RFC 9162 | Certificate Transparency Version 2.0 | December 2021 |
Laurie, et al. | Experimental | [Page] |
RFC 9162
Certificate Transparency Version 2.0
Abstract
This document describes version 2.0 of the Certificate Transparency (CT) protocol for publicly logging the existence of Transport Layer Security (TLS) server certificates as they are issued or observed, in a manner that allows anyone to audit certification authority (CA) activity and notice 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.¶
This document obsoletes RFC 6962. It also specifies a new TLS extension that is used to send various CT log artifacts.¶
Logs are network services that implement the protocol operations for submissions and queries that are defined in this document.¶
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for examination, experimental implementation, and evaluation.¶
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9162.¶
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
1. Introduction
Certificate Transparency aims to mitigate the problem of misissued certificates by providing append-only logs of issued certificates. The logs do not themselves prevent misissuance, but they ensure that interested parties (particularly those named in certificates) can detect such misissuance. Note that this is a general mechanism that could be used for transparently logging any form of binary data, subject to some kind of inclusion criteria. In this document, we only describe its use for public TLS server certificates (i.e., where the inclusion criteria is a valid certificate issued by a public certification authority (CA)). A typical definition of "public" can be found in [CABBR].¶
Each log contains certificate chains, which can be submitted by anyone. It is expected that public CAs will contribute all their newly issued certificates to one or more logs; however, certificate holders can also contribute their own certificate chains, as can third parties. In order to avoid logs being rendered useless by the submission of large numbers of spurious certificates, it is required that each chain ends with a trust anchor that is accepted by the log. A log may also limit the length of the chain it is willing to accept; such chains must also end with an acceptable trust anchor. When a chain is accepted by a log, a signed timestamp is returned, which can later be used to provide evidence to TLS clients that the chain has been submitted. TLS clients can thus require that all certificates they accept as valid are accompanied by signed timestamps.¶
Those who are concerned about misissuance can monitor the logs, asking them regularly for all new entries, and can thus check whether domains for which they are responsible have had certificates issued that they did not expect. What they do with this information, particularly when they find that a misissuance has happened, is beyond the scope of this document. However, broadly speaking, they can invoke existing business mechanisms for dealing with misissued certificates, such as working with the CA to get the certificate revoked or with maintainers of trust anchor lists to get the CA removed. Of course, anyone who wants can monitor the logs and, if they believe a certificate is incorrectly issued, take action as they see fit.¶
Similarly, those who have seen signed timestamps from a particular log can later demand a proof of inclusion from that log. If the log is unable to provide this (or, indeed, if the corresponding certificate is absent from monitors' copies of that log), that is evidence of the incorrect operation of the log. The checking operation is asynchronous to allow clients to proceed without delay, despite possible issues, such as network connectivity and the vagaries of firewalls.¶
The append-only property of each log is achieved using Merkle Trees, which can be used to efficiently prove that any particular instance of the log is a superset of any particular previous instance and to efficiently detect various misbehaviors of the log (e.g., issuing a signed timestamp for a certificate that is not subsequently logged).¶
The log auditing mechanisms described in this document can be circumvented by a misbehaving log that shows different, inconsistent views of itself to different clients. Therefore, it is necessary to treat each log as a trusted third party. While mechanisms are being developed to address these shortcomings and thereby avoid the need to blindly trust logs, such mechanisms are outside the scope of this document.¶
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
1.2. Data Structures
Data structures are defined and encoded according to the conventions laid out in Section 3 of [RFC8446].¶
This document uses object identifiers (OIDs) to identify Log IDs (see
Section 4.4), the precertificate Cryptographic Message
Syntax (CMS) eContentType
(see Section 3.2), X.509v3 extensions in certificates (see Section 7.1.2), and
Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) responses (see Section 7.1.1). The OIDs are defined in an
arc that was selected due to its short encoding.¶
1.3. Major Differences from CT 1.0
This document revises and obsoletes the CT 1.0 protocol [RFC6962], drawing on insights gained from CT 1.0 deployments and on feedback from the community. The major changes are:¶
- Hash and signature algorithm agility: Permitted algorithms are now specified in IANA registries.¶
- Precertificate format: Precertificates are now CMS objects rather than X.509 certificates, which avoids violating the certificate serial number uniqueness requirement in Section 4.1.2.2 of [RFC5280].¶
- Removal of precertificate signing certificates and the precertificate poison extension: The change of precertificate format means that these are no longer needed.¶
- Logs IDs: Each log is now identified by an OID rather than by the hash of its public key. OID allocations are available from an IANA registry.¶
-
TransItem
structure: This new data structure is used to encapsulate most types of CT data. ATransItemList
, consisting of one or moreTransItem
structures, can be used anywhere thatSignedCertificateTimestampList
was used in [RFC6962].¶ - Merkle Tree leaves: The
MerkleTreeLeaf
structure has been replaced by theTransItem
structure, which eases extensibility and simplifies the leaf structure by removing one layer of abstraction.¶ - Unified leaf format: The structure for both certificate and precertificate entries now includes only the TBSCertificate (whereas certificate entries in [RFC6962] included the entire certificate).¶
- Log artifact extensions: These are now typed and managed by an IANA registry, and they can now appear not only in Signed Certificate Timestamps (SCTs) but also in Signed Tree Heads (STHs).¶
- API outputs: Complete
TransItem
structures are returned rather than the constituent parts of each structure.¶ -
get-all-by-hash
: This is a new client API for obtaining an inclusion proof and the corresponding consistency proof at the same time.¶ -
submit-entry
: This is a new client API, replacingadd-chain
andadd-pre-chain
.¶ - Presenting SCTs with proofs: TLS servers may present SCTs together with the corresponding inclusion proofs, using any of the mechanisms that [RFC6962] defined for presenting SCTs only. (Presenting SCTs only is still supported).¶
- CT TLS extension: The
signed_certificate_timestamp
TLS extension has been replaced by thetransparency_info
TLS extension.¶ - Verification algorithms: Detailed algorithms for verifying inclusion proofs, for verifying consistency between two STHs, and for verifying a root hash given a complete list of the relevant leaf input entries have been added.¶
- Extensive clarifications and editorial work.¶
2. Cryptographic Components
2.1. Merkle Trees
A full description of the Merkle Tree is beyond the scope of this document. Briefly, it is a binary tree where each non-leaf node is a hash of its children. For CT, the number of children is at most two. Additional information can be found in the Introduction and Reference sections of [RFC8391].¶
2.1.1. Definition of the Merkle Tree
The log uses a binary Merkle Tree for efficient auditing. The hash algorithm used is one of the log's parameters (see Section 4.1). This document establishes a registry of acceptable hash algorithms (see Section 10.2.1). Throughout this document, the hash algorithm in use is referred to as HASH and the size of its output in bytes is referred to as HASH_SIZE. The input to the Merkle Tree Hash is a list of data entries; these entries will be hashed to form the leaves of the Merkle Tree. The output is a single HASH_SIZE Merkle Tree Hash. Given an ordered list of n inputs, D_n = {d[0], d[1], ..., d[n-1]}, the Merkle Tree Hash (MTH) is thus defined as follows:¶
The hash of an empty list is the hash of an empty string:¶
MTH({}) = HASH().¶
The hash of a list with one entry (also known as a leaf hash) is:¶
MTH({d[0]}) = HASH(0x00 || d[0]).¶
For n > 1, let k be the largest power of two smaller than n (i.e., k < n <= 2k). The Merkle Tree Hash of an n-element list D_n is then defined recursively as:¶
MTH(D_n) = HASH(0x01 || MTH(D[0:k]) || MTH(D[k:n])),¶
where:¶
- || denotes concatenation¶
- : denotes concatenation of lists¶
- D[k1:k2] = D'_(k2-k1) denotes the list {d'[0] = d[k1], d'[1] = d[k1+1], ..., d'[k2-k1-1] = d[k2-1]} of length (k2 - k1).¶
Note that the hash calculations for leaves and nodes differ; this domain separation is required to give second preimage resistance.¶
Note that we do not require the length of the input list to be a power of two. The resulting Merkle Tree may thus not be balanced; however, its shape is uniquely determined by the number of leaves. (Note: This Merkle Tree is essentially the same as the history tree proposed by [CrosbyWallach], except our definition handles non-full trees differently.)¶
2.1.2. Verifying a Tree Head Given Entries
When a client has a complete list of entries
from 0
up to
tree_size - 1
and wishes to verify this list against a tree head root_hash
returned by the log for the same tree_size
, the following algorithm may be
used:¶
- Set
stack
to an empty stack.¶ -
For each
i
from0
up totree_size - 1
:¶- Push
HASH(0x00 || entries[i])
tostack
.¶ - Set
merge_count
to the lowest value (0
included) such thatLSB(i >> merge_count)
is not set, whereLSB
means the least significant bit. In other words, setmerge_count
to the number of consecutive1
s found starting at the least significant bit ofi
.¶ -
Repeat
merge_count
times:¶
- Push
- If there is more than one element in the
stack
, repeat the same merge procedure (the sub-items of Step 2(c) above) until only a single element remains.¶ - The remaining element in
stack
is the Merkle Tree Hash for the giventree_size
and should be compared by equality against the suppliedroot_hash
.¶
2.1.3. Merkle Inclusion Proofs
A Merkle inclusion proof for a leaf in a Merkle Tree is the shortest list of additional nodes in the Merkle Tree required to compute the Merkle Tree Hash for that tree. Each node in the tree is either a leaf node or is computed from the two nodes immediately below it (i.e., towards the leaves). At each step up the tree (towards the root), a node from the inclusion proof is combined with the node computed so far. In other words, the inclusion proof consists of the list of missing nodes required to compute the nodes leading from a leaf to the root of the tree. If the root computed from the inclusion proof matches the true root, then the inclusion proof proves that the leaf exists in the tree.¶
2.1.3.1. Generating an Inclusion Proof
Given an ordered list of n inputs to the tree, D_n = {d[0], d[1], ..., d[n-1]}, the Merkle inclusion proof PATH(m, D_n) for the (m+1)th input d[m], 0 <= m < n, is defined as follows:¶
The proof for the single leaf in a tree with a one-element input list D[1] = {d[0]} is empty:¶
PATH(0, {d[0]}) = {}¶
For n > 1, let k be the largest power of two smaller than n. The proof for the (m+1)th element d[m] in a list of n > m elements is then defined recursively as:¶
PATH(m, D_n) = PATH(m, D[0:k]) : MTH(D[k:n]) for m < k; and PATH(m, D_n) = PATH(m - k, D[k:n]) : MTH(D[0:k]) for m >= k,¶
The : operator and D[k1:k2] are defined the same as in Section 2.1.1.¶
2.1.3.2. Verifying an Inclusion Proof
When a client has received an inclusion proof (e.g., in a TransItem
of type
inclusion_proof_v2
) and wishes to verify inclusion of an input hash
for a
given tree_size
and root_hash
, the following algorithm may be used to prove
the hash
was included in the root_hash
:¶
- Compare
leaf_index
from theinclusion_proof_v2
structure againsttree_size
. Ifleaf_index
is greater than or equal totree_size
, then fail the proof verification.¶ - Set
fn
toleaf_index
andsn
totree_size - 1
.¶ - Set
r
tohash
.¶ -
For each value
p
in theinclusion_path
array:¶- If
sn
is 0, then stop the iteration and fail the proof verification.¶ -
If
LSB(fn)
is set, or iffn
is equal tosn
, then:¶- Set
r
toHASH(0x01 || p || r)
.¶ - If
LSB(fn)
is not set, then right-shift bothfn
andsn
equally until eitherLSB(fn)
is set orfn
is0
.¶
Otherwise:¶
- Set
r
toHASH(0x01 || r || p)
.¶
- Set
- Finally, right-shift both
fn
andsn
one time.¶
- If
- Compare
sn
to 0. Comparer
against theroot_hash
. Ifsn
is equal to 0 andr
and theroot_hash
are equal, then the log has proven the inclusion ofhash
. Otherwise, fail the proof verification.¶
2.1.4. Merkle Consistency Proofs
Merkle consistency proofs prove the append-only property of the tree. A Merkle consistency proof for a Merkle Tree Hash MTH(D_n) and a previously advertised hash MTH(D[0:m]) of the first m leaves, m <= n, is the list of nodes in the Merkle Tree required to verify that the first m inputs D[0:m] are equal in both trees. Thus, a consistency proof must contain a set of intermediate nodes (i.e., commitments to inputs) sufficient to verify MTH(D_n), such that (a subset of) the same nodes can be used to verify MTH(D[0:m]). We define an algorithm that outputs the (unique) minimal consistency proof.¶
2.1.4.1. Generating a Consistency Proof
Given an ordered list of n inputs to the tree, D_n = {d[0], d[1], ..., d[n-1]}, the Merkle consistency proof PROOF(m, D_n) for a previous Merkle Tree Hash MTH(D[0:m]), 0 < m < n, is defined as:¶
PROOF(m, D_n) = SUBPROOF(m, D_n, true)¶
In SUBPROOF, the boolean value represents whether the subtree created from D[0:m] is a complete subtree of the Merkle Tree created from D_n and, consequently, whether the subtree Merkle Tree Hash MTH(D[0:m]) is known. The initial call to SUBPROOF sets this to be true, and SUBPROOF is then defined as follows:¶
The subproof for m = n is empty if m is the value for which PROOF was originally requested (meaning that the subtree created from D[0:m] is a complete subtree of the Merkle Tree created from the original D_n for which PROOF was requested and the subtree Merkle Tree Hash MTH(D[0:m]) is known):¶
SUBPROOF(m, D_m, true) = {}¶
Otherwise, the subproof for m = n is the Merkle Tree Hash committing inputs D[0:m]:¶
SUBPROOF(m, D_m, false) = {MTH(D_m)}¶
For m < n, let k be the largest power of two smaller than n. The subproof is then defined recursively, using the appropriate step below:¶
If m <= k, the right subtree entries D[k:n] only exist in the current tree. We prove that the left subtree entries D[0:k] are consistent and add a commitment to D[k:n]:¶
SUBPROOF(m, D_n, b) = SUBPROOF(m, D[0:k], b) : MTH(D[k:n])¶
If m > k, the left subtree entries D[0:k] are identical in both trees. We prove that the right subtree entries D[k:n] are consistent and add a commitment to D[0:k]:¶
SUBPROOF(m, D_n, b) = SUBPROOF(m - k, D[k:n], false) : MTH(D[0:k])¶
The number of nodes in the resulting proof is bounded above by ceil(log2(n)) + 1.¶
The : operator and D[k1:k2] are defined the same as in Section 2.1.1.¶
2.1.4.2. Verifying Consistency between Two Tree Heads
When a client has a tree head first_hash
for tree size
first
, has a tree head
second_hash
for tree size second
where 0 < first <
second
, and has received a consistency proof between the two (e.g., in a
TransItem
of type
consistency_proof_v2
), the following algorithm may be used to verify the
consistency proof:¶
- If
consistency_path
is an empty array, stop and fail the proof verification.¶ - If
first
is an exact power of 2, then prependfirst_hash
to theconsistency_path
array.¶ - Set
fn
tofirst - 1
andsn
tosecond - 1
.¶ - If
LSB(fn)
is set, then right-shift bothfn
andsn
equally untilLSB(fn)
is not set.¶ - Set both
fr
andsr
to the first value in theconsistency_path
array.¶ -
For each subsequent value
c
in theconsistency_path
array:¶- If
sn
is 0, then stop the iteration and fail the proof verification.¶ -
If
LSB(fn)
is set, or iffn
is equal tosn
, then:¶- Set
fr
toHASH(0x01 || c || fr)
.¶ - Set
sr
toHASH(0x01 || c || sr)
.¶ - If
LSB(fn)
is not set, then right-shift bothfn
andsn
equally until eitherLSB(fn)
is set orfn
is0
.¶
Otherwise:¶
- Set
sr
toHASH(0x01 || sr || c)
.¶
- Set
- Finally, right-shift both
fn
andsn
one time.¶
- If
- After completing iterating through the
consistency_path
array as described above, verify that thefr
calculated is equal to thefirst_hash
supplied, that thesr
calculated is equal to thesecond_hash
supplied, and thatsn
is 0.¶
2.1.5. Example
The following is a binary Merkle Tree with 7 leaves:¶
hash / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ k l / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ g h i j / \ / \ / \ | a b c d e f d6 | | | | | | d0 d1 d2 d3 d4 d5¶
The inclusion proof for d0
is [b
, h
, l
].¶
The inclusion proof for d3
is [c
, g
, l
].¶
The inclusion proof for d4
is [f
, j
, k
].¶
The inclusion proof for d6
is [i
, k
].¶
The same tree, built incrementally in four steps:¶
hash0 hash1=k / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ g c g h / \ | / \ / \ a b d2 a b c d | | | | | | d0 d1 d0 d1 d2 d3 hash2 hash / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ k i k l / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ e f / \ / \ / \ | | / \ / \ g h d4 d5 g h i j / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ | a b c d a b c d e f d6 | | | | | | | | | | d0 d1 d2 d3 d0 d1 d2 d3 d4 d5¶
The consistency proof between hash0
and hash
is PROOF(3, D[7]) = [c
, d
, g
, l
].
Non-leaf nodes c
, g
are used to verify hash0
, and non-leaf nodes d
, l
are additionally used to show hash
is
consistent with hash0
.¶
The consistency proof between hash1
and hash
is PROOF(4, D[7]) = [l
]. hash
can
be verified using hash1
=k
and l
.¶
The consistency proof between hash2
and hash
is PROOF(6, D[7]) = [i
, j
, k
].
Non-leaf nodes k
, i
are used to verify hash2
, and non-leaf node j
is additionally used to show hash
is
consistent with hash2
.¶
2.2. Signatures
When signing data structures, a log MUST use one of the signature algorithms from the IANA "Signature Algorithms" registry, described in Section 10.2.2.¶
3. Submitters
Submitters submit certificates or preannouncements of certificates prior to issuance (precertificates) to logs for public auditing, as described below. In order to enable attribution of each logged certificate or precertificate to its issuer, each submission MUST be accompanied by all additional certificates required to verify the chain up to an accepted trust anchor (Section 5.7). The trust anchor (a root or intermediate CA certificate) MAY be omitted from the submission.¶
If a log accepts a submission, it will return a Signed Certificate Timestamp (SCT) (see Section 4.8). The submitter SHOULD validate the returned SCT, as described in Section 8.1, if they understand its format and they intend to use it directly in a TLS handshake or to construct a certificate. If the submitter does not need the SCT (for example, the certificate is being submitted simply to make it available in the log), it MAY validate the SCT.¶
3.1. Certificates
Any entity can submit a certificate (Section 5.1) to a log. Since it is anticipated that TLS clients will reject certificates that are not logged, it is expected that certificate issuers and subjects will be strongly motivated to submit them.¶
3.2. Precertificates
CAs may preannounce a certificate prior to issuance by submitting a precertificate (Section 5.1) that the log can use to create an entry that will be valid against the issued certificate. The CA MAY incorporate the returned SCT in the issued certificate. One example of where the returned SCT is not incorporated in the issued certificate is when a CA sends the precertificate to multiple logs but only incorporates the SCTs that are returned first.¶
A precertificate is a CMS [RFC5652] signed-data
object that conforms to the
following profile:¶
- It MUST be DER encoded, as described in [X690].¶
-
SignedData.version
MUST be v3(3).¶ -
SignedData.digestAlgorithms
MUST be the same as theSignerInfo.digestAlgorithm
OID value (see below).¶ -
SignedData.encapContentInfo
:¶-
eContentType
MUST be the OID 1.3.101.78.¶ -
eContent
MUST contain a TBSCertificate [RFC5280] that will be identical to the TBSCertificate in the issued certificate, except that the Transparency Information (Section 7.1) extension MUST be omitted.¶
-
-
SignedData.certificates
MUST be omitted.¶ -
SignedData.crls
MUST be omitted.¶ -
SignedData.signerInfos
MUST contain oneSignerInfo
:¶-
version
MUST be v3(3).¶ -
sid
MUST use thesubjectKeyIdentifier
option.¶ -
digestAlgorithm
MUST be one of the hash algorithm OIDs listed in the IANA "Hash Algorithms" registry, described in Section 10.2.1.¶ -
signedAttrs
MUST be present and MUST contain two attributes:¶ -
signatureAlgorithm
MUST be the same OID asTBSCertificate.signature
.¶ -
signature
MUST be from the same (root or intermediate) CA that intends to issue the corresponding certificate (see Section 3.2.1).¶ -
unsignedAttrs
MUST be omitted.¶
-
SignerInfo.signedAttrs
is included in the message digest calculation process
(see Section 5.4 of [RFC5652]), which ensures that the SignerInfo.signature
value will not be a valid X.509v3 signature that could be used in conjunction
with the TBSCertificate (from SignedData.encapContentInfo.eContent
) to
construct a valid certificate.¶
3.2.1. Binding Intent to Issue
Under normal circumstances, there will be a short delay between precertificate
submission and issuance of the corresponding certificate. Longer delays are to
be expected occasionally (e.g., due to log server downtime); in some cases,
the CA might not actually issue the corresponding certificate. Nevertheless, a
precertificate's signature
indicates the CA's binding intent to issue the
corresponding certificate, which means that:¶
- Misissuance of a precertificate is considered equivalent to misissuance of the corresponding certificate. The CA should expect to be held accountable, even if the corresponding certificate has not actually been issued.¶
- Upon observing a precertificate, a client can reasonably presume that the corresponding certificate has been issued. A client may wish to obtain status information (e.g., by using the Online Certificate Status Protocol [RFC6960] or by checking a Certificate Revocation List [RFC5280]) about a certificate that is presumed to exist, especially if there is evidence or suspicion that the corresponding precertificate was misissued.¶
- TLS clients may have policies that require CAs to be able to revoke and to provide certificate status services for each certificate that is presumed to exist based on the existence of a corresponding precertificate.¶
4. Log Format and Operation
A log is a single, append-only Merkle Tree of submitted certificate and precertificate entries.¶
When it receives and accepts a valid submission, the log MUST return an SCT that
corresponds to the submitted certificate or precertificate. If the log has
previously seen this valid submission, it SHOULD return the same SCT as it
returned before, as discussed in Section 11.3.
If different SCTs are produced for the same
submission, multiple log entries will have to be created, one for each SCT (as
the timestamp is a part of the leaf structure). Note that if a certificate was
previously logged as a precertificate, then the precertificate's SCT of type
precert_sct_v2
would not be appropriate; instead, a fresh SCT of type
x509_sct_v2
should be generated.¶
An SCT is the log's promise to append to its Merkle Tree an entry for the accepted submission. Upon producing an SCT, the log MUST fulfill this promise by performing the following actions within a fixed amount of time known as the Maximum Merge Delay (MMD), which is one of the log's parameters (see Section 4.1):¶
- Allocate a tree index to the entry representing the accepted submission.¶
- Calculate the root of the tree.¶
- Sign the root of the tree (see Section 4.10).¶
The log may append multiple entries before signing the root of the tree.¶
Log operators SHOULD NOT impose any conditions on retrieving or sharing data from the log.¶
4.1. Log Parameters
A log is defined by a collection of immutable parameters, which are used by clients to communicate with the log and to verify log artifacts. Except for the Final STH, each of these parameters MUST be established before the log operator begins to operate the log.¶
- Base URL:
- The prefix used to construct URLs [RFC3986] for client messages (see Section 5). The base URL MUST be an "https" URL, MAY contain a port, and MAY contain a path with any number of path segments but MUST NOT contain a query string, fragment, or trailing "/". Example: https://ct.example.org/blue.¶
- Hash Algorithm:
- The hash algorithm used for the Merkle Tree (see Section 10.2.1).¶
- Signature Algorithm:
- The signature algorithm used (see Section 2.2).¶
- Public Key:
- The public key used to verify signatures generated by the log. A log MUST NOT use the same keypair as any other log.¶
- Log ID:
- The OID that uniquely identifies the log.¶
- Maximum Merge Delay:
- The MMD the log has committed to. This document deliberately does not specify any limits on the value to allow for experimentation.¶
- Version:
- The version of the protocol supported by the log (currently 1 or 2).¶
- Maximum Chain Length:
- The longest certificate chain submission the log is willing to accept, if the log imposes any limit.¶
- STH Frequency Count:
- The maximum number of STHs the log may produce in any period equal to the
Maximum Merge Delay
(see Section 4.10).¶ - Final STH:
- If a log has been closed down (i.e., no longer accepts new entries), existing
entries may still be valid. In this case, the client should know the final
valid STH in the log to ensure no new entries can be added without detection.
This value MUST be provided in the form of a
TransItem
of typesigned_tree_head_v2
. If a log is still accepting entries, this value should not be provided.¶
[JSON.Metadata] is an example of a metadata format that includes the above elements.¶
4.2. Evaluating Submissions
A log determines whether to accept or reject a submission by evaluating it against the minimum acceptance criteria (see Section 4.2.1) and against the log's discretionary acceptance criteria (see Section 4.2.2).¶
If the acceptance criteria are met, the log SHOULD accept the submission. (A log may decide, for example, to temporarily reject acceptable submissions to protect itself against denial-of-service attacks.)¶
The log SHALL allow retrieval of its list of accepted trust anchors (see Section 5.7), each of which is a root or intermediate CA certificate. This list might usefully be the union of root certificates trusted by major browser vendors.¶
4.2.1. Minimum Acceptance Criteria
To ensure that logged certificates and precertificates are attributable to an accepted trust anchor, to set clear expectations for what monitors would find in the log, and to avoid being overloaded by invalid submissions, the log MUST reject a submission if any of the following conditions are not met:¶
- The
submission
,type
, andchain
inputs MUST be set as described in Section 5.1. The log MUST NOT accommodate misordered CA certificates or use any other source of intermediate CA certificates to attempt certification path construction.¶ -
Each of the zero or more intermediate CA certificates in the chain MUST have one or both of the following features:¶
- Each certificate in the chain MUST fall within the limits imposed by the zero or more Basic Constraints pathLenConstraint values found higher up the chain.¶
- Precertificate submissions MUST conform to all of the requirements in Section 3.2.¶
4.2.2. Discretionary Acceptance Criteria
If the minimum acceptance criteria are met but the submission is not fully valid according to [RFC5280] verification rules (e.g., the certificate or precertificate has expired, is not yet valid, has been revoked, exhibits ASN.1 DER encoding errors but the log can still parse it, etc.), then the acceptability of the submission is left to the log's discretion. It is useful for logs to accept such submissions in order to accommodate quirks of CA certificate-issuing software and to facilitate monitoring of CA compliance with applicable policies and technical standards. However, it is impractical for this document to enumerate, and for logs to consider, all of the ways that a submission might fail to comply with [RFC5280].¶
Logs SHOULD limit the length of chain they will accept. The maximum chain length is one of the log's parameters (see Section 4.1).¶
4.3. Log Entries
If a submission is accepted and an SCT is issued, the accepting log MUST store the
entire chain used for verification. This chain MUST include the certificate or
precertificate itself, the zero or more intermediate CA certificates provided by
the submitter, and the trust anchor used to verify the chain (even if it was
omitted from the submission). The log MUST provide this chain for auditing upon
request (see Section 5.6) so that the CA cannot avoid blame by
logging a partial or empty chain.
Each log entry is a TransItem
structure of type x509_entry_v2
or
precert_entry_v2
. However, a log may store its entries in any format. If a
log does not store this TransItem
in full, it must store the timestamp
and sct_extensions
of the corresponding TimestampedCertificateEntryDataV2
structure. The TransItem
can be reconstructed from these fields and the entire
chain that the log used to verify the submission.¶
4.4. Log ID
Each log is identified by an OID, which is one of the log's parameters (see Section 4.1) and which MUST NOT be used to identify any other log. A log's operator MUST either allocate the OID themselves or request an OID from the Log ID registry (see Section 10.2.5). One way to get an OID arc, from which OIDs can be allocated, is to request a Private Enterprise Number from IANA by completing the registration form. The only advantage of the registry is that the DER encoding can be small. (Recall that OID allocations do not require a central registration, although logs will most likely want to make themselves known to potential clients through out-of-band means.) Various data structures include the DER encoding of this OID, excluding the ASN.1 tag and length bytes, in an opaque vector:¶
opaque LogID<2..127>;¶
Note that the ASN.1 length and the opaque vector length are identical in size (1 byte) and value, so the full DER encoding (including the tag and length) of the OID can be reproduced simply by prepending an OBJECT IDENTIFIER tag (0x06) to the opaque vector length and contents.¶
The OID used to identify a log is limited such that the DER encoding of its value, excluding the tag and length, MUST be no longer than 127 octets.¶
4.5. TransItem Structure
Various data structures are encapsulated in the TransItem
structure to ensure
that the type and version of each one is identified in a common fashion:¶
enum { x509_entry_v2(0x0100), precert_entry_v2(0x0101), x509_sct_v2(0x0102), precert_sct_v2(0x0103), signed_tree_head_v2(0x0104), consistency_proof_v2(0x0105), inclusion_proof_v2(0x0106), /* Reserved Code Points */ reserved_rfc6962(0x0000..0x00FF), reserved_experimentaluse(0xE000..0xEFFF), reserved_privateuse(0xF000..0xFFFF), (0xFFFF) } VersionedTransType; struct { VersionedTransType versioned_type; select (versioned_type) { case x509_entry_v2: TimestampedCertificateEntryDataV2; case precert_entry_v2: TimestampedCertificateEntryDataV2; case x509_sct_v2: SignedCertificateTimestampDataV2; case precert_sct_v2: SignedCertificateTimestampDataV2; case signed_tree_head_v2: SignedTreeHeadDataV2; case consistency_proof_v2: ConsistencyProofDataV2; case inclusion_proof_v2: InclusionProofDataV2; } data; } TransItem;¶
versioned_type
is a value from the IANA registry in Section 10.2.3
that identifies the type of the encapsulated data structure and the earliest
version of this protocol to which it conforms. This document is v2.¶
data
is the encapsulated data structure. The various structures named with the
DataV2
suffix are defined in later sections of this document.¶
Note that VersionedTransType
combines the v1 type enumerations
Version
, LogEntryType
, SignatureType
, and MerkleLeafType
[RFC6962]. Note also that
v1 did not define TransItem
, but this document provides guidelines (see
Appendix A) on how v2 implementations can coexist with v1
implementations.¶
Future versions of this protocol may reuse VersionedTransType
values defined
in this document as long as the corresponding data structures are not modified
and may add new VersionedTransType
values for new or modified data structures.¶
4.6. Log Artifact Extensions
enum { reserved(65535) } ExtensionType; struct { ExtensionType extension_type; opaque extension_data<0..2^16-1>; } Extension;¶
The Extension
structure provides a generic extensibility for log artifacts,
including SCTs (Section 4.8) and STHs
(Section 4.10). The interpretation of the extension_data
field is determined solely
by the value of the extension_type
field.¶
This document does not define any extensions, but it does establish a registry
for future ExtensionType
values (see Section 10.2.4).
Each document that registers a new ExtensionType
must specify the context in
which it may be used (e.g., SCT, STH, or both) and describe how to interpret the
corresponding extension_data
.¶
4.7. Merkle Tree Leaves
The leaves of a log's Merkle Tree correspond to the log's entries (see
Section 4.3). Each leaf is the leaf hash (Section 2.1) of a TransItem
structure of type x509_entry_v2
or precert_entry_v2
, which encapsulates a
TimestampedCertificateEntryDataV2
structure. Note that leaf hashes are
calculated as HASH(0x00 || TransItem)
, where the hash algorithm is one of the
log's parameters.¶
opaque TBSCertificate<1..2^24-1>; struct { uint64 timestamp; opaque issuer_key_hash<32..2^8-1>; TBSCertificate tbs_certificate; Extension sct_extensions<0..2^16-1>; } TimestampedCertificateEntryDataV2;¶
timestamp
is the date and time at which the certificate or precertificate
was accepted by the log, in the form of a 64-bit unsigned number of milliseconds
elapsed since the Unix Epoch (1 January 1970 00:00:00 UTC -- see [UNIXTIME]),
ignoring leap seconds, in network byte order. Note that the leaves of a log's
Merkle Tree are not required to be in strict chronological order.¶
issuer_key_hash
is the HASH of the public key of the CA that issued the
certificate or precertificate, calculated over the DER encoding of the key
represented as SubjectPublicKeyInfo [RFC5280]. This is needed to bind the CA to
the certificate or precertificate, making it impossible for the corresponding
SCT to be valid for any other certificate or precertificate whose TBSCertificate
matches tbs_certificate
. The length of the issuer_key_hash
MUST match
HASH_SIZE.¶
tbs_certificate
is the DER-encoded TBSCertificate from the submission.
(Note that a precertificate's TBSCertificate can be reconstructed from the
corresponding certificate, as described in Section 8.1.2).¶
sct_extensions
is byte-for-byte identical to the SCT extensions of the
corresponding SCT.¶
The type of the TransItem
corresponds to the value of the type
parameter
supplied in the Section 5.1 call.¶
4.8. Signed Certificate Timestamp (SCT)
An SCT is a TransItem
structure of type x509_sct_v2
or precert_sct_v2
,
which encapsulates a SignedCertificateTimestampDataV2
structure:¶
struct { LogID log_id; uint64 timestamp; Extension sct_extensions<0..2^16-1>; opaque signature<1..2^16-1>; } SignedCertificateTimestampDataV2;¶
log_id
is this log's unique ID, encoded in an opaque vector, as described
in Section 4.4.¶
timestamp
is equal to the timestamp from the corresponding
TimestampedCertificateEntryDataV2
structure.¶
sct_extensions
is a vector of 0 or more SCT extensions. This vector
MUST NOT include more than one extension with the same
extension_type
. The
extensions in the vector MUST be ordered by the value of the
extension_type
field, smallest value first.
All SCT extensions are similar to noncritical X.509v3 extensions (i.e.,
the mustUnderstand
field is not set), and a recipient SHOULD
ignore any extension it does not understand.
Furthermore, an implementation MAY choose to ignore any extension(s)
that it does understand.¶
signature
is computed over a TransItem
structure of type
x509_entry_v2
or precert_entry_v2
(see Section 4.7) using the signature algorithm
declared in the log's parameters (see Section 4.1).¶
4.9. Merkle Tree Head
The log stores information about its Merkle Tree in a TreeHeadDataV2
:¶
opaque NodeHash<32..2^8-1>; struct { uint64 timestamp; uint64 tree_size; NodeHash root_hash; Extension sth_extensions<0..2^16-1>; } TreeHeadDataV2;¶
The length of NodeHash MUST match HASH_SIZE of the log.¶
timestamp
is the current date and time, using the format defined in
Section 4.7.¶
tree_size
is the number of entries currently in the log's Merkle Tree.¶
root_hash
is the root of the Merkle Tree.¶
sth_extensions
is a vector of 0 or more STH extensions. This vector MUST NOT
include more than one extension with the same extension_type
. The
extensions in the vector MUST be ordered by the value of the
extension_type
field, smallest value first. If an implementation sees an
extension that it does not understand, it SHOULD ignore that extension.
Furthermore, an implementation MAY choose to ignore any extension(s) that it
does understand.¶
4.10. Signed Tree Head (STH)
Periodically, each log SHOULD sign its current tree head information (see Section 4.9) to produce an STH. When a client requests a log's latest STH (see Section 5.2), the log MUST return an STH that is no older than the log's MMD. However, since STHs could be used to mark individual clients (by producing a new STH for each query), a log MUST NOT produce STHs more frequently than its parameters declare (see Section 4.1). In general, there is no need to produce a new STH unless there are new entries in the log; however, in the event that a log does not accept any submissions during an MMD period, the log MUST sign the same Merkle Tree Hash with a fresh timestamp.¶
An STH is a TransItem
structure of type signed_tree_head_v2
,
which encapsulates a SignedTreeHeadDataV2
structure:¶
struct { LogID log_id; TreeHeadDataV2 tree_head; opaque signature<1..2^16-1>; } SignedTreeHeadDataV2;¶
log_id
is this log's unique ID encoded in an opaque vector, as described
in Section 4.4.¶
The timestamp
in tree_head
MUST be at least as
recent as the most recent SCT
timestamp in the tree. Each subsequent timestamp MUST be more recent
than the timestamp of the previous update.¶
tree_head
contains the latest tree head information (see Section 4.9).¶
signature
is computed over the tree_head
field using the signature algorithm
declared in the log's parameters (see Section 4.1).¶
4.11. Merkle Consistency Proofs
To prepare a Merkle consistency proof for distribution to clients, the log
produces a TransItem
structure of type consistency_proof_v2
, which
encapsulates a ConsistencyProofDataV2
structure:¶
struct { LogID log_id; uint64 tree_size_1; uint64 tree_size_2; NodeHash consistency_path<0..2^16-1>; } ConsistencyProofDataV2;¶
log_id
is this log's unique ID encoded in an opaque vector, as described
in Section 4.4.¶
tree_size_1
is the size of the older tree.¶
tree_size_2
is the size of the newer tree.¶
consistency_path
is a vector of Merkle Tree nodes proving the consistency
of two STHs, as described in Section 2.1.4.¶
4.12. Merkle Inclusion Proofs
To prepare a Merkle inclusion proof for distribution to clients, the log
produces a TransItem
structure of type inclusion_proof_v2
, which
encapsulates an InclusionProofDataV2
structure:¶
struct { LogID log_id; uint64 tree_size; uint64 leaf_index; NodeHash inclusion_path<0..2^16-1>; } InclusionProofDataV2;¶
log_id
is this log's unique ID encoded in an opaque vector, as described
in Section 4.4.¶
tree_size
is the size of the tree on which this inclusion proof is
based.¶
leaf_index
is the 0-based index of the log entry corresponding to this
inclusion proof.¶
inclusion_path
is a vector of Merkle Tree nodes proving the inclusion of the
chosen certificate or precertificate, as described in Section 2.1.3.¶
4.13. Shutting Down a Log
Log operators may decide to shut down a log for various reasons, such as deprecation of the signature algorithm. If there are entries in the log for certificates that have not yet expired, simply making TLS clients stop recognizing that log will have the effect of invalidating SCTs from that log. In order to avoid that, the following actions SHOULD be taken:¶
- Make it known to clients and monitors that the log will be frozen. This is not part of the API, so it will have to be done via a relevant out-of-band mechanism.¶
- Stop accepting new submissions (the error code "shutdown" should be returned for such requests).¶
- Once MMD from the last accepted submission has passed and all pending submissions are incorporated, issue a final STH and publish it as one of the log's parameters. Having an STH with a timestamp that is after the MMD has passed from the last SCT issuance allows clients to audit this log regularly without special handling for the final STH. At this point, the log's private key is no longer needed and can be destroyed.¶
- Keep the log running until the certificates in all of its entries have expired or exist in other logs (this can be determined by scanning other logs or connecting to domains mentioned in the certificates and inspecting the SCTs served).¶
5. Log Client Messages
Messages are sent as HTTPS GET or POST requests. Parameters for POSTs and all responses are encoded as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) objects [RFC8259]. Parameters for GETs are encoded as order-independent key/value URL parameters, using the "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" format described in the "HTML 4.01 Specification" [HTML401]. Binary data is base64 encoded according to Section 4 of [RFC4648], as specified in the individual messages.¶
Clients are configured with a log's base URL, which is one of the log's parameters. Clients construct URLs for requests by appending suffixes to this base URL. This structure places some degree of restriction on how log operators can deploy these services, as noted in [RFC8820]. However, operational experience with version 1 of this protocol has not indicated that these restrictions are a problem in practice.¶
Note that JSON objects and URL parameters may contain fields not specified here to allow for experimentation. Any fields that are not understood SHOULD be ignored.¶
In practice, log servers may include multiple front-end machines. Since it is impractical to keep these machines in perfect sync, errors that are caused by skew between the machines may occur. Where such errors are possible, the front end will return additional information (as specified below), making it possible for clients to make progress, if progress is possible. Front ends MUST only serve data that is free of gaps (that is, for example, no front end will respond with an STH unless it is also able to prove consistency from all log entries logged within that STH).¶
For example, when a consistency proof between two STHs is requested, the front end reached may not yet be aware of one or both STHs. In the case where it is unaware of both, it will return the latest STH it is aware of. Where it is aware of the first but not the second, it will return the latest STH it is aware of and a consistency proof from the first STH to the returned STH. The case where it knows the second but not the first should not arise (see the "no gaps" requirement above).¶
If the log is unable to process a client's request, it MUST return an HTTP response code of 4xx/5xx (see [RFC7231]), and, in place of the responses outlined in the subsections below, the body SHOULD be a JSON problem details object (see Section 3 of [RFC7807]) containing:¶
- type:
- A URN reference identifying the problem. To facilitate automated response
to errors, this document defines a set of standard tokens for use in the
type
field within the URN namespace of: "urn:ietf:params:trans:error:".¶ - detail:
- A human-readable string describing the error that prevented the log from processing the request, ideally with sufficient detail to enable the error to be rectified.¶
For example, in response to a request of
<Base URL>/ct/v2/get-entries?start=100&end=99
, the log would return a
400 Bad Request
response code with a body similar to the following:¶
{ "type": "urn:ietf:params:trans:error:endBeforeStart", "detail": "'start' cannot be greater than 'end'" }¶
Most error types are specific to the type of request and are defined in the respective subsections below. The one exception is the "malformed" error type, which indicates that the log server could not parse the client's request because it did not comply with this document:¶
type | detail |
---|---|
malformed | The request could not be parsed. |
Clients SHOULD treat 500 Internal Server Error
and 503
Service Unavailable
responses as transient failures and MAY retry the same request without
modification at a later date. Note that in the case of a 503 response, the log
MAY include a Retry-After
header field per [RFC7231] in
order to request a minimum time for the client to wait before retrying the request.
In the absence of this header field, this document does not specify a minimum.¶
Clients SHOULD treat any 4xx error as a problem with the request and not attempt to resubmit without some modification to the request. The full status code MAY provide additional details.¶
This document deliberately does not provide more specific guidance on the use of HTTP status codes.¶
5.1. Submit Entry to Log
POST <Base URL>/ct/v2/submit-entry¶
- Inputs:
-
- submission:
- The base64-encoded certificate or precertificate.¶
- type:
- The
VersionedTransType
integer value that indicates the type of thesubmission
: 1 forx509_entry_v2
or 2 forprecert_entry_v2
.¶ - chain:
- An array of zero or more JSON strings,
each of which is a base64-encoded CA certificate. The first element
is the certifier of the
submission
, the second certifies the first, etc. The last element ofchain
(or, ifchain
is an empty array, thesubmission
) is certified by an accepted trust anchor.¶
- Outputs:
-
- sct:
-
A base64-encoded
TransItem
of typex509_sct_v2
orprecert_sct_v2
, signed by this log, that corresponds to thesubmission
.¶
If the submitted entry is immediately appended to (or already exists in) this log's tree, then the log SHOULD also output:¶
Error codes:¶
type | detail |
---|---|
badSubmission |
submission is neither a valid certificate nor a valid precertificate. |
badType |
type is neither 1 nor 2. |
badChain | The first element of chain is not the certifier of the submission , or the second element does not certify the first, etc. |
badCertificate | One or more certificates in chain are not valid (e.g., not properly encoded). |
unknownAnchor | The last element of chain (or, if chain is an empty array, the submission ) is not, nor is it certified by, an accepted trust anchor. |
shutdown | The log is no longer accepting submissions. |
If the version of sct
is not v2, then a v2 client may be unable to verify the
signature. It MUST NOT construe this as an error. This is to avoid forcing an
upgrade of compliant v2 clients that do not use the returned SCTs.¶
If a log detects bad encoding in a chain that otherwise verifies correctly, then the log MUST either log the certificate or return the "badCertificate" error. If the certificate is logged, an SCT MUST be issued. Logging the certificate is useful, because monitors (Section 8.2) can then detect these encoding errors, which may be accepted by some TLS clients.¶
If submission
is an accepted trust anchor whose certifier is neither an
accepted trust anchor nor the first element of chain
, then the log MUST return
the "unknownAnchor" error. A log is not able to generate an SCT for a
submission if it
does not have access to the issuer's public key.¶
If the returned sct
is intended to be provided to TLS clients, then sth
and
inclusion
(if returned) SHOULD also be provided to TLS clients. For
example, if
type
was 2 (indicating precert_sct_v2
), then all three TransItem
s could be
embedded in the certificate.¶
5.2. Retrieve Latest STH
GET <Base URL>/ct/v2/get-sth¶
No inputs.¶
- Outputs:
-
- sth:
- A base64-encoded
TransItem
of typesigned_tree_head_v2
signed by this log that is no older than the log's MMD.¶
5.3. Retrieve Merkle Consistency Proof between Two STHs
GET <Base URL>/ct/v2/get-sth-consistency¶
- Inputs:
-
- first:
- The
tree_size
of the older tree, in decimal.¶ - second:
- The
tree_size
of the newer tree, in decimal (optional).¶
Both tree sizes must be from existing v2 STHs. However, because of skew, the receiving front end may not know one or both of the existing STHs. If both are known, then only the
consistency
output is returned. If the first is known but the second is not (or has been omitted), then the latest known STH is returned, along with a consistency proof between the first STH and the latest. If neither are known, then the latest known STH is returned without a consistency proof.¶
- Outputs:
-
- consistency:
- A base64-encoded
TransItem
of typeconsistency_proof_v2
whosetree_size_1
MUST match thefirst
input. If thesth
output is omitted, thentree_size_2
MUST match thesecond
input. Iffirst
andsecond
are equal and correspond to a known STH, the returned consistency proof MUST be empty (aconsistency_path
array with zero elements).¶ - sth:
- A base64-encoded
TransItem
of typesigned_tree_head_v2
, signed by this log.¶
Note that no signature is required for the
consistency
output, as it is used to verify the consistency between two signed STHs.¶
Error codes:¶
type | detail |
---|---|
firstUnknown |
first is before the latest known STH but is not from
an existing STH. |
secondUnknown |
second is before the latest known STH but is not from
an existing STH. |
secondBeforeFirst |
second is smaller than first . |
See Section 2.1.4.2 for an outline of how to use the consistency
output.¶
5.4. Retrieve Merkle Inclusion Proof from Log by Leaf Hash
GET <Base URL>/ct/v2/get-proof-by-hash¶
- Inputs:
-
- hash:
- A base64-encoded v2 leaf hash.¶
- tree_size:
- The
tree_size
of the tree on which to base the proof, in decimal.¶
The
hash
must be calculated as defined in Section 4.7. A v2 STH must exist for thetree_size
. Because of skew, the front end may not know the requested tree head. In that case, it will return the latest STH it knows, along with an inclusion proof to that STH. If the front end knows the requested tree head, then onlyinclusion
is returned.¶
- Outputs:
-
- inclusion:
- A base64-encoded
TransItem
of typeinclusion_proof_v2
whoseinclusion_path
array of Merkle Tree nodes proves the inclusion of the certificate (as specified by thehash
parameter) in the selected STH.¶ - sth:
- A base64-encoded
TransItem
of typesigned_tree_head_v2
, signed by this log.¶
Note that no signature is required for the
inclusion
output, as it is used to verify inclusion in the selected STH, which is signed.¶
Error codes:¶
type | detail |
---|---|
hashUnknown |
hash is not the hash of a known leaf (may be caused by skew or by a known certificate not yet merged). |
treeSizeUnknown |
hash is before the latest known STH but is not from an existing STH. |
See Section 2.1.3.2 for an outline of how to use the inclusion
output.¶
5.5. Retrieve Merkle Inclusion Proof, STH, and Consistency Proof by Leaf Hash
GET <Base URL>/ct/v2/get-all-by-hash¶
- Inputs:
-
- hash:
- A base64-encoded v2 leaf hash.¶
- tree_size:
- The
tree_size
of the tree on which to base the proofs, in decimal.¶
The
hash
must be calculated as defined in Section 4.7. A v2 STH must exist for thetree_size
.¶
Because of skew, the front end may not know the requested tree head or the requested hash, which leads to a number of cases:¶
Case | Response |
---|---|
latest STH < requested tree head | Return latest STH. |
latest STH > requested tree head | Return latest STH and a consistency proof between it and the requested tree head (see Section 5.3). |
index of requested hash < latest STH | Return inclusion . |
Note that more than one case can be true; in which case, the returned data is their union. It is also possible for none to be true; in which case, the front end MUST return an empty response.¶
- Outputs:
-
- inclusion:
- A base64-encoded
TransItem
of typeinclusion_proof_v2
whoseinclusion_path
array of Merkle Tree nodes proves the inclusion of the certificate (as specified by thehash
parameter) in the selected STH.¶ - sth:
- A base64-encoded
TransItem
of typesigned_tree_head_v2
, signed by this log.¶ - consistency:
- A base64-encoded
TransItem
of typeconsistency_proof_v2
that proves the consistency of the requested tree head and the returned STH.¶
Note that no signature is required for the
inclusion
orconsistency
outputs, as they are used to verify inclusion in and consistency of signed STHs.¶
Errors are the same as in Section 5.4.¶
See Section 2.1.3.2 for an outline of how to use the inclusion
output,
and see Section 2.1.4.2 for an outline of how to use the consistency
output.¶
5.6. Retrieve Entries and STH from Log
GET <Base URL>/ct/v2/get-entries¶
- Inputs:
- Outputs:
-
- entries:
-
An array of objects, each consisting of:¶
- log_entry:
- The base64-encoded
TransItem
structure of typex509_entry_v2
orprecert_entry_v2
(see Section 4.3).¶ - submitted_entry:
- JSON object equivalent to inputs that were submitted to
submit-entry
, with the addition of the trust anchor to thechain
field if the submission did not include it.¶ - sct:
- The base64-encoded
TransItem
of typex509_sct_v2
orprecert_sct_v2
, corresponding to this log entry.¶ - sth:
- A base64-encoded
TransItem
of typesigned_tree_head_v2
, signed by this log.¶
Note that this message is not signed -- the entries
data can be verified by
constructing the Merkle Tree Hash corresponding to a retrieved STH. All leaves
MUST be v2. However, a compliant v2 client MUST NOT construe an unrecognized
TransItem
type as an error. This means it may be unable to parse some entries,
but note that each client can inspect the entries it does recognize as well as
verify the integrity of the data by treating unrecognized leaves as opaque input
to the tree.¶
The start
and end
parameters SHOULD be within the range 0 <= x < tree_size
,
as returned by get-sth
in Section 5.2.¶
The start
parameter MUST be less than or equal to the end
parameter.¶
Each submitted_entry
output parameter MUST include the trust anchor that the
log used to verify the submission
, even if that trust anchor was not provided
to submit-entry
(see Section 5.1). If the submission
does not certify
itself, then the first element of chain
MUST be present and MUST certify the
submission
.¶
Log servers MUST honor requests where 0 <= start
< tree_size
and end
>=
tree_size
by returning a partial response covering only the valid entries in
the specified range. end
>= tree_size
could be caused by skew. Note that the
following restriction may also apply:¶
Logs MAY restrict the number of entries that can be retrieved per get-entries
request. If a client requests more than the permitted number of entries, the log
SHALL return the maximum number of entries permissible. These entries SHALL be
sequential beginning with the entry specified by start
.
Note that a limit on the number of entries is not immutable, and therefore
the restriction may be changed or lifted at any time and is not listed
with the other Log Parameters in Section 4.1.¶
Because of skew, it is possible the log server will not have any entries between
start
and end
. In this case, it MUST return an empty entries
array.¶
In any case, the log server MUST return the latest STH it knows about.¶
See Section 2.1.2 for an outline of how to use a complete list of log_entry
entries to verify the root_hash
.¶
Error codes:¶
type | detail |
---|---|
startUnknown |
start is greater than the number of entries in the Merkle Tree. |
endBeforeStart |
start cannot be greater than end . |
5.7. Retrieve Accepted Trust Anchors
GET <Base URL>/ct/v2/get-anchors¶
No inputs.¶
- Outputs:
-
- certificates:
- An array of JSON strings, each of which is a base64-encoded CA certificate that is acceptable to the log.¶
- max_chain_length:
- If the server has chosen to limit the length of chains it accepts, this is the maximum number of certificates in the chain, in decimal. If there is no limit, this is omitted.¶
This data is not signed, and the protocol depends on the security guarantees of TLS to ensure correctness.¶
6. TLS Servers
CT-using TLS servers MUST use at least one of the mechanisms described below to present one or more SCTs from one or more logs to each TLS client during full TLS handshakes, when requested by the client, where each SCT corresponds to the server certificate. (Of course, a server can only send a TLS extension if the client has specified it first.) Servers SHOULD also present corresponding inclusion proofs and STHs.¶
A server can provide SCTs using
a TLS 1.3 extension (Section 4.2 of [RFC8446]) with type transparency_info
(see Section 6.5). This mechanism allows TLS servers to
participate in CT without the cooperation of CAs, unlike the other two
mechanisms. It also allows SCTs and inclusion proofs to be updated on the fly.¶
The server may also use an Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP)
[RFC6960] response extension (see Section 7.1.1),
providing the OCSP response as part of the TLS handshake. Providing
a response during a TLS handshake is popularly known as "OCSP stapling".
For TLS
1.3, the information is encoded as an extension in the status_request
extension data; see Section 4.4.2.1 of [RFC8446]. For TLS 1.2 [RFC5246], the information
is encoded in the CertificateStatus
message; see Section 8 of [RFC6066]. Using stapling also
allows SCTs and inclusion proofs to be updated on the fly.¶
CT information can also be encoded as an extension in the X.509v3 certificate (see Section 7.1.2). This mechanism allows the use of unmodified TLS servers, but the SCTs and inclusion proofs cannot be updated on the fly. Since the logs from which the SCTs and inclusion proofs originated won't necessarily be accepted by TLS clients for the full lifetime of the certificate, there is a risk that TLS clients may subsequently consider the certificate to be noncompliant. In such an event, one of the other two mechanisms will need to be used to deliver CT information, or, if this is not possible, the certificate will need to be reissued.¶
6.1. TLS Client Authentication
This specification includes no description of how a TLS server can use CT for TLS client certificates. While this may be useful, it is not documented here for the following reasons:¶
- The greater security exposure is for clients to end up interacting with an illegitimate server.¶
- In general, TLS client certificates are not expected to be submitted to CT logs, particularly those intended for general public use.¶
A future version could include such information.¶
6.2. Multiple SCTs
CT-using TLS servers SHOULD send SCTs from multiple logs because:¶
- The set of logs trusted by TLS clients is neither unified nor static; each client vendor may maintain an independent list of trusted logs, and, over time, new logs may become trusted and current logs may become distrusted. Note that client discovery, trust, and distrust of logs are expected to be handled out of band and are out of scope of this document.¶
- If a CA and a log collude, it is possible to temporarily hide misissuance from clients. When a TLS client requires SCTs from multiple logs to be provided, it is more difficult to mount this attack.¶
- If a log misbehaves or suffers a key compromise, a consequence may be that clients cease to trust it. Since the time an SCT may be in use can be considerable (several years is common in current practice when embedded in a certificate), including SCTs from multiple logs reduces the probability of the certificate being rejected by TLS clients.¶
- TLS clients may have policies related to the above risks requiring TLS servers to present multiple SCTs. For example, at the time of writing, Chromium [Chromium.Log.Policy] requires multiple SCTs to be presented with Extended Validation (EV) certificates in order for the EV indicator to be shown.¶
To select the logs from which to obtain SCTs, a TLS server can, for example, examine the set of logs popular TLS clients accept and recognize.¶
6.3. TransItemList Structure
Multiple SCTs, inclusion proofs, and indeed TransItem
structures of any
type are combined into a list as follows:¶
opaque SerializedTransItem<1..2^16-1>; struct { SerializedTransItem trans_item_list<1..2^16-1>; } TransItemList;¶
Here, SerializedTransItem
is an opaque byte string that contains the
serialized TransItem
structure. This encoding ensures that TLS clients can
decode each TransItem
individually (so, for example, if there is a version
upgrade, out-of-date clients can still parse old TransItem
structures while
skipping over new TransItem
structures whose versions they don't
understand).¶
6.4. Presenting SCTs, Inclusions Proofs, and STHs
In each TransItemList
that is sent during a TLS handshake, the TLS
server MUST include a TransItem
structure of type x509_sct_v2
or
precert_sct_v2
.¶
Presenting inclusion proofs and STHs in the TLS handshake helps to protect the
client's privacy (see Section 8.1.4) and reduces load on log
servers. Therefore, if the TLS server can obtain them, it SHOULD also include
TransItem
s of type inclusion_proof_v2
and signed_tree_head_v2
in the
TransItemList
.¶
6.5. transparency_info TLS Extension
Provided that a TLS client includes the transparency_info
extension type in
the ClientHello and the TLS server supports the transparency_info
extension:¶
- The TLS server MUST verify that the received
extension_data
is empty.¶ - The TLS server MUST construct a
TransItemList
of relevantTransItem
s (see Section 6.4), which SHOULD omit anyTransItem
s that are already embedded in the server certificate or the stapled OCSP response (see Section 7.1). If the constructedTransItemList
is not empty, then the TLS server MUST include thetransparency_info
extension with theextension_data
set to thisTransItemList
. If the list is empty, then the server SHOULD omit theextension_data
element but MAY send it with an empty array.¶
TLS servers MUST only include this extension in the following messages:¶
- the ServerHello message (for TLS 1.2 or earlier)¶
- the Certificate or CertificateRequest message (for TLS 1.3)¶
TLS servers MUST NOT process or include this extension when a TLS session is resumed, since session resumption uses the original session information.¶
8. Clients
There are various different functions clients of logs might perform. We describe here some typical clients and how they should function. Any inconsistency may be used as evidence that a log has not behaved correctly, and the signatures on the data structures prevent the log from denying that misbehavior.¶
All clients need various parameters in order to communicate with logs and verify their responses. These parameters are described in Section 4.1, but note that this document does not describe how the parameters are obtained, which is implementation dependent (for example, see [Chromium.Policy]).¶
8.1. TLS Client
8.1.1. Receiving SCTs and Inclusion Proofs
TLS clients receive SCTs and inclusion proofs alongside or in certificates. CT-using TLS clients MUST implement all of the three mechanisms by which TLS servers may present SCTs (see Section 6).¶
TLS clients that support the transparency_info
TLS extension
(see Section 6.5)
SHOULD include it in ClientHello messages,
with empty extension_data
. If a TLS server includes the
transparency_info
TLS extension when resuming a TLS session, the TLS
client MUST abort the handshake.¶
8.1.2. Reconstructing the TBSCertificate
Validation of an SCT for a certificate (where the type
of the TransItem
is
x509_sct_v2
) uses the unmodified TBSCertificate component of the certificate.¶
Before an SCT for a precertificate (where the type
of the TransItem
is
precert_sct_v2
) can be validated, the TBSCertificate component of the
precertificate needs to be reconstructed from the TBSCertificate component of
the certificate as follows:¶
- Remove the Transparency Information extension (see Section 7.1).¶
- Remove embedded v1 SCTs, identified by OID 1.3.6.1.4.1.11129.2.4.2 (see Section 3.3 of [RFC6962]). This allows embedded v1 and v2 SCTs to co-exist in a certificate (see Appendix A).¶
8.1.3. Validating SCTs
In order to make use of a received SCT, the TLS client MUST first validate it as follows:¶
-
Compute the signature input by constructing a
TransItem
of typex509_entry_v2
orprecert_entry_v2
, depending on the SCT'sTransItem
type. TheTimestampedCertificateEntryDataV2
structure is constructed in the following manner:¶-
timestamp
is copied from the SCT.¶ -
tbs_certificate
is the reconstructed TBSCertificate portion of the server certificate, as described in Section 8.1.2.¶ -
issuer_key_hash
is computed as described in Section 4.7.¶ -
sct_extensions
is copied from the SCT.¶
-
- Verify the SCT's
signature
against the computed signature input using the public key of the corresponding log, which is identified by thelog_id
. The required signature algorithm is one of the log's parameters.¶
If the TLS client does not have the corresponding log's parameters, it cannot attempt to validate the SCT. When evaluating compliance (see Section 8.1.6), the TLS client will consider only those SCTs that it was able to validate.¶
Note that SCT validation is not a substitute for the normal validation of the server certificate and its chain.¶
8.1.4. Fetching Inclusion Proofs
When a TLS client has validated a received SCT but does not yet possess
a corresponding inclusion proof, the TLS client MAY request the inclusion
proof directly from a log using get-proof-by-hash
(Section 5.4) or
get-all-by-hash
(Section 5.5).¶
Note that fetching inclusion proofs directly from a log will disclose to the log which TLS server the client has been communicating with. This may be regarded as a significant privacy concern, and so it is preferable for the TLS server to send the inclusion proofs (see Section 6.4).¶
8.1.5. Validating Inclusion Proofs
When a TLS client has received, or fetched, an inclusion proof (and an STH), it SHOULD proceed to verify the inclusion proof to the provided STH. The TLS client SHOULD also verify consistency between the provided STH and an STH it knows about.¶
If the TLS client holds an STH that predates the SCT, it MAY, in the process of
auditing, request a new STH from the log (Section 5.2) and then verify it by
requesting a consistency proof (Section 5.3). Note that if the TLS
client uses get-all-by-hash
, then it will already have the new STH.¶
8.1.6. Evaluating Compliance
It is up to a client's local policy to specify the quantity and form of evidence (SCTs, inclusion proofs, or a combination) needed to achieve compliance and how to handle noncompliance.¶
A TLS client can only evaluate compliance if it has given the TLS server the
opportunity to send SCTs and inclusion proofs by any of the three mechanisms
that are mandatory to implement for CT-using TLS clients (see
Section 8.1.1). Therefore, a TLS client MUST NOT evaluate compliance
if it did not include both the transparency_info
and status_request
TLS
extensions in the ClientHello.¶
8.2. Monitor
Monitors watch logs to check for correct behavior, for certificates of interest, or for both. For example, a monitor may be configured to report on all certificates that apply to a specific domain name when fetching new entries for consistency validation.¶
A monitor MUST at least inspect every new entry in every log it watches, and it MAY also choose to keep copies of entire logs.¶
To inspect all of the existing entries, the monitor SHOULD follow these steps once for each log:¶
- Fetch the current STH (Section 5.2).¶
- Verify the STH signature.¶
- Fetch all the entries in the tree corresponding to the STH (Section 5.6).¶
- If applicable, check each entry to see if it's a certificate of interest.¶
- Confirm that the tree made from the fetched entries produces the same hash as that in the STH.¶
To inspect new entries, the monitor SHOULD follow these steps repeatedly for each log:¶
- Fetch the current STH (Section 5.2). Repeat until the STH changes. To allow for experimentation, this document does not specify the polling frequency.¶
- Verify the STH signature.¶
- Fetch all the new entries in the tree corresponding to the STH (Section 5.6). If they remain unavailable for an extended period, then this should be viewed as misbehavior on the part of the log.¶
- If applicable, check each entry to see if it's a certificate of interest.¶
-
Either:¶
- Verify that the updated list of all entries generates a tree with the same hash as the new STH.¶
Or, if it is not keeping all log entries:¶
- Fetch a consistency proof for the new STH with the previous STH (Section 5.3).¶
- Verify the consistency proof.¶
- Verify that the new entries generate the corresponding elements in the consistency proof.¶
- Repeat from Step 1.¶
8.3. Auditing
Auditing ensures that the current published state of a log is reachable from previously published states that are known to be good and that the promises made by the log, in the form of SCTs, have been kept. Audits are performed by monitors or TLS clients.¶
In particular, there are four properties of log behavior that should be checked:¶
- the Maximum Merge Delay (MMD)¶
- the STH Frequency Count¶
- the append-only property¶
- the consistency of the log view presented to all query sources¶
A benign, conformant log publishes a series of STHs over time, each derived from the previous STH and the submitted entries incorporated into the log since publication of the previous STH. This can be proven through auditing of STHs. SCTs returned to TLS clients can be audited by verifying against the accompanying certificate and using Merkle inclusion proofs against the log's Merkle Tree.¶
The action taken by the auditor, if an audit fails, is not specified, but note that in general, if an audit fails, the auditor is in possession of signed proof of the log's misbehavior.¶
A monitor (Section 8.2) can audit by verifying the consistency of STHs it receives, ensuring that each entry can be fetched and that the STH is indeed the result of making a tree from all fetched entries.¶
A TLS client (Section 8.1) can audit by verifying an SCT against any STH dated after the SCT timestamp + the Maximum Merge Delay by requesting a Merkle inclusion proof (Section 5.4). It can also verify that the SCT corresponds to the server certificate it arrived with (i.e., the log entry is that certificate or is a precertificate corresponding to that certificate).¶
Checking of the consistency of the log view presented to all entities is more difficult to perform because it requires a way to share log responses among a set of CT-using entities and is discussed in Section 11.3.¶
9. Algorithm Agility
It is not possible for a log to change either of its algorithms part way through its lifetime:¶
- Signature algorithm:
- SCT signatures must remain valid so signature algorithms can only be added, not removed.¶
- Hash algorithm:
- A log would have to support the old and new hash algorithms to allow backwards compatibility with clients that are not aware of a hash algorithm change.¶
Allowing multiple signature or hash algorithms for a log would require that all data structures support it and would significantly complicate client implementation, which is why it is not supported by this document.¶
If it should become necessary to deprecate an algorithm used by a live log, then the log MUST be frozen, as specified in Section 4.13, and a new log SHOULD be started. Certificates in the frozen log that have not yet expired and require new SCTs SHOULD be submitted to the new log and the SCTs from that log used instead.¶
10. IANA Considerations
The assignment policy criteria mentioned in this section refer to the policies outlined in [RFC8126].¶
10.1. Additions to Existing Registries
This subsection defines additions to existing registries.¶
10.1.1. New Entry to the TLS ExtensionType Registry
IANA has added the following entry to the "TLS ExtensionType Values" registry defined in [RFC8446], with an assigned Value:¶
Value | Extension Name | TLS 1.3 | DTLS-Only | Recommended | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
52 | transparency_info | CH, CR, CT | N | Y | RFC 9162 |
10.1.2. URN Sub-namespace for TRANS (urn:ietf:params:trans)
IANA has added a new entry in the "IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol Parameter Identifiers" registry, following the template in [RFC3553]:¶
- Registry name:
- trans¶
- Specification:
- RFC 9162¶
- Repository:
- <https://www.iana.org/assignments/trans>¶
- Index value:
- No transformation needed.¶
10.3. OID Assignment
IANA has assigned an object identifier from the "SMI Security for PKIX Module Identifier" registry to identify the ASN.1 module in Appendix B of this document.¶
Decimal | Description | References |
---|---|---|
102 | id-mod-public-notary-v2 | RFC 9162 |
11. Security Considerations
With CAs, logs, and servers performing the actions described here, TLS clients can use logs and signed timestamps to reduce the likelihood that they will accept misissued certificates. If a server presents a valid signed timestamp for a certificate, then the client knows that a log has committed to publishing the certificate. From this, the client knows that monitors acting for the subject of the certificate have had some time to notice the misissuance and take some action, such as asking a CA to revoke a misissued certificate. A signed timestamp does not guarantee this, though, since appropriate monitors might not have checked the logs or the CA might have refused to revoke the certificate.¶
In addition, if TLS clients will not accept unlogged certificates, then site owners will have a greater incentive to submit certificates to logs, possibly with the assistance of their CA, increasing the overall transparency of the system.¶
11.1. Misissued Certificates
Misissued certificates that have not been publicly logged, and thus do not have a valid SCT, are not considered compliant. Misissued certificates that do have an SCT from a log will appear in that public log within the Maximum Merge Delay, assuming the log is operating correctly. Since a log is allowed to serve an STH of any age up to the MMD, the maximum period of time during which a misissued certificate can be used without being available for audit is twice the MMD.¶
11.2. Detection of Misissue
The logs do not themselves detect misissued certificates; they rely instead on interested parties, such as domain owners, to monitor them and take corrective action when a misissue is detected.¶
11.3. Misbehaving Logs
A log can misbehave in several ways. Examples include the following: failing to incorporate a certificate with an SCT in the Merkle Tree within the MMD; presenting different, conflicting views of the Merkle Tree at different times and/or to different parties; issuing STHs too frequently; mutating the signature of a logged certificate; and failing to present a chain containing the certifier of a logged certificate.¶
Violation of the MMD contract is detected by log clients requesting a Merkle inclusion proof (Section 5.4) for each observed SCT. These checks can be asynchronous and need only be done once per certificate. However, note that there may be privacy concerns (see Section 8.1.4).¶
Violation of the append-only property or the STH issuance rate limit can be detected by multiple clients comparing their instances of the STHs. This technique, known as "gossip", is an active area of research and not defined here. Proof of misbehavior in such cases would be either a series of STHs that were issued too closely together, proving violation of the STH issuance rate limit, or an STH with a root hash that does not match the one calculated from a copy of the log, proving violation of the append-only property.¶
Clients that report back SCTs can be tracked or traced if a log produces multiple STHs or SCTs with the same timestamp and data but different signatures. Logs SHOULD mitigate this risk by either:¶
11.4. Multiple SCTs
By requiring TLS servers to offer multiple SCTs, each from a different log, TLS clients reduce the effectiveness of an attack where a CA and a log collude (see Section 6.2).¶
11.5. Leakage of DNS Information
Malicious monitors can use logs to learn about the existence of domain names that might not otherwise be easy to discover. Some subdomain labels may reveal information about the service and software for which the subdomain is used, which in turn might facilitate targeted attacks.¶
12. References
12.1. Normative References
- [FIPS186-4]
- National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Digital Signature Standard (DSS)", FIPS PUB 186-4, , <http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/FIPS/NIST.FIPS.186-4.pdf>.
- [HTML401]
- Raggett, D., Le Hors, A., and I. Jacobs, "HTML 4.01 Specification", W3C Recommendation SPSD-html401-20180327, , <https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/SPSD-html401-20180327>.
- [RFC2119]
- Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
- [RFC3553]
- Mealling, M., Masinter, L., Hardie, T., and G. Klyne, "An IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol Parameters", BCP 73, RFC 3553, DOI 10.17487/RFC3553, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3553>.
- [RFC3986]
- Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
- [RFC4648]
- Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.
- [RFC5246]
- Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
- [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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.
- [RFC5652]
- Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", STD 70, RFC 5652, DOI 10.17487/RFC5652, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5652>.
- [RFC6066]
- Eastlake 3rd, D., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions: Extension Definitions", RFC 6066, DOI 10.17487/RFC6066, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6066>.
- [RFC6234]
- Eastlake 3rd, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms (SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234, DOI 10.17487/RFC6234, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6234>.
- [RFC6960]
- Santesson, S., Myers, M., Ankney, R., Malpani, A., Galperin, S., and C. Adams, "X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online Certificate Status Protocol - OCSP", RFC 6960, DOI 10.17487/RFC6960, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6960>.
- [RFC6979]
- Pornin, T., "Deterministic Usage of the Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA) and Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA)", RFC 6979, DOI 10.17487/RFC6979, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6979>.
- [RFC7231]
- Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231, DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
- [RFC7633]
- Hallam-Baker, P., "X.509v3 Transport Layer Security (TLS) Feature Extension", RFC 7633, DOI 10.17487/RFC7633, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7633>.
- [RFC7807]
- Nottingham, M. and E. Wilde, "Problem Details for HTTP APIs", RFC 7807, DOI 10.17487/RFC7807, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7807>.
- [RFC8032]
- Josefsson, S. and I. Liusvaara, "Edwards-Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)", RFC 8032, DOI 10.17487/RFC8032, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8032>.
- [RFC8174]
- Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
- [RFC8259]
- Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.
- [RFC8391]
- Huelsing, A., Butin, D., Gazdag, S., Rijneveld, J., and A. Mohaisen, "XMSS: eXtended Merkle Signature Scheme", RFC 8391, DOI 10.17487/RFC8391, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8391>.
- [RFC8446]
- Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
- [UNIXTIME]
- IEEE, "The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 7", Section 4.16 Seconds Since the Epoch, IEEE Std 1003.1-2008, , <http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2016edition/basedefs/V1_chap04.html#tag_04_16>.
- [X690]
- ITU-T, "Information technology - ASN.1 encoding rules: Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER)", ITU-T Recommendation X.690, ISO/IEC 8825-1, .
12.2. Informative References
- [CABBR]
- CA/Browser Forum, "Baseline Requirements for the Issuance and Management of Publicly-Trusted Certificates", Version 1.7.3, , <https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CA-Browser-Forum-BR-1.7.3.pdf>.
- [Chromium.Log.Policy]
- The Chromium Projects, "Chromium Certificate Transparency Log Policy", <https://googlechrome.github.io/CertificateTransparency/log_policy.html>.
- [Chromium.Policy]
- The Chromium Projects, "Chromium Certificate Transparency Policy", <https://googlechrome.github.io/CertificateTransparency/ct_policy.html>.
- [CrosbyWallach]
- Crosby, S. and D. Wallach, "Efficient Data Structures for Tamper-Evident Logging", Proceedings of the 18th USENIX Security Symposium, Montreal, , <http://static.usenix.org/event/sec09/tech/full_papers/crosby.pdf>.
- [JSON.Metadata]
- The Chromium Projects, "Chromium Log Metadata JSON Schema", <https://www.gstatic.com/ct/log_list/log_list_schema.json>.
- [RFC5912]
- Hoffman, P. and J. Schaad, "New ASN.1 Modules for the Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX)", RFC 5912, DOI 10.17487/RFC5912, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5912>.
- [RFC6268]
- Schaad, J. and S. Turner, "Additional New ASN.1 Modules for the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) and the Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX)", RFC 6268, DOI 10.17487/RFC6268, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6268>.
- [RFC6962]
- Laurie, B., Langley, A., and E. Kasper, "Certificate Transparency", RFC 6962, DOI 10.17487/RFC6962, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6962>.
- [RFC8126]
- Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
- [RFC8820]
- Nottingham, M., "URI Design and Ownership", BCP 190, RFC 8820, DOI 10.17487/RFC8820, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8820>.
- [X.680]
- ITU-T, "Information technology - Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1): Specification of basic notation", ITU-T Recommendation X.680, .
Appendix A. Supporting v1 and v2 Simultaneously (Informative)
Certificate Transparency logs have to be either v1 (conforming to [RFC6962]) or v2 (conforming to this document), as the data structures are incompatible, and so a v2 log could not issue a valid v1 SCT.¶
CT clients, however, can support v1 and v2 SCTs for the same certificate simultaneously, as v1 SCTs are delivered in different TLS, X.509, and OCSP extensions than v2 SCTs.¶
v1 and v2 SCTs for X.509 certificates can be validated independently. For precertificates, v2 SCTs should be embedded in the TBSCertificate before submission of the TBSCertificate (inside a v1 precertificate, as described in Section 3.1 of [RFC6962]) to a v1 log so that TLS clients conforming to [RFC6962] but not this document are oblivious to the embedded v2 SCTs. An issuer can follow these steps to produce an X.509 certificate with embedded v1 and v2 SCTs:¶
- Create a CMS precertificate, as described in Section 3.2, and submit it to v2 logs.¶
- Embed the obtained v2 SCTs in the TBSCertificate, as described in Section 7.1.2.¶
- Use that TBSCertificate to create a v1 precertificate, as described in Section 3.1 of [RFC6962], and submit it to v1 logs.¶
- Embed the v1 SCTs in the TBSCertificate, as described in Section 3.3 of [RFC6962].¶
- Sign that TBSCertificate (which now contains v1 and v2 SCTs) to issue the final X.509 certificate.¶
Appendix B. An ASN.1 Module (Informative)
The following ASN.1 [X.680] module may be useful to implementors. This module references [RFC5912] and [RFC6268].¶
CertificateTransparencyV2Module-2021 -- { id-mod-public-notary-v2 from above, in iso(1) identified-organization(3) ... form } DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::= BEGIN -- EXPORTS ALL -- IMPORTS EXTENSION FROM PKIX-CommonTypes-2009 -- RFC 5912 { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0) id-mod-pkixCommon-02(57) } CONTENT-TYPE FROM CryptographicMessageSyntax-2010 -- RFC 6268 { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) modules(0) id-mod-cms-2009(58) } TBSCertificate FROM PKIX1Explicit-2009 -- RFC 5912 { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0) id-mod-pkix1-explicit-02(51) } ; -- -- Section 3.2. Precertificates -- ct-tbsCertificate CONTENT-TYPE ::= { TYPE TBSCertificate IDENTIFIED BY id-ct-tbsCertificate } id-ct-tbsCertificate OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { 1 3 101 78 } -- -- Section 7.1. Transparency Information X.509v3 Extension -- ext-transparencyInfo EXTENSION ::= { SYNTAX TransparencyInformationSyntax IDENTIFIED BY id-ce-transparencyInfo CRITICALITY { FALSE } } id-ce-transparencyInfo OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { 1 3 101 75 } TransparencyInformationSyntax ::= OCTET STRING -- -- Section 7.1.1. OCSP Response Extension -- ext-ocsp-transparencyInfo EXTENSION ::= { SYNTAX TransparencyInformationSyntax IDENTIFIED BY id-pkix-ocsp-transparencyInfo CRITICALITY { FALSE } } id-pkix-ocsp-transparencyInfo OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= id-ce-transparencyInfo -- -- Section 8.1.2. Reconstructing the TBSCertificate -- ext-embeddedSCT-CTv1 EXTENSION ::= { SYNTAX SignedCertificateTimestampList IDENTIFIED BY id-ce-embeddedSCT-CTv1 CRITICALITY { FALSE } } id-ce-embeddedSCT-CTv1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { 1 3 6 1 4 1 11129 2 4 2 } SignedCertificateTimestampList ::= OCTET STRING END¶
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Erwann Abelea, Robin Alden, Andrew Ayer, Richard Barnes, Al Cutter, David Drysdale, Francis Dupont, Adam Eijdenberg, Stephen Farrell, Daniel Kahn Gillmor, Paul Hadfield, Brad Hill, Jeff Hodges, Paul Hoffman, Jeffrey Hutzelman, Kat Joyce, Emilia Kasper, Stephen Kent, Adam Langley, SM, Alexey Melnikov, Linus Nordberg, Chris Palmer, Trevor Perrin, Pierre Phaneuf, Eric Rescorla, Rich Salz, Melinda Shore, Ryan Sleevi, Martin Smith, Carl Wallace, and Paul Wouters for their valuable contributions.¶
A big thank you to Symantec for kindly donating the OIDs from the 1.3.101 arc that are used in this document.¶