a notary authority. The notary authority publishes
lists of the notaries it offers. These lists contain entries with IP
address information and their public keys, one for each notary. This
list is then digitally signed with the private key of the notary
authority. Clients are expected to download these lists and verify
them with the public key of the respective notary authority. The
public keys of the notary authorities are obtained out-of-band.
To improve the leap of faith security by clients, the notary services
adds security value since they may have obtained the key/certificate
from the website in the past already and from different vantage
points (in terms of the path used to talk to the server). This helps
when attacks are either temporary and or when a man-in-the-middle
attacker is located somewhere along the path between the client and
the server but closer to the client. The use of multiple notaries
also helps to detect malicious notaries.
Similar to other notary services there is the question about how they
obtain the keys/certificates of TLS servers (and other services).
For popular services the keys/certificates are assumed to pre-
configured at the notaries and queried periodically. For the long
tail of small websites the suggested approach is to query these sites
the first time a client wants to connect to them since this is the
time when the notary learns about their existence.
With clients caching information about the keys/certificates of sites
visited earlier, and the information obtained from notaries, there is
no additional protocol overhead. In this respect the solution works
similar to key pinning. The additional communication overhead for
the client only occurs at the time when the client talks to a server
for the first time or when the cached information expires.
The proposal is documented in form of an academic research paper, see
[Perspectives], but no technical specification is available.
Tschofenig & Lear Expires May 23, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft WebPKI Evolution November 2013
3.4. Convergence
Convergence [Convergence] is a proposal by Moxie Marlinspike that
makes two improvements to Perspectives, namely
Reducing Notary Lag: The Perspectives solution required TLS clients
to interact with notaries to check whether a certificate obtained
via TLS matches the information seen notaries. Notaries then had
to initiate an interaction with the TLS servers to obtain
information about what certificates they see. Convergence reduces
this interaction by utilizing caching of certificates at the
notaries. By doing this, however, they also introduce a delay
between the time a new certificate is put in operation at a TLS
server and when the notaries get to learn about it.
Increased Privacy Protection: First, clients cache certificates so
that they do not need to contact notaries every time they contact
a Web site. Second, clients use a concept called 'notary
bouncing' whereby they pick a notary randomly out of their pool of
trusted notaries and use it as a proxy to talk to other notaries.
Thereby, the notary that receives the query will only see the IP
address of another notary who forwarded the query rather than the
IP address of the client.
As a main advantage, according to the author and similar to
Perspectives, there is no impact on TLS server deployment, except in
rare situations where multiple certificates are used by a single site
in combination with a load balancer. Load balancers often terminate
TLS connections and if those load balancers use independent
certificates then different notaries requesting certificates from the
Web site will receive different certificates.
Notaries are designed to be extensible by supporting different
mechanisms with respect to how they obtain certificates. Currently,
Convergence uses the technique proposed by Perspectives to probe a
TLS server.
The documentation of Convergence only exists in form of a
presentation by Moxie Marlinspike given at the BlackHat USA 2011
conference [ConvergenceTalk].
3.5. Sovereign Keys
Sovereign Keys [SovereignKeys] is a proposal by the Electronic
Frontier Foundation (EFF). It introduces two new concepts to deal
with attacks against the WebPKI.
Tschofenig & Lear Expires May 23, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft WebPKI Evolution November 2013
Sovereign key: Each domain owner creates a new key pair, the
sovereign keys, and use the private key to sign its operational
(EE) certificates or public keys.
Timeline servers: Append-only timeline servers, as new entities, are
introduced. They stores mappings between domain names and
sovereign keys. To claim a key for a domain name requires
evidence of control in the DNS either via a CA-signed certificate
or via a key published in the DNS (as provided by DANE).
Each timeline server possesses a unique private/public key pair and
these keys are assumed to be shipped with client software or TLS
libraries to ensure that clients can verify the authenticity of
timeline entries. The timeline servers record the history of claims
to sovereign keys.
TLS clients query timeline servers for entries that belong to a
certain domain and verify that the end-entity certificate has been
issued under the sovereign key. If the verification fails then the
connection attempt is refused.
A high-level description can be found at [SovereignKeys] and a more
detailed technical specification is available at
[SovereignKeys-Spec].
3.6. Mutually Endorsing CA Infrastructure (MECAI)
MECAI [MECAI] builds conceptually on top of the Perspective proposal.
Perspectives introduces notaries, as new entities in the WebPKI, and
MECAI takes the position that this function can be taken by existing
CAs. With this new role they would turn into Voucher Authorities
(VAs), who issue vouchers that confirm what they observe. A voucher
is a signature computed over a number of fields including the hash of
a server certificate, a certificate chain, the IP address of the
server, revocation status information, etc. Of course, a voucher
would be created by a CA other than the one that created the original
certificate.
A client would therefore perform the following steps: it connects to
a server via TLS and the server provides the certificate. Then, the
client needs to obtain one or multiple vouchers for the server
certificate. This can happen either inband within the TLS handshake
when talking to the server, similarly to how OCSP stapling works, or
via a separate protocol exchange. The former approach is less
expensive in terms of communication costs for the client. In any
case, a voucher request protocol is needed to let entities (like TLS
servers) talk to VAs to obtain a voucher.
Tschofenig & Lear Expires May 23, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft WebPKI Evolution November 2013
A client or a server can detect misissuance by matching the
information in the vouchers with the certificate.
Only a high-level description is available via [MECAI] but no
detailed technical specification.
3.7. DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE)
DANE [RFC6698] offers the option to use the DNS infrastructure to
store certificates. DANE is envisioned as a preferable basis for
binding public keys to DNS names, because the entities that vouch for
the binding of public key data to DNS names are the same entities
responsible for managing the DNS names in question.
Distributing certificates via the DNS does, however, require DNSSEC.
With the help of DNSSEC [RFC4033][RFC4034][RFC4035] this offers an
opportunity to eliminate off-line processes for validation of the
subject name, which today often requires sending a mail to the
administrator of that domain. This relationship can be easily
demonstrated by having the zone administrator for the subject domain
post the public key in the DNS and digitally sign the resulting zone.
A high-level description about the different options offered by DANE
can be found in [IETF-Journal-DANE] and the authoritative version can
be found in RFC 6698 [RFC6698].
3.8. Certificate Transparency
RFC 6962 [RFC6962] specifies Certificate Transparency, a protocol for
publicly logging the existence of certificates as they are issued or
observed. This allows anyone to audit certification authority (CA)
activity and detect the issuance of suspect certificates, as well as
to audit the certificate logs themselves. The intent is that
eventually clients would refuse to honor certificates that do not
appear in a log, effectively forcing CAs to add all issued
certificates to the logs.
The publicly auditable, append-only logs of all issued certificates
does not prevent misissue but allows interested parties to detect
misissuance.
While various projects, including the EFF with their SSL Observatory
[SSL-Observatory] and Crossbear [Crossbear], have scanned the
Internet to collect all certificates of publically accessible TLS
servers, the cooperation from all TAs (and subordinate CAs) is
required to make Certificate Transparency proposal successful. The
reasons are two-fold: IPv6 makes scanning the address range of the
entire Internet much more difficult and the increasing deployment of
Tschofenig & Lear Expires May 23, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft WebPKI Evolution November 2013
the TLS Server Name Indication [RFC6066] prevents it from obtaining
all certificates.
The expected operation is as follows: TA and subordinate CAs contact
log servers and upload certificates, as they are issued. In
response, they receive a Signed Certificate Timestamp (SCT). The SCT
is the log's promise to incorporate the certificate in a Merkle Tree,
which is the data structure used by the log, within a fixed amount of
time. Everyone can check the log for consistency. Website operators
will have an incentive to regularly check the logs for misissuance of
certificates issued to DNS names associated with their sites. TLS
clients on the other hand are not expected to directly communicate
with logs to avoid the communication overhead. Instead, the TLS
servers provides the SCT along with the certificate within the TLS
handshake. TLS clients reject certificates that do not have a valid
SCT for the end entity certificate. Since there is ideally more than
one log TLS servers need to provide SCTs from multiple logs to the
client.
This document has gone through a public review process, and has been
approved by the Internet Engineering Steering Group and published an
experimental RFC.
3.9. DetecTor
DetecTor [DetecTor] extends the idea of MECAI and Perspectives by
utilizing the Tor onion routing infrastructure [Tor] in order to
connect to sites via different paths through the network. The Tor
infrastructure thereby replaces the need to have dedicated notary
servers, who connect to sites to obtain certificates from a different
vantage point. The server certificate obtained via one or multiple
Tor connections is then compared with the certificate that was
obtained via the direct TLS connection between the client and the
site (i.e., without using Tor). This offers capabilities for the
client to detect whether there was an adversary along the path but
close to the client.
Unlike other proposals, the suggestion is made to provide no
information to the user once a failure has been detected. Instead,
the connection attempt will be rejected and no recourse is possible.
Like other proposals information about the observed certificates may
be cached by the client to lower the initial set-up delay.
A high-level description can be found at [DetecTor] but no detailed
technical specification is available.
4. Analysis
Tschofenig & Lear Expires May 23, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft WebPKI Evolution November 2013
This version of the document re-uses the analysis criteria proposed
by Eric Rescorla [Rescorla].
4.1. Public Key Pinning for HTTP
Changes Needed: Browsers, Servers
Benefits: Prevention and Detection (when reporting is used)
Dependencies: None
Incremental Deployment: Newly added server can make use of the
technology when browsers have been updated. Works with existing
WebPKI infrastructure.
Risks: Employs a leap of faith concept. Self-DoS if pins are
configured incorrectly.
4.2. Trust Assertions for Certificate Keys (TACK)
Changes Needed: Browsers, Servers
Benefits: Prevention
Dependencies: Requires server operators to create and manage new
public / private key pair (TSK)
Incremental Deployment: A newly deployed server can make use of the
technology when browsers have been updated. Does not seem to work
with existing WebPKI.
Risks: Employs a leap of faith concept.
4.3. Perspectives
Changes Needed: Third party infrastructure (notaries), Clients
Benefits: Prevention
Dependencies: Requires notaries to be deployed.
Incremental Deployment: Once notaries are available and client
software is updated, the solution works for every server.
Risks: Increased communication overhead for contacting notaries and
waiting notaries to check servers. Potential problems when load
balancers are deployed at the server infrastructure.
Tschofenig & Lear Expires May 23, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft WebPKI Evolution November 2013
4.4. Convergence
Changes Needed: Third party infrastructure (notaries), Clients
Benefits: Prevention
Dependencies: Requires notaries to be deployed.
Incremental Deployment: Once notaries are available and client
software is updated, the solution works for every server.
Risks: Increased communication overhead for contacting notaries and
for letting notaries check servers (although more extensive
caching is utilized than with Perspectives). The notary bounding
concept may introduce additional latency. Potential problems when
load balancers are deployed at the server infrastructure. With
caching, a delay may be introduced between the time when a new
server certificate is configured and the time when the notaries
notice about its existence, resulting in false alarms.
4.5. Sovereign Keys
Changes Needed: Third party infrastructure (timeline), Clients,
Servers
Benefits: Prevention
Dependencies: Requires server operators to create and manage a new
public / private key pair (sovereign key). Requires third party
infrastructure (timeline servers).
Incremental Deployment: Server operators will receive benefits once
timeline servers are deployed, and updates to the client software
have been made.
Risks: Increased communication overhead for contacting timeline
servers.
4.6. Mutually Endorsing CA Infrastructure (MECAI)
Changes Needed: CAs (who operate as Voucher Authorities (VAs)),
Servers, Clients
Benefits: Prevention
Dependencies: Requires CAs to operate VAs
Tschofenig & Lear Expires May 23, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft WebPKI Evolution November 2013
Incremental Deployment: Requires at least two CAs to support MECAI
before TLS servers can start to offer vouchers in the TLS
handshake to clients for verification.
Risks: A VA has to obtain a certificate and verify it before it can
issue a voucher. A client may request vouchers from a number of
VAs, via an extension within the TLS handshake, to have increased
confidence.
4.7. DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE)
Changes Needed: Clients, Server's DNS
Benefits: Prevention
Dependencies: DNSSEC deployment at clients, and intermediaries.
Incremental Deployment: A new server can add support for DANE only
if its DNS server operator allows TLSA records to be added and
secured via DNSSEC. Clients require software support in the
browsers for verifying the DNSSEC protected TLSA record.
Risks: Self-DoS with incorrect TLSA records, false positives with
broken intermediaries, lack of DNSSEC deployment or failure of
DNSSEC validation.
4.8. Certificate Transparency
Changes Needed: Third party infrastructure (notaries), CA, Clients,
Servers
Benefits: Detection
Dependencies: Requires notaries and all CAs to participate
Incremental Deployment: CAs and servers who want to deploy the
infrastructure can start deployment (after notaries have become
available).
Risks: Non-participating CAs are not monitored and attacks against
those cannot be detected.
4.9. DetecTor
Changes Needed: Clients
Benefits: Prevention
Tschofenig & Lear Expires May 23, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft WebPKI Evolution November 2013
Dependencies: Depends on Tor infrastructure
Incremental Deployment: With client-side only changes all servers
can be verified.
Risks: Setup delay and sites that utilize load balancers. Relies on
leap-of-faith security. Server certificate changes might cause
mismatches with cached information.
4.10. Limitations
A common problem of all proposals that aim to prevent attacks lies in
the user interface design when a failure occurs and end users are
informed about the problem. In many cases, the failure may not
necessarily be caused by real attacks but rather by the use of
captive portals or server-side configuration problems (like warnings
caused by expired certificates today). User interface studies, such
as [SE09], [SR07], and [BO09], have shown that end users are
typically not in the best position to make judgments about these
security warning dialogs. Furthermore, proposals that make use of
out-of-band communication interactions may face problems with
firewalled networks and the additional delay incurred. Claims have
been made that this is a problem with the use of OCSP today
[OCSP-Performance], which has been the motivation for developing and
standardizing OCSP stapling and multiple OCSP stapling.
5. Security Considerations
This entire document is about security.
6. Privacy Considerations
The main privacy threat is correlation. Correlation is the
combination of various pieces of information related to an individual
or that obtain that characteristic when combined. In this specific
case there is the risk that newly introduced entities obtain
information about the history of service usage by users. For
example, a notary that is contacted each time a user visits a new
website can easily be seen as problematic from a privacy point of
view.
7. IANA Considerations
This document does not require actions by IANA.
8. Acknowledgements
Tschofenig & Lear Expires May 23, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft WebPKI Evolution November 2013
We would like to thank all participants of the NIST workshop on
"Improving Trust in the Online Marketplace", April 10-11 2013, for
sharing their views with the community. We would also like to thank
the authors of various solution proposals for their work.
Big thanks to Steven Kent for his detailed review.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[ConvergenceTalk]
Marlinspike, M., "BlackHat USA 2011: SSL And The Future Of
Authenticity", URL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Wl2FW2TcA, 2013.
[Convergence]
Marlinspike, M., "Convergence", URL:
http://convergence.io, 2013.
[DetecTor]
Engert, K., "DetecTor", URL: http://detector.io, Sep 2013.
[I-D.ietf-websec-key-pinning]
Evans, C., Palmer, C., and R. Sleevi, "Public Key Pinning
Extension for HTTP", draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning-08
(work in progress), July 2013.
[I-D.perrin-tls-tack]
Marlinspike, M., "Trust Assertions for Certificate Keys",
draft-perrin-tls-tack-02 (work in progress), January 2013.
[MECAI] Engert, K., "MECAI - Mutually Endorsing CA
Infrastructure", URL: https://kuix.de/mecai/, Feb 2012.
[Perspectives]
Wendlandt, D., Andersen, D., and A. Perrig, "Perspectives:
Improving SSH-style Host Authentication with Multi-Path
Probing", URL: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dga/papers/
perspectives-usenix2008/, 2008.
[RFC3280] Housley, R., Polk, W., Ford, W., and D. Solo, "Internet
X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and
Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 3280,
April 2002.
Tschofenig & Lear Expires May 23, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft WebPKI Evolution November 2013
[RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC
4033, March 2005.
[RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions",
RFC 4034, March 2005.
[RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
Extensions", RFC 4035, March 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.
[RFC6066] Eastlake, D., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions:
Extension Definitions", RFC 6066, January 2011.
[RFC6698] Hoffman, P. and J. Schlyter, "The DNS-Based Authentication
of Named Entities (DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Protocol: TLSA", RFC 6698, August 2012.
[RFC6962] Laurie, B., Langley, A., and E. Kasper, "Certificate
Transparency", RFC 6962, June 2013.
[SovereignKeys-Spec]
Eckersley, P., "Sovereign Key Cryptography for Internet
Domains", URL: https://git.eff.org/?p=sovereign-
keys.git;a=blob;f=sovereign-key-design.txt;hb=master, Oct
2013.
[SovereignKeys]
EFF, "The Sovereign Keys Project", URL: https://
www.eff.org/sovereign-keys, Oct 2013.
9.2. Informative References
[BO09] Biddle, R., van Oorschot, P., Patrick, A., Sobey, J., and
T. Whalen, "Browser Interfaces and Extended Validation SSL
Certificates: An Empirical Study, Proceedings of the 2009
ACM workshop on Cloud computing security", URL:
http://www.andrewpatrick.ca/cv/Biddle-CCSW-2009.pdf, 2009.
[Comodo] Hallam-Baker, P., "The Recent RA Compromise", URL: http://
blogs.comodo.com/it-security/data-security/the-recent-ra-
compromise/, Mar 2011.
Tschofenig & Lear Expires May 23, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft WebPKI Evolution November 2013
[Crossbear]
Technical University Munich, "Crossbear", URL: https://
pki.net.in.tum.de/, Oct 2013.
[DigiNotar]
Arthur, C., "DigiNotar SSL certificate hack amounts to
cyberwar, says expert", URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/
technology/2011/sep/05/diginotar-certificate-hack-
cyberwar, Sep 2011.
[IETF-Journal-DANE]
Barnes, R., "DANE: Taking TLS Authentication to the Next
Level Using DNSSEC, IETF Journal", URL: http://
www.internetsociety.org/articles/dane-taking-tls-
authentication-next-level-using-dnssec, Oct 2011.
[OCSP-Performance]
Netcraft, "Certificate revocation and the performance of
OCSP", URL: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2013/04/16/
certificate-revocation-and-the-performance-of-ocsp.html,
Apr 2013.
[RFC4251] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, "The Secure Shell (SSH)
Protocol Architecture", RFC 4251, January 2006.
[RFC5386] Williams, N. and M. Richardson, "Better-Than-Nothing
Security: An Unauthenticated Mode of IPsec", RFC 5386,
November 2008.
[RFC6024] Reddy, R. and C. Wallace, "Trust Anchor Management
Requirements", RFC 6024, October 2010.
[RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, July
2013.
[Rescorla]
Rescorla, E., "Deployment Models for Backup Certificate
Systems, NIST Workshop on Improving Trust in the Online
Marketplace", URL: http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/ca-
workshop-2013/presentations/Rescorla_ca-workshop2013.pdf,
Apr 2013.
[SE09] Sunshine, J., Egelman, S., Almuhimedi, H., Atri, N., and
L. Cranor, "Crying Wolf: An Empirical Study of SSL Warning
Effectiveness, 18th USENIX Security Symposium", URL:
http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/sslwarnings.pdf, Aug 2009.
Tschofenig & Lear Expires May 23, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft WebPKI Evolution November 2013
[SR07] Schechter, S., Dhamija, R., Ozment, A., and I. Fischer,
"The Emperor's New Security Indicators: An evaluation of
website authentication and the effect of role playing on
usability studies, The 2007 IEEE Symposium on Security and
Privacy", URL: http://www.usablesecurity.org/emperor/, May
2007.
[SSL-Observatory]
EFF, "The EFF SSL Observatory", URL: https://www.eff.org/
observatory, Oct 2013.
[Tor] The Tor Project, "Tor - Anonymity Online", URL: https://
www.torproject.org/, Oct 2013.
Authors' Addresses
Hannes Tschofenig
IAB Security Program
EMail: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net
Eliot Lear
IAB Security Program
EMail: elear@cisco.com
Tschofenig & Lear Expires May 23, 2014 [Page 19]