Certificate Management Messages over CMS
RFC 2797
| Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(April 2000; Errata)
Obsoleted by RFC 5272
Was draft-ietf-pkix-cmc (pkix WG)
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Xiaoyi Liu , Jim Schaad , Michael Myers , Jeff Weinstein | ||
| Last updated | 2020-01-21 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized with errata bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 2797 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
Network Working Group M. Myers
Request for Comments: 2797 VeriSign
Category: Standards Track X. Liu
Cisco
J. Schaad
Microsoft
J. Weinstein
April 2000
Certificate Management Messages over CMS
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document defines a Certificate Management protocol using CMS
(CMC). This protocol addresses two immediate needs within the
Internet PKI community:
1. The need for an interface to public key certification products and
services based on [CMS] and [PKCS10], and
2. The need in [SMIMEV3] for a certificate enrollment protocol for
DSA-signed certificates with Diffie-Hellman public keys.
A small number of additional services are defined to supplement the
core certificate request service.
Throughout this specification the term CMS is used to refer to both
[CMS] and [PKCS7]. For both signedData and envelopedData, CMS is a
superset of the PKCS7. In general, the use of PKCS7 in this document
is aligned to the Cryptographic Message Syntax [CMS] that provides a
superset of the PKCS7 syntax. The term CMC refers to this
specification.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119].
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
1. Protocol Requirements
- The protocol is to be based as much as possible on the existing
CMS, PKCS#10 and CRMF specifications.
- The protocol must support the current industry practice of a
PKCS#10 request followed by a PKCS#7 response as a subset of the
protocol.
- The protocol needs to easily support the multi-key enrollment
protocols required by S/MIME and other groups.
- The protocol must supply a way of doing all operations in a
single-round trip. When this is not possible the number of round
trips is to be minimized.
- The protocol will be designed such that all key generation can
occur on the client.
- The mandatory algorithms must superset the required algorithms for
S/MIME.
- The protocol will contain POP methods. Optional provisions for
multiple-round trip POP will be made if necessary.
- The protocol will support deferred and pending responses to
certificate request for cases where external procedures are
required to issue a certificate.
- The protocol needs to support arbitrary chains of local
registration authorities as intermediaries between certificate
requesters and issuers.
2. Protocol Overview
An enrollment transaction in this specification is generally composed
of a single round trip of messages. In the simplest case an
enrollment request is sent from the client to the server and an
enrollment response is then returned from the server to the client.
In some more complicated cases, such as delayed certificate issuance
and polling for responses, more than one round trip is required.
This specification supports two different request messages and two
different response messages.
Public key certification requests can be based on either the PKCS10
or CRMF object. The two different request messages are (a) the bare
PKCS10 (in the event that no other services are needed), and (b) the
PKCS10 or CRMF message wrapped in a CMS encapsulation as part of a
PKIData object.
Public key certification responses are based on the CMS signedData
object. The response may be either (a) a degenerate CMS signedData
object (in the event no other services are needed), or (b) a
ResponseBody object wrapped in a CMS signedData object.
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
No special services are provided for doing either renewal (new
certificates with the same key) or re-keying (new certificates on new
keys) of clients. Instead a renewal/re-key message looks the same as
any enrollment message, with the identity proof being supplied by
existing certificates from the CA.
A provision exists for Local Registration Authorities (LRAs) to
participate in the protocol by taking client enrollment messages,
wrapping them in a second layer of enrollment message with additional
requirements or statements from the LRA and then passing this new
expanded request on to the Certification Authority.
This specification makes no assumptions about the underlying
transport mechanism. The use of CMS is not meant to imply an email-
based transport.
Optional services available through this specification are
transaction management, replay detection (through nonces), deferred
certificate issuance, certificate revocation requests and
certificate/CRL retrieval.
2.1 Terminology
There are several different terms, abbreviations and acronyms used in
this document that we define here for convenience and consistency of
usage:
"End-Entity" (EE) refers to the entity that owns a key pair and for
whom a certificate is issued.
"LRA" or "RA" refers to a (Local) Registration Authority. A
registration authority acts as an intermediary between an End-
Entity and a Certification Authority. Multiple RAs can exist
between the End-Entity and the Certification Authority.
"CA" refers to a Certification Authority. A Certification Authority
is the entity that performs the actual issuance of a certificate.
"Client" refers to an entity that creates a PKI request. In this
document both RAs and End-Entities can be clients.
"Server" refers to the entities that process PKI requests and create
PKI responses. CAs and RAs can be servers in this document.
"PKCS#10" refers the Public Key Cryptography Standard #10. This is
one of a set of standards defined by RSA Laboratories in the
1980s. PKCS#10 defines a Certificate Request Message syntax.
"CRMF" refers to the Certificate Request Message Format RFC [CRMF].
We are using certificate request message format defined in this
document as part of our management protocol.
"CMS" refers to the Cryptographic Message Syntax RFC [CMS]. This
document provides for basic cryptographic services including
encryption and signing with and without key management.
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
"POP" is an acronym for "Proof of Possession". POP refers to a value
that can be used to prove that the private key corresponding to a
public key is in the possession and can be used by an end-entity.
"Transport wrapper" refers to the outermost CMS wrapping layer.
2.2 Protocol Flow Charts
Figure 1 shows the Simple Enrollment Request and Response messages.
The contents of these messages are detailed in Sections 4.1 and 4.3
below.
Simple PKI Request Simple PKI Response
------------------------- --------------------------
+----------+ +------------------+
| PKCS #10 | | CMS "certs-only" |
+----------+--------------+ | message |
| | +------------------+------+
| Certificate Request | | |
| | | CMS Signed Data, |
| Subject Name | | no signerInfo |
| Subject Public Key Info | | |
| (K_PUB) | | signedData contains one |
| Attributes | | or more certificates in |
| | | the "certificates" |
+-----------+-------------+ | portion of the |
| signed with | | signedData. |
| matching | | |
| K_PRIV | | encapsulatedContentInfo |
+-------------+ | is empty. |
| |
+--------------+----------+
| unsigned |
+----------+
Figure 1: Simple PKI Request and Response Messages
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
Full PKI Request Full PKI Response
----------------------- ------------------------
+----------------+ +----------------+
| CMS signedData | | CMS signedData |
| object | | object |
+----------------+--------+ +----------------+--------+
| | | |
| PKIData object | | ResponseBody object |
| | | |
| Sequence of: | | Sequence of: |
| <enrollment attribute>* | | <enrollment attribute>* |
| <certification request>*| | <CMS object>* |
| <CMS objects>* | | <other message>* |
| <other message>* | | |
| | | where * == zero or more |
| where * == zero or more | | |
| | | All certificates issued |
| Certificate requests | | as part of the response |
| are CRMF or PKCS#10 | | are included in the |
| objects. Attributes are | | "certificates" portion |
| (OID, ANY defined by | | of the signedData. |
| OID) pairs. | | Relevant CA certs and |
| | | CRLs can be included as |
+-------+-----------------+ | well. |
| signed (keypair | | |
| used may be pre-| +---------+---------------+
| existing or | | signed by the |
| identified in | | CA or an LRA |
| the request) | +---------------+
+-----------------+
Figure 2: Full PKI Request and Response Messages
Figure 2 shows the Full Enrollment Request and Response messages.
The contents of these messages are detailed in Sections 4.2 and 4.4
below.
3. Protocol Elements
This section covers each of the different elements that may be used
to construct enrollment request and enrollment response messages.
Section 4 will cover how to build the enrollment request and response
messages.
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
3.1 PKIData Object
The new content object PKIData has been defined for this protocol.
This new object is used as the body of the full PKI request message.
The new body is identified by:
id-cct-PKIData OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-cct 2 }
The ASN.1 structure corresponding to this new content type is:
PKIData ::= SEQUENCE {
controlSequence SEQUENCE SIZE(0..MAX) OF TaggedAttribute,
reqSequence SEQUENCE SIZE(0..MAX) OF TaggedRequest,
cmsSequence SEQUENCE SIZE(0..MAX) OF TaggedContentInfo,
otherMsgSequence SEQUENCE SIZE(0..MAX) OF OtherMsg
}
-- controlSequence consists of a sequence of control attributes. The
control attributes defined in this document are found in section 5.
As control sequences are defined by OIDs, other parties can define
additional control attributes. Unrecognized OIDs MUST result in no
part of the request being successfully processed.
-- reqSequence consists of a sequence of certificate requests. The
certificate requests can be either a CertificateRequest (PKCS10
request) or a CertReqMsg. Details on each of these request types are
found in sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 respectively.
-- cmsSequence consists of a sequence of [CMS] message objects. This
protocol only uses EnvelopedData, SignedData and EncryptedData. See
section 3.6 for more details.
-- otherMsgSequence allows for other arbitrary data items to be
placed into the enrollment protocol. The {OID, any} pair of values
allows for arbitrary definition of material. Data objects are placed
here while control objects are placed in the controlSequence field.
See section 3.7 for more details.
3.2 ResponseBody Object
The new content object ResponseBody has been defined for this
protocol. This new object is used as the body of the full PKI
response message. The new body is identified by:
id-cct-PKIResponse OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-cct 3 }
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
The ASN.1 structure corresponding to this body content type is:
ResponseBody ::= SEQUENCE {
controlSequence SEQUENCE SIZE(0..MAX) OF TaggedAttribute,
cmsSequence SEQUENCE SIZE(0..MAX) OF TaggedContentInfo,
otherMsgSequence SEQUENCE SIZE(0..MAX) OF OtherMsg
}
-- controlSequence consists of a sequence of control attributes. The
control attributes defined in this document are found in section 3.5.
Other parties can define additional control attributes.
-- cmsSequence consists of a sequence of [CMS] message objects. This
protocol only uses EnvelopedData, SignedData and EncryptedData. See
section 3.6 for more details.
-- otherMsgSequence allows for other arbitrary items to be placed
into the enrollment protocol. The {OID, any} pair of values allows
for arbitrary definition of material. Data objects are placed here
while control objects are placed in the controlSequence field. See
section 3.7 for more details.
3.3 Certification Requests (PKCS10/CRMF)
Certification Requests are based on either PKCS10 or CRMF messages.
Section 3.3.1 specifies mandatory and optional requirements for
clients and servers dealing with PKCS10 request messages. Section
3.3.2 specifies mandatory and optional requirements for clients and
servers dealing with CRMF request messages.
3.3.1 PKCS10 Request Body
Servers MUST be able to understand and process PKCS10 request bodies.
Clients MUST produce a PKCS10 request body when using the Simple
Enrollment Request message. Clients MAY produce a PKCS10 request body
when using the Full Enrollment Request message.
When producing a PKCS10 request body, clients MUST produce a PKCS10
message body containing a subject name and public key. Some
certification products are operated using a central repository of
information to assign subject names upon receipt of a public key for
certification. To accommodate this mode of operation, the subject
name in a CertificationRequest MAY be NULL, but MUST be present. CAs
that receive a CertificationRequest with a NULL subject name MAY
reject such requests. If rejected and a response is returned, the CA
MUST respond with the failInfo attribute of badRequest.
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
The client MAY incorporate one or more standard X.509 v3 extensions
in any PKCS10 request as an ExtensionReq attribute. An ExtensionReq
attribute is defined as
ExtensionReq ::= SEQUENCE OF Extension
where Extension is imported from [PKIXCERT] and ExtensionReq is
identified by {pkcs-9 14}.
Servers MUST be able to process all extensions defined in [PKIXCERT].
Servers are not required to be able to process other V3 X.509
extensions transmitted using this protocol, nor are they required to
be able to process other, private extensions. Servers are not
required to put all client-requested extensions into a certificate.
Servers are permitted to modify client-requested extensions. Servers
MUST NOT alter an extension so as to invalidate the original intent
of a client-requested extension. (For example changing key usage
from key exchange to signing.) If a certification request is denied
due to the inability to handle a requested extension and a response
is returned, the server MUST respond with the failInfo attribute of
unsupportedExt.
3.3.2 CRMF Request Body
Servers MUST be able to understand and process CRMF request body.
Clients MAY produce a CRMF message body when using the Full
Enrollment Request message.
This memo imposes the following additional changes on the
construction and processing of CRMF messages:
- When CRMF message bodies are used in the Full Enrollment Request
message, each CRMF message MUST include both the subject and
publicKey fields in the CertTemplate. As in the case of PKCS10
requests, the subject may be encoded as NULL, but MUST be present.
- In general, when both CRMF and CMC controls exist with equivalent
functionality, the CMC control SHOULD be used. The CMC control
MUST override any CRMF control.
- The regInfo field MUST NOT be used on a CRMF message. Equivalent
functionality is provided in the regInfo control attribute
(section 5.12).
- The indirect method of proving POP is not supported in this
protocol. One of the other methods (including the direct method
described in this document) MUST be used instead if POP is
desired. The value of encrCert in SubsequentMessage MUST NOT be
used.
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
- Since the subject and publicKeyValues are always present, the
POPOSigningKeyInput MUST NOT be used when computing the value for
POPSigningKey.
A server is not required to use all of the values suggested by the
client in the certificate template. Servers MUST be able to process
all extensions defined in [PXIXCERT]. Servers are not required to be
able to process other V3 X.509 extension transmitted using this
protocol, nor are they required to be able to process other, private
extensions. Servers are permitted to modify client-requested
extensions. Servers MUST NOT alter an extension so as to invalidate
the original intent of a client-requested extension. (For example
change key usage from key exchange to signing.) If a certificate
request is denied due to the inability to handle a requested
extension, the server MUST respond with a failInfo attribute of
unsupportedExt.
3.3.3 Production of Diffie-Hellman Public Key Certification Requests
Part of a certification request is a signature over the request;
Diffie-Hellman is a key agreement algorithm and cannot be used to
directly produce the required signature object. [DH-POP] provides
two ways to produce the necessary signature value. This document
also defines a signature algorithm that does not provide a POP value,
but can be used to produce the necessary signature value.
3.3.3.1 No-Signature Signature Mechanism
Key management (encryption/decryption) private keys cannot always be
used to produce some type of signature value as they can be in a
decrypt only device. Certification requests require that the
signature field be populated. This section provides a signature
algorithm specifically for that purposes. The following object
identifier and signature value are used to identify this signature
type:
id-alg-noSignature OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-pkix id-alg(6) 2}
NoSignatureValue ::= OCTET STRING
The parameters for id-alg-noSignature MUST be present and MUST be
encoded as NULL. NoSignatureValue contains the hash of the
certification request. It is important to realize that there is no
security associated with this signature type. If this signature type
is on a certification request and the Certification Authority policy
requires proof-of-possession of the private key, the POP mechanism
defined in section 5.7 MUST be used.
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
3.3.3.2 Diffie-Hellman POP Signature
CMC compliant implementations MUST support section 5 of [DH-POP].
3.3.3.3 Diffie-Hellman MAC signature
CMC compliant implementations MAY support section 4 of [DH-POP].
3.4 Body Part Identifiers
Each element of a PKIData or PKIResponse message has an associated
body part identifier. The Body Part Identifier is a 4-octet integer
encoded in the certReqIds field for CertReqMsg objects (in a
TaggedRequest) or in the bodyPartId field of the other objects. The
Body Part Identifier MUST be unique within a single PKIData or
PKIResponse object. Body Part Identifiers can be duplicated in
different layers (for example a CMC message embedded within another).
The Body Part Id of zero is reserved to designate the current PKIData
object. This value is used in control attributes such as the Add
Extensions Control in the pkiDataReference field to refer to a
request in the current PKIData object.
Some control attribute, such as the CMC Status Info attribute, will
also use Body Part Identifiers to refer to elements in the previous
message. This allows an error to be explicit about the attribute or
request to which the error applies.
3.5 Control Attributes
The overall control flow of how a message is processed in this
document is based on the control attributes. Each control attribute
consists of an object identifier and a value based on the object
identifier.
Servers MUST fail the processing of an entire PKIData message if any
included control attribute is not recognized. The response MUST be
the error badRequest and bodyList MUST contain the bodyPartID of the
invalid or unrecognized control attribute.
The syntax of a control attribute is
TaggedAttribute ::= SEQUENCE {
bodyPartID BodyPartId,
attrType OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
attrValues SET OF AttributeValue
}
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
-- bodyPartId is a unique integer that is used to reference this
control attribute. The id of 0 is reserved for use as the
reference to the current PKIData object.
-- attrType is the OID defining the associated data in attrValues
-- attrValues contains the set of data values used in processing
the control attribute.
The set of control attributes that are defined by this memo are found
in section 5.
3.6 Content Info objects
The cmsSequence field of the PKIRequest and PKIResponse messages
contains zero or more tagged content info objects. The syntax for
this structure is
TaggedContentInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
bodyPartID BodyPartId,
contentInfo ContentInfo
}
-- bodyPartId is a unique integer that is used to reference this
content info object. The id of 0 is reserved for use as the
reference to the current PKIData object.
-- contentInfo contains a ContentInfo object (defined in [CMS]).
The three contents used in this location are SignedData,
EnvelopedData and Data.
EnvelopedData provides for shrouding of data. Data allows for
general transport of unstructured data.
The SignedData object from [CMS] is also used in this specification
to provide for authentication as well as serving as the general
transport wrapper of requests and responses.
3.6.1 Signed Data
The signedData object is used in two different locations when
constructing enrollment messages. The signedData object is used as a
wrapper for a PKIData as part of the enrollment request message. The
signedData object is also used as the outer part of an enrollment
response message.
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
For the enrollment response the signedData wrapper allows the server
to sign the returning data, if any exists, and to carry the
certificates and CRLs for the enrollment request. If no data is
being returned beyond the certificates, no signerInfo objects are
placed in the signedData object.
3.6.2 Enveloped Data
EnvelopedData is the primary method of providing confidentiality for
sensitive information in this protocol. The protocol currently uses
EnvelopedData to provide encryption of an entire request (see section
4.5). The envelopedData object would also be used to wrap private
key material for key archival.
Servers MUST implement envelopedData according to [CMS]. There is an
ambiguity (about encrypting content types other than id-data) in the
PKCS7 specification that has lead to non-interoperability.
3.7 Other Message Bodies
The other message body portion of the message allows for arbitrary
data objects to be carried as part of a message. This is intended to
contain data that is not already wrapped in a CMS contentInfo object.
The data is ignored unless a control attribute references the data by
bodyPartId.
OtherMsg ::= SEQUENCE {
bodyPartID BodyPartID,
otherMsgType OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
otherMsgValue ANY DEFINED BY otherMsgType }
-- bodyPartID contains the unique id of this object
-- otherMsgType contains the OID defining both the usage of this body
part and the syntax of the value associated with this body part
-- otherMsgValue contains the data associated with the message body
part.
4. PKI Messages
This section discusses the details of putting together the different
enrollment request and response messages.
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
4.1 Simple Enrollment Request
The simplest form of an enrollment request is a plain PKCS10 message.
If this form of enrollment request is used for a private key that is
capable of generating a signature, the PKCS10 MUST be signed with
that private key. If this form of the enrollment request is used for
a D-H key, then the D-H POP mechanism described in [DH-POP] MUST be
used.
Servers MUST support the Simple Enrollment Request message. If the
Simple Enrollment Request message is used, servers MUST return the
Simple Enrollment Response message (see Section 4.3) if the
enrollment request is granted. If the enrollment request fails, the
Full Enrollment Response MAY be returned or no response MAY be
returned.
Many advanced services specified in this memo are not supported by
the Simple Enrollment Request message.
4.2 Full PKI Request
The Full Enrollment Request provides the most functionality and
flexibility. Clients SHOULD use the Full Enrollment Request message
when enrolling. Servers MUST support the Full Enrollment Request
message. An enrollment response (full or simple as appropriate) MUST
be returned to all Full Enrollment Requests.
The Full Enrollment Request message consists of a PKIData object
wrapped in a signedData CMS object. The objects in the PKIData are
ordered as follows:
1. All Control Attributes,
2. All certification requests,
3. All CMS objects,
4. All other messages.
Each element in a Full Enrollment Request is identified by a Body
Part Identifier. If duplicate ids are found, the server MUST return
the error badRequest with a bodyPartID of 0.
The signedData object wrapping the PKIData may be signed either by
the private key material of the signature certification request, or
by a previously certified signature key. If the private key of a
signature certification request is being used, then:
a) the certification request containing the corresponding public key
MUST include a Subject Key Identifier extension request,
b) the subjectKeyIdentifier form of signerInfo MUST be used, and
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
c) the value of the subjectKeyIdentifier form of signerInfo MUST be
the Subject Key Identifier specified in the corresponding
certification request.
(The subjectKeyIdentifier form of signerInfo is used here because no
certificates have yet been issued for the signing key.) If the
request key is used for signing, there MUST be only one signerInfo
object in the signedData object.
When creating a message to renew a certificate, the following should
be taken into consideration:
1. The identification and identityProof control statements are not
required. The same information is provided by the use of an
existing certificate from the CA when signing the enrollment
message.
2. CAs and LRAs may impose additional restrictions on the signing
certificate used. They may require that the most recently issued
signing certificate for an entity be used.
3. A renewal message may occur either by creating a new set of keys,
or by re-using an existing set of keys. Some CAs may prevent re-
use of keys by policy. In this case the CA MUST return NOKEYREUSE
as the failure code.
4.3 Simple Enrollment Response
Servers SHOULD use the simple enrollment response message whenever
possible. Clients MUST be able to process the simple enrollment
response message. The simple enrollment response message consists of
a signedData object with no signerInfo objects on it. The
certificates requested are returned in the certificate bag of the
signedData object.
Clients MUST NOT assume the certificates are in any order. Servers
SHOULD include all intermediate certificates needed to form complete
chains to one or more self-signed certificates, not just the newly
issued certificate(s). The server MAY additionally return CRLs in the
CRL bag. Servers MAY include the self-signed certificates. Clients
MUST NOT implicitly trust included self-signed certificate(s) merely
due to its presence in the certificate bag. In the event clients
receive a new self-signed certificate from the server, clients SHOULD
provide a mechanism to enable the user to explicitly trust the
certificate.
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
4.4 Full PKI Response
Servers MUST return full PKI response messages if a) a full PKI
request message failed or b) additional services other than returning
certificates are required. Servers MAY return full PKI responses
with failure information for simple PKI requests. Following section
4.3 above, servers returning only certificates and a success status
to the client SHOULD use the simple PKI response message.
Clients MUST be able to process a full PKI response message.
The full enrollment response message consists of a signedData object
encapsulating a responseBody object. In a responseBody object all
Control Attributes MUST precede all CMS objects. The certificates
granted in an enrollment response are returned in the certificates
field of the immediately encapsulating signedData object.
Clients MUST NOT assume the certificates are in any order. Servers
SHOULD include all intermediate certificates needed to form complete
chains one ore more self-signed certificates, not just the newly
issued certificate(s). The server MAY additionally return CRLs in the
CRL bag. Servers MAY include the self-signed certificates. Clients
MUST NOT implicitly trust included self-signed certificate(s) merely
due to its presence in the certificate bag. In the event clients
receive a new self-signed certificate from the server, clients SHOULD
provide a mechanism to enable the user to explicitly trust the
certificate.
4.5 Application of Encryption to a PKI Message
There are occasions where a PKI request or response message must be
encrypted in order to prevent any information about the enrollment
from being accessible to unauthorized entities. This section
describes the means used to encrypt a PKI message. This section is
not applicable to a simple enrollment message.
Confidentiality is provided by wrapping the PKI message (a signedData
object) in a CMS EnvelopedData object. The nested content type in
the EnvelopedData is id-signedData. Note that this is different from
S/MIME where there is a MIME layer placed between the encrypted and
signed data objects. It is recommended that if an enveloped data
layer is applied to a PKI message, a second signing layer be placed
outside of the enveloped data layer. The following figure shows how
this nesting would be done:
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
Normal Option 1 Option 2
------ -------- --------
SignedData EnvelopedData SignedData
PKIData SignedData EnvelopedData
PKIData SignedData
PKIData
Options 1 and 2 provide the benefit of preventing leakage of
sensitive data by encrypting the information. LRAs can remove the
enveloped data wrapping, and replace or forward without further
processing. Section 6 contains more information about LRA processing.
PKI Messages MAY be encrypted or transmitted in the clear. Servers
MUST provided support for all three versions.
Alternatively, an authenticated, secure channel could exist between
the parties requiring encryption. Clients and servers MAY use such
channels instead of the technique described above to provide secure,
private communication of PKI request and response messages.
5. Control Attributes
Control attributes are carried as part of both PKI requests and
responses. Each control attribute is encoded as a unique Object
Identifier followed by that data for the control attribute. The
encoding of the data is based on the control attribute object
identifier. Processing systems would first detect the OID and
process the corresponding attribute value prior to processing the
message body.
The following table lists the names, OID and syntactic structure for
each of the control attributes documented in this memo.
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
Control Attribute OID Syntax
----------------- ---------- --------------
cMCStatusInfo id-cmc 1 CMCStatusInfo
identification id-cmc 2 UTF8String
identityProof id-cmc 3 OCTET STRING
dataReturn id-cmc 4 OCTET STRING
transactionId id-cmc 5 INTEGER
senderNonce id-cmc 6 OCTET STRING
recipientNonce id-cmc 7 OCTET STRING
addExtensions id-cmc 8 AddExtensions
encryptedPOP id-cmc 9 EncryptedPOP
decryptedPOP id-cmc 10 DecryptedPOP
lraPOPWitness id-cmc 11 LraPOPWitness
getCert id-cmc 15 GetCert
getCRL id-cmc 16 GetCRL
revokeRequest id-cmc 17 RevokeRequest
regInfo id-cmc 18 OCTET STRING
responseInfo id-cmc 19 OCTET STRING
QueryPending id-cmc 21 OCTET STRING
idPOPLinkRandom id-cmc 22 OCTET STRING
idPOPLinkWitness id-cmc 23 OCTET STRING
idConfirmCertAcceptance id-cmc 24 CMCCertId
5.1 CMC Status Info Control Attribute
The CMC status info control is used in full PKI Response messages to
return information on a client request. Servers MAY emit multiple
CMC status info controls referring to a single body part. Clients
MUST be able to deal with multiple CMC status info controls in a
response message. This statement uses the following ASN.1 definition:
CMCStatusInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
cMCStatus CMCStatus,
bodyList SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF BodyPartID,
statusString UTF8String OPTIONAL,
otherInfo CHOICE {
failInfo CMCFailInfo,
pendInfo PendInfo } OPTIONAL
}
PendInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
pendToken OCTET STRING,
pendTime GeneralizedTime
}
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
-- cMCStatus is described in section 5.1.1
-- bodyList contains the list of body parts in the request message
to which this status information applies. If an error is being
returned for a simple enrollment message, body list will contain a
single integer of value '1'.
-- statusString contains a string with additional description
information. This string is human readable.
-- failInfo is described in section 5.1.2. It provides a detailed
error on what the failure was. This choice is present only if
cMCStatus is failed.
-- pendToken is the token to be used in the queryPending control
attribute.
-- pendTime contains the suggested time the server wants to be
queried about the status of the request.
If the cMCStatus field is success, the CMC Status Info Control MAY be
omitted unless it is only item in the response message. If no status
exists for a certificate request or other item requiring processing,
then the value of success is to be assumed.
5.1.1 CMCStatus values
CMCStatus is a field in the CMCStatusInfo structure. This field
contains a code representing the success or failure of a specific
operation. CMCStatus has the ASN.1 structure of:
CMCStatus ::= INTEGER {
success (0),
-- request was granted
-- reserved (1),
-- not used, defined where the original structure was defined
failed (2),
-- you don't get what you want, more information elsewhere in
the message
pending (3),
-- the request body part has not yet been processed,
-- requester is responsible to poll back on this
-- pending may only be return for certificate request
operations.
noSupport (4),
-- the requested operation is not supported
confirmRequired (5)
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
-- conformation using the idConfirmCertAcceptance control is
required
-- before use of certificate
}
5.1.2 CMCFailInfo
CMCFailInfo conveys information relevant to the interpretation of a
failure condition. The CMCFailInfo has the following ASN.1 structure:
CMCFailInfo ::= INTEGER {
badAlg (0)
-- Unrecognized or unsupported algorithm
badMessageCheck (1)
-- integrity check failed
badRequest (2)
-- transaction not permitted or supported
badTime (3)
-- Message time field was not sufficiently close to the system
time
badCertId (4)
-- No certificate could be identified matching the provided
criteria
unsuportedExt (5)
-- A requested X.509 extension is not supported by the
recipient CA.
mustArchiveKeys (6)
-- Private key material must be supplied
badIdentity (7)
-- Identification Attribute failed to verify
popRequired (8)
-- Server requires a POP proof before issuing certificate
popFailed (9)
-- POP processing failed
noKeyReuse (10)
-- Server policy does not allow key re-use
internalCAError (11)
tryLater (12)
}
Additional failure reasons MAY be defined for closed environments
with a need.
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
5.2 Identification and IdentityProof Control Attributes
Some CAs and LRAs require that a proof of identity be included in a
certification request. Many different ways of doing this exist with
different degrees of security and reliability. Most people are
familiar with the request of a bank to provide your mother's maiden
name as a form of identity proof.
CMC provides one method of proving the client's identity based on a
shared secret between the certificate requestor and the verifying
authority. If clients support full request messages, clients MUST
implement this method of identity proof. Servers MUST provide this
method and MAY also have a bilateral method of similar strength
available.
The CMC method starts with an out-of-band transfer of a token (the
shared secret). The distribution of this token is beyond the scope
of this document. The client then uses this token for an identity
proof as follows:
1. The reqSequence field of the PKIData object (encoded exactly as it
appears in the request message including the sequence type and
length) is the value to be validated.
2. A SHA1 hash of the token is computed.
3. An HMAC-SHA1 value is then computed over the value produced in
Step 1, as described in [HMAC], using the hash of the token from
Step 2 as the shared secret value.
4. The 160-bit HMAC-SHA1 result from Step 3 is then encoded as the
value of the identityProof attribute.
When the server verifies the identityProof attribute, it computes the
HMAC-SHA1 value in the same way and compares it to the identityProof
attribute contained in the enrollment request.
If a server fails the verification of an identityProof attribute and
the server returns a response message, the failInfo attribute MUST be
present in the response and MUST have a value of badIdentity.
Optionally, servers MAY require the inclusion of the unprotected
identification attribute with an identification attribute. The
identification attribute is intended to contain either a text string
or a numeric quantity, such as a random number, which assists the
server in locating the shared secret needed to validate the contents
of the identityProof attribute. Numeric values MUST be converted to
text string representations prior to encoding as UTF8-STRINGs in this
attribute. If the identification control attribute is included in
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
the message, the derivation of the shared secret in step 2 is altered
so that the hash of the concatenation of the token and the identity
value are hashed rather than just the token.
5.2.1 Hardware Shared Secret Token Generation
The shared secret between the end-entity and the identity verify is
sometimes transferred using a hardware device that generates a series
of tokens based on some shared secret value. The user can therefore
prove their identity by transferring this token in plain text along
with a name string. The above protocol can be used with a hardware
shared-secret token generation device by the following modifications:
1. The identification attribute MUST be included and MUST contain the
hardware-generated token.
2. The shared secret value used above is the same hardware-generated
token.
3. All certification requests MUST have a subject name and the
subject name MUST contain the fields required to identify the
holder of the hardware token device.
5.3 Linking Identity and POP Information
In a PKI Full Request message identity information about the
creator/author of the message is carried in the signature of the CMS
SignedData object containing all of the certificate requests.
Proof-of-possession information for key pairs requesting
certification, however, is carried separately for each PKCS#10 or
CRMF message. (For keys capable of generating a digital signature,
the POP is provided by the signature on the PKCS#10 or CRMF request.
For encryption-only keys the controls described in Section 5.7 below
are used.) In order to prevent substitution-style attacks we must
guarantee that the same entity generated both the POP and proof-of-
identity information.
This section describes two mechanisms for linking identity and POP
information: witness values cryptographically derived from the
shared-secret (Section 5.3.1) and shared-secret/subject DN matching
(Section 5.3.2). Clients and servers MUST support the witness value
technique. Clients and servers MAY support shared-secret/subject DN
matching or other bilateral techniques of similar strength. The idea
behind both mechanisms is to force the client to sign some data into
each certificate request that can be directly associated with the
shared-secret; this will defeat attempts to include certificate
requests from different entities in a single Full PKI Request
message.
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
5.3.1 Witness values derived from the shared-secret
The first technique for doing identity-POP linking works by forcing
the client to include a piece of information cryptographically-
derived from the shared-secret token as a signed extension within
each certificate request (PKCS#10 or CRMF) message. This technique
is useful if null subject DNs are used (because, for example, the
server can generate the subject DN for the certificate based only on
the shared secret). Processing begins when the client receives the
shared-secret token out-of-band from the server. The client then
computes the following values:
1. The client generates a random byte-string, R, which SHOULD be at
least 512 bits in length.
2. A SHA1 hash of the token is computed.
3. An HMAC-SHA1 value is then computed over the random value produced
in Step 1, as described in [HMAC], using the hash of the token
from Step 2 as the shared secret.
4. The random value produced in Step 1 is encoded as the value of an
idPOPLinkRandom control attribute. This control attribute MUST be
included in the Full PKI Request message.
5. The 160-bit HMAC-SHA1 result from Step 3 is encoded as the value
of an idPOPLinkWitness extension to the certificate request.
a. For CRMF, idPOPLinkWitness is included in the controls section
of the CertRequest structure.
b. For PKCS#10, idPOPLinkWitness is included in the attributes
section of the CertificationRequest structure.
Upon receipt, servers MUST verify that each certificate request
contains a copy of the idPOPLinkWitness and that its value was
derived in the specified manner from the shared secret and the random
string included in the idPOPLinkRandom control attribute.
5.3.2 Shared-secret/subject DN matching
The second technique for doing identity-POP linking is to link a
particular subject distinguished name (subject DN) to the shared-
secrets that are distributed out-of-band and to require that clients
using the shared-secret to prove identity include that exact subject
DN in every certificate request. It is expected that many client-
server connections using shared-secret based proof-of-identity will
use this mechanism. (It is common not to omit the subject DN
information from the certificate request messages.)
When the shared secret is generated and transferred out-of-band to
initiate the registration process (Section 5.2), a particular subject
DN is also associated with the shared secret and communicated to the
client. (The subject DN generated MUST be unique per entity in
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
accordance with CA policy; a null subject DN cannot be used. A
common practice could be to place the identification value as part of
the subject DN.) When the client generates the Full PKI Request
message, it MUST use these two pieces of information as follows:
1. The client MUST include the specific subject DN that it received
along with the shared secret as the subject name in every
certificate request (PKCS#10 and/or CRMF) in the Full PKI Request.
The subject names in the requests MUST NOT be null.
2. The client MUST include the identityProof control attribute
(Section 5.2), derived from the shared secret, in the Full PKI
Request.
The server receiving this message MUST (a) validate the identityProof
control attribute and then, (b) check that the subject DN included in
each certificate request matches that associated with the shared
secret. If either of these checks fails the certificate request MUST
be rejected.
5.3.3 Renewal and Re-Key Messages
In a renewal or re-key message, the subject DN in (a) the certificate
referenced by the CMS SignerInfo object, and (b) all certificate
requests within the request message MUST match according to the
standard name match rules described in [PKIXCERT].
5.4 Data Return Control Attribute
The data return control attribute allows clients to send arbitrary
data (usually some type of internal state information) to the server
and to have the data returned as part of the enrollment response
message. Data placed in a data return statement is considered to be
opaque to the server. The same control is used for both requests and
responses. If the data return statement appears in an enrollment
message, the server MUST return it as part of the enrollment response
message.
In the event that the information in the data return statement needs
to be confidential, it is expected that the client would apply some
type of encryption to the contained data, but the details of this are
outside the scope of this specification.
An example of using this feature is for a client to place an
identifier marking the exact source of the private key material.
This might be the identifier of a hardware device containing the
private key.
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
5.5 Add Extensions Control Attribute
The Add Extensions control attribute is used by LRAs in order to
specify additional extensions that are to be placed on certificates.
This attribute uses the following ASN.1 definition:
AddExtensions ::= SEQUENCE {
pkiDataReference BodyPartID
certReferences SEQUENCE OF BodyPartID,
extensions SEQUENCE OF Extension
}
-- pkiDataReference field contains the body part id of the
embedded request message.
-- certReferences field is a list of references to one or more of
the payloads contained within a PKIData. Each element of the
certReferences sequence MUST be equal to either the bodyPartID of
a TaggedCertificationRequest or the certReqId of the CertRequest
within a CertReqMsg. By definition, the listed extensions are to
be applied to every element referenced in the certReferences
sequence. If a request corresponding to bodyPartID cannot be
found, the error badRequest is returned referencing this control
attribute.
-- extensions field contains the sequence of extensions to be
applied to the referenced certificate requests.
Servers MUST be able to process all extensions defined in [PKIXCERT].
Servers are not required to be able to process every V3 X.509
extension transmitted using this protocol, nor are they required to
be able to process other, private extensions. Servers are not
required to put all LRA-requested extensions into a certificate.
Servers are permitted to modify LRA-requested extensions. Servers
MUST NOT alter an extension so as to reverse the meaning of a
client-requested extension If a certification request is denied due
to the inability to handle a requested extension and a response is
returned, the server MUST return a failInfo attribute with the value
of unsupportedExt.
If multiple Add Extensions statements exist in an enrollment message,
the exact behavior is left up to the certificate issuer policy.
However it is recommended that the following policy be used. These
rules would be applied to individual extensions within an Add
Extensions control attribute (as opposed to an "all or nothing"
approach).
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
1. If the conflict is within a single PKIData object, the certificate
request would be rejected with an error of badRequest.
2. If the conflict is between different PKIData objects, the
outermost version of the extension would be used (allowing an LRA
to override the extension requested by the end-entyt).
5.6 Transaction Management Control Attributes
Transactions are identified and tracked using a transaction
identifier. If used, clients generate transaction identifiers and
retain their value until the server responds with a message that
completes the transaction. Servers correspondingly include received
transaction identifiers in the response.
The transactionId attribute identifies a given transaction. It is
used between client and server to manage the state of an operation.
Clients MAY include a transactionID attribute in request messages.
If the original request contains a transactionID attribute, all
subsequent request and response messages MUST include the same
transactionID attribute. A server MUST use only transactionIds in
the outermost PKIdata object. TransactionIds on inner PKIdata objects
are for intermediate entities.
Replay protection can be supported through the use of sender and
recipient nonces. If nonces are used, in the first message of a
transaction, no recipientNonce is transmitted; a senderNonce is
instantiated by the message originator and retained for later
reference. The recipient of a sender nonce reflects this value back
to the originator as a recipientNonce and includes it's own
senderNonce. Upon receipt by the transaction originator of this
message, the originator compares the value of recipientNonce to its
retained value. If the values match, the message can be accepted for
further security processing. The received value for senderNonce is
also retained for inclusion in the next message associated with the
same transaction.
The senderNonce and recipientNonce attribute can be used to provide
application-level replay prevention. Clients MAY include a
senderNonce in the initial request message. Originating messages
include only a value for senderNonce. If a message includes a
senderNonce, the response MUST include the transmitted value of the
previously received senderNonce as recipientNonce and include new
value for senderNonce. A server MUST use only nonces in the outermost
PKIdata object. Nonces on inner PKIdata objects are for intermediate
entities.
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
5.7 Proof-of-possession (POP) for encryption-only keys
Everything described in this section is optional to implement, for
both servers and clients. Servers MAY require this POP method be used
only if another POP method is unavailable. Servers SHOULD reject all
requests contained within a PKIData if any required POP is missing
for any element within the PKIData.
Many servers require proof that an entity requesting a certificate
for a public key actually possesses the corresponding private
component of the key pair. For keys that can be used as signature
keys, signing the certification request with the private key serves
as a POP on that key pair. With keys that can only be used for
encryption operations, POP MUST be performed by forcing the client to
decrypt a value. See Section 5 of [CRMF] for a detailed discussion
of POP.
By necessity, POP for encryption-only keys cannot be done in one
round-trip, since there are four distinct phases:
1. Client tells the server about the public component of a new
encryption key pair.
2. Server sends the client a POP challenge, encrypted with the
presented public encryption key, which the client must decrypt.
3. Client decrypts the POP challenge and sends it back to the server.
4. Server validates the decrypted POP challenge and continues
processing the certificate request.
CMC defines two different attributes. The first deals with the
encrypted challenge sent from the server to the user in step 2. The
second deals with the decrypted challenge sent from the client to the
server in step 3.
The encryptedPOP attribute is used to send the encrypted challenge
from the server to the client. As such, it is encoded as a tagged
attribute within the controlSequence of a ResponseBody. (Note that
we assume that the message sent in Step 1 above is an enrollment
request and that the response in step 2 is a Full Enrollment Response
including a failureInfo specifying that a POP is explicitly required,
and providing the POP challenge in the encryptedPOP attribute.)
EncryptedPOP ::= SEQUENCE {
request TaggedRequest,
cms contentInfo,
thePOPAlgID AlgorithmIdentifier,
witnessAlgID AlgorithmIdentifier,
witness OCTET STRING
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
}
DecryptedPOP ::= SEQUENCE {
bodyPartID BodyPartID,
thePOPAlgID AlgorithmIdentifier,
thePOP OCTET STRING
}
The encrypted POP algorithm works as follows:
1. The server generates a random value y and associates it with the
request.
2. The server returns the encrypted pop with the following fields
set:
a. request is the certificate request in the original request
message (it is included here so the client need not key a copy
of the request),
b. cms is an EnvelopedData object, the content type being id-data
and the content being the value y. If the certificate request
contains a subject key identifier (SKI) extension, then the
recipient identifier SHOULD be the SKI. If the
issuerAndSerialNumber form is used, the IsserName MUST be
encoded as NULL and the SerialNumber as the bodyPartId of the
certificate request,
c. thePOPAlgID contains the algorithm to be used in computing the
return POP value,
d. witnessAlgID contains the hash algorithm used on y to create
the field witness,
e. witness contains the hashed value of y.
3. The client decrypts the cms field to obtain the value y. The
client computes H(y) using the witnessAlgID and compares to the
value of witness. If the values do not compare or the decryption
is not successful, the client MUST abort the enrollment process.
The client aborts the process by sending a request message
containing a CMCStatusInfo control attribute with failInfo value
of popFailed.
4. The client creates the decryptedPOP as part of a new PKIData
message. The fields in the decryptedPOP are:
a. bodyPartID refers to the certificate request in the new
enrollment message,
b. thePOPAlgID is copied from the encryptedPOP,
c. thePOP contains the possession proof. This value is computed
by thePOPAlgID using the value y and request referenced in
(4a).
5. The server then re-computes the value of thePOP from its cached
value of y and the request and compares to the value of thePOP.
If the values do not match, the server MUST NOT issue the
certificate. The server MAY re-issue a new challenge or MAY fail
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
the request altogether.
When defining the algorithms for thePOPAlgID and witnessAlgID care
must be taken to ensure that the result of witnessAlgID is not a
useful value to shortcut the computation with thePOPAlgID. Clients
MUST implement SHA-1 for witnessAlgID. Clients MUST implement HMAC-
SHA1 for thePOPAlgID. The value of y is used as the secret value in
the HMAC algorithm and the request referenced in (4a) is used as the
data. If y is greater than 64 bytes, only the first 64 bytes of y
are used as the secret.
One potential problem with the algorithm above is the amount of state
that a CA needs to keep in order to verify the returned POP value.
This describes one of many possible ways of addressing the problem by
reducing the amount of state kept on the CA to a single (or small
set) of values.
1. Server generates random seed x, constant across all requests. (The
value of x would normally be altered on a regular basis and kept
for a short time afterwards.)
2. For certificate request R, server computes y = F(x,R). F can be,
for example, HMAC-SHA1(x,R). All that's important for
statelessness is that y be consistently computable with only known
state constant x and function F, other inputs coming from the cert
request structure. y should not be predictable based on knowledge
of R, thus the use of a OWF like HMAC-SHA1.
5.8 LRA POP Witnesses Control Attribute
In an enrollment scenario involving an LRAs the CA may allow (or
require) the LRA to perform the POP protocol with the entity
requesting certification. In this case the LRA needs a way to inform
the CA it has done the POP. This control attribute has been created
to address this issue.
The ASN.1 structure for the LRA POP witness is as follows:
LraPopWitness ::= SEQUENCE {
pkiDataBodyid BodyPartID,
bodyIds SEQUENCE of BodyPartID
}
-- pkiDataBodyid field contains the body part id of the nested CMS
body object containing the client's full request message.
pkiDataBodyid is set to 0 if the request is in the current
PKIRequest body.
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
-- bodyIds contains a list of certificate requests for which the
LRA has performed an out-of-band authentication. The method of
authentication could be archival of private key material,
challenge-response or other means.
If a certificate server does not allow for an LRA to do the POP
verification, it returns an error of POPFAILURE. The CA MUST NOT
start a challenge-response to re-verify the POP itself.
5.9 Get Certificate Control Attribute
Everything described in this section is optional to implement.
The get certificate control attribute is used to retrieve previously
issued certificates from a repository of certificates. A Certificate
Authority, an LRA or an independent service may provide this
repository. The clients expected to use this facility are those
operating in a resource-constrained environment. (An example of a
resource-constrained client would be a low-end IP router that does
not retain its own certificate in non-volatile memory.)
The get certificate control attribute has the following ASN.1
structure:
GetCert ::= SEQUENCE {
issuerName GeneralName,
serialNumber INTEGER }
The service responding to the request will place the requested
certificate in the certificates field of a SignedData object. If the
get certificate attribute is the only control in a Full PKI Request
message, the response would be a Simple Enrollment Response.
5.10 Get CRL Control Attribute
Everything described in this section is optional to implement.
The get CRL control attribute is used to retrieve CRLs from a
repository of CRLs. A Certification Authority, an LRA or an
independent service may provide this repository. The clients
expected to use this facility are those where a fully deployed
directory is either infeasible or undesirable.
The get CRL control attribute has the following ASN.1 structure:
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
GetCRL ::= SEQUENCE {
issuerName Name,
cRLName GeneralName OPTIONAL,
time GeneralizedTime OPTIONAL,
reasons ReasonFlags OPTIONAL }
The fields in a GetCRL have the following meanings:
-- issuerName is the name of the CRL issuer.
-- cRLName may be the value of CRLDistributionPoints in the
subject certificate or equivalent value in the event the
certificate does not contain such a value.
-- time is used by the client to specify from among potentially
several issues of CRL that one whose thisUpdate value is less than
but nearest to the specified time. In the absence of a time
component, the CA always returns with the most recent CRL.
-- reasons is used to specify from among CRLs partitioned by
revocation reason. Implementers should bear in mind that while a
specific revocation request has a single CRLReason code--and
consequently entries in the CRL would have a single CRLReason code
value--a single CRL can aggregate information for one or more
reasonFlags.
A service responding to the request will place the requested CRL in
the crls field of a SignedData object. If the get CRL attribute is
the only control in a full enrollment message, the response would be
a simple enrollment response.
5.11 Revocation Request Control Attribute
The revocation request control attribute is used to request that a
certificate be revoked.
The revocation request control attribute has the following ASN.1
syntax:
RevRequest ::= SEQUENCE {
issuerName Name,
serialNumber INTEGER,
reason CRLReason,
invalidityDate GeneralizedTime OPTIONAL,
sharedSecret OCTET STRING OPTIONAL,
comment UTF8string OPTIONAL }
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
-- issuerName contains the issuerName of the certificate to be
revoked.
-- serialNumber contains the serial number of the certificate to
be revoked
-- reason contains the suggested CRLReason code for why the
certificate is being revoked. The CA can use this value at its
discretion in building the CRL.
-- invalidityDate contains the suggested value for the Invalidity
Date CRL Extension. The CA can use this value at its discretion
in building the CRL.
-- sharedSecret contains a secret value registered by the EE when
the certificate was obtained to allow for revocation of a
certificate in the event of key loss.
-- comment contains a human readable comment.
For a revocation request to become a reliable object in the event of
a dispute, a strong proof of originator authenticity is required.
However, in the instance when an end-entity has lost use of its
signature private key, it is impossible for the end-entity to produce
a digital signature (prior to the certification of a new signature
key pair). The RevRequest provides for the optional transmission from
the end-entity to the CA of a shared secret that may be used as an
alternative authenticator in the instance of loss of use. The
acceptability of this practice is a matter of local security policy.
(Note that in some situations a Registration Authority may be
delegated authority to revoke certificates on behalf of some
population within its scope control. In these situations the CA
would accept the LRA's digital signature on the request to revoke a
certificate, independent of whether the end entity still had access
to the private component of the key pair.)
Clients MUST provide the capability to produce a digitally signed
revocation request control attribute. Clients SHOULD be capable of
producing an unsigned revocation request containing the end-entity's
shared secret. If a client provides shared secret based self-
revocation, the client MUST be capable of producing a revocation
request containing the shared secret. Servers MUST be capable of
accepting both forms of revocation requests.
The structure of an unsigned, shared secret based revocation request
is a matter of local implementation. The shared secret does not need
to be encrypted when sent in a revocation request. The shared secret
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
has a one-time use, that of causing the certificate to be revoked,
and public knowledge of the shared secret after the certificate has
been revoked is not a problem. Clients need to inform users that the
same shared secret SHOULD NOT be used for multiple certificates.
A full response message MUST be returned for a revocation request.
5.12 Registration and Response Information Control Attributes
The regInfo control attribute is for clients and LRAs to pass
additional information as part a PKI request. The regInfo control
attribute uses the ASN.1 structure:
RegInfo ::= OCTET STRING
The content of this data is based on bilateral agreement between the
client and server.
If a server (or LRA) needs to return information back to a requestor
in response to data submitted in a regInfo attribute, then that data
is returned as a responseInfo control attribute. The content of the
OCTET STRING for response information is based on bilateral agreement
between the client and server.
5.13 Query Pending Control Attribute
In some environments, process requirements for manual intervention or
other identity checking can cause a delay in returning the
certificate related to a certificate request. The query pending
attribute allows for a client to query a server about the state of a
pending certificate request. The server returns a token as part of
the CMCStatusInfo attribute (in the otherInfo field). The client
puts the token into the query pending attribute to identify the
correct request to the server. The server can also return a
suggested time for the client to query for the state of a pending
certificate request.
The ASN.1 structure used by the query pending control attribute is:
QueryPending ::= OCTET STRING
If a server returns a pending state (the transaction is still
pending), the otherInfo MAY be omitted. If it is not omitted then
the same value MUST be returned (the token MUST NOT change during the
request).
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
5.14 Confirm Certificate Acceptance
Some Certification Authorities require that clients give a positive
conformation that the certificates issued to it are acceptable. The
Confirm Certificate Acceptance control attribute is used for that
purpose. If the CMCStatusInfo on a certificate request is
confirmRequired, then the client MUST return a Confirm Certificate
Acceptance prior to any usage of the certificate. Clients SHOULD
wait for the response from the server that the conformation has been
received.
The confirm certificate acceptance structure is:
CMCCertId ::= IssuerSerial
-- CMCCertId contains the issuer and serial number of the
certificate being accepted.
Servers MUST return a full enrollment response for a confirm
certificate acceptance control.
6. Local Registration Authorities
This specification permits the use of Local Registration Authorities
(LRAs). An LRA sits between the end-entity and the Certification
Authority. From the end-entity's perspective, the LRA appears to be
the Certification Authority and from the server the LRA appears to be
a client. LRAs receive the enrollment messages, perform local
processing and then forward onto Certificate Authorities. Some of the
types of local processing that an LRA can perform include:
- batching multiple enrollment messages together,
- challenge/response POP proofs,
- addition of private or standardized certificate extensions to all
requests,
- archival of private key material,
- routing of requests to different CAs.
When an LRA receives an enrollment message it has three options: it
may forward the message without modification, it may add a new
wrapping layer to the message, or it may remove one or more existing
layers and add a new wrapping layer.
When an LRA adds a new wrapping layer to a message it creates a new
PKIData object. The new layer contains any control attributes
required (for example if the LRA does the POP proof for an encryption
key or the addExtension control attribute to modify an enrollment
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 33]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
request) and the client enrollment message. The client enrollment
message is placed in the cmsSequence if it is a Full Enrollment
message and in the reqSequence if it is a Simple Enrollment message.
If an LRA is batching multiple client messages together, then each
client enrollment message is placed into the appropriate location in
the LRA's PKIData object along with all relevant control attributes.
(If multiple LRAs are in the path between the end-entity and the
Certification Authority, this will lead to multiple wrapping layers
on the message.)
In processing an enrollment message, an LRA MUST NOT alter any
certificate request body (PKCS #10 or CRMF) as any alteration would
invalidate the signature on the request and thus the POP for the
private key.
An example of how this would look is illustrated by the following
figure:
SignedData (by LRA)
PKIData
controlSequence
LRA added control statements
reqSequence
Zero or more Simple CertificationRequests from clients
cmsSequence
Zero or more Full PKI messages from clients
SignedData (by client)
PKIData
Under some circumstances an LRA is required to remove wrapping
layers. The following sections look at the processing required if
encryption layers and signing layers need to be removed.
6.1 Encryption Removal
There are two cases that require an LRA to remove or change
encryption in an enrollment message. In the first case the
encryption was applied for the purposes of protecting the entire
enrollment request from unauthorized entities. If the CA does not
have a recipient info entry in the encryption layer, the LRA MUST
remove the encryption layer. The LRA MAY add a new encryption layer
with or without adding a new signing layer.
The second change of encryption that may be required is to change the
encryption inside of a signing layer. In this case the LRA MUST
remove all signing layers containing the encryption. All control
statements MUST be merged according to local policy rules as each
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 34]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
signing layer is removed and the resulting merged controls MUST be
placed in a new signing layer provided by the LRA. If the signing
layer provided by the end-entity needs to be removed to the LRA can
remove the layer.
6.2 Signature Layer Removal
Only two instances exist where an LRA should remove a signature layer
on a Full Enrollment message. If an encryption needs to be modified
within the message, or if a Certificate Authority will not accept
secondary delegation (i.e. multiple LRA signatures). In all other
situations LRAs SHOULD NOT remove a signing layer from a message.
If an LRA removes a signing layer from a message, all control
statements MUST be merged according to local policy rules. The
resulting merged control statements MUST be placed in a new signing
layer provided by the LRA.
7. Transport Wrapping
Not all methods of transporting data allow for sending unlabeled raw
binary data, in may cases standard methods of encoding can be used to
greatly ease this issue. These methods normally consist of wrapping
some identification of the content around the binary data, possibly
applying an encoding to the data and labeling the data. We document
for use three different wrapping methods.
-- MIME wrapping is for transports that are natively MIME based such
as HTTP and E-mail.
-- Binary file transport is defined since floppy disk transport is
still very common. File transport can be done either as MIME
wrapped (section 7.1) or bare (section 7.2).
-- Socket based transport uses the raw BER encoded object.
7.1 MIME Wrapping
MIME wrapping is defined for those environments that are MIME native.
These include E-Mail based protocols as well as HTTP.
The basic mime wrapping in this section is taken from [SMIMEV2] and
[SMIMEV3]. Simple enrollment requests are encoded using the
application/pkcs10 content type. A file name MUST be included either
in a content type or content disposition statement. The extension
for the file MUST be ".p10".
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 35]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
Simple enrollment response messages MUST be encoded as content-type
application/pkcs7-mime. An smime-type parameter MUST be on the
content-type statement with a value of "certs-only." A file name with
the ".p7c" extension MUST be specified as part of the content-type or
content-disposition.
Full enrollment request messages MUST be encoded as content-type
application/pkcs7-mime. The smime-type parameter MUST be included
with a value of "CMC-enroll". A file name with the ".p7m" extension
MUST be specified as part of the content-type or content-disposition
statement.
Full enrollment response messages MUST be encoded as content-type
application/pkcs7-mime. The smime-type parameter MUST be included
with a value of "CMC-response." A file name with the ".p7m"
extensions MUST be specified as part of the content-type or content-
disposition.
MIME TYPE File Extension SMIME-TYPE
application/pkcs10 .p10 N/A
(simple PKI request)
application/pkcs7-mime .p7m CMC-request
(full PKI request)
application/pkcs7-mime .p7c certs-only
(simple PKI response)
application/pkcs7-mime .p7m CMC-response
(full PKI response)
7.2 File-Based Transport
Enrollment messages and responses may also be transferred between
clients and servers using file system-based mechanisms, such as when
enrollment is performed for an off-line client. When files are used
to transport binary, BER-encoded Full Enrollment Request and Response
messages, the following file type extensions SHOULD be used:
Message Type File Extension
Full PKI Request .crq
Full PKI Response .crp
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 36]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
7.3 Socket-Based Transport
When enrollment messages and responses are sent over sockets, no
wrapping is required. Messages SHOULD be sent in their binary, BER-
encoded form.
8. Interoperability
8.1 Mandatory and Optional Algorithms
CMC clients and servers MUST be capable of producing and processing
message signatures using the Digital Signature Algorithm [DSA]. DSA
signatures MUST be indicated by the DSA AlgorithmIdentifier value (as
specified in section 7.2.2 of [PKIXCERT]). PKI clients and servers
SHOULD also be capable of producing and processing RSA signatures (as
specified in section 7.2.1 of [PKIXCERT]).
CMC clients and servers MUST be capable of protecting and accessing
message encryption keys using the Diffie-Hellman (D-H) key exchange
algorithm. D-H/3DES protection MUST be indicated by the D-H
AlgorithmIdentifier value specified in [CMS]. PKI clients and
servers SHOULD also be capable of producing and processing RSA key
transport. When used for PKI messages, RSA key transport MUST be
indicated as specified in section 7.2.1 of [PKIXCERT].
8.2 Minimum Conformance Requirements
A minimally compliant CMC server:
a) MUST accept a Full PKI Request message
i) MUST accept CRMF Request Bodies within a Full PKI Request
ii) MUST accept PKCS#10 Request Bodies within a Full PKI Request
b) MUST accept a Simple Enrollment Request message
c) MUST be able to return a Full PKI Response. (A Full PKI Response
is always a valid response, but for interoperability with
downlevel clients a compliant server SHOULD use the Simple
Enrollment Response whenever possible.)
A minimally-complaint CMC client:
a) MAY use either the Simple Enrollment Message or the Full PKI
Request.
i) clients MUST use PKCS#10 with the Simple Enrollment Message
ii) clients MAY use either PKCS#10 or CRMF with the Full PKI
Request
b) MUST understand the Simple Enrollment Response.
c) MUST understand the Full PKI Response.
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 37]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
9. Security Considerations
Initiation of a secure communications channel between an end-entity
and a CA or LRA (and, similarly, between an LRA and another LRA or
CA) necessarily requires an out-of-band trust initiation mechanism.
For example, a secure channel may be constructed between the end-
entity and the CA via IPSEC or TLS. Many such schemes exist and the
choice of any particular scheme for trust initiation is outside the
scope of this document. Implementers of this protocol are strongly
encouraged to consider generally accepted principles of secure key
management when integrating this capability within an overall
security architecture.
Mechanisms for thwarting replay attacks may be required in particular
implementations of this protocol depending on the operational
environment. In cases where the CA maintains significant state
information, replay attacks may be detectable without the inclusion
of the optional nonce mechanisms. Implementers of this protocol need
to carefully consider environmental conditions before choosing
whether or not to implement the senderNonce and recipientNonce
attributes described in section 5.6. Developers of state-constrained
PKI clients are strongly encouraged to incorporate the use of these
attributes.
Under no circumstances should a signing key be archived. Doing so
allows the archiving entity to potentially use the key for forging
signatures.
Due care must be taken prior to archiving keys. Once a key is given
to an archiving entity, the archiving entity could use the keys in a
way not conducive to the archiving entity. Users should be made
especially aware that proper verification is made of the certificate
used to encrypt the private key material.
Clients and servers need to do some checks on cryptographic
parameters prior to issuing certificates to make sure that weak
parameters are not used. A description of the small subgroup attack
is provided in [X942]. CMC implementations ought to be aware of this
attack when doing parameter validations.
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 38]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
10. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Brian LaMacchia for his work in
developing and writing up many of the concepts presented in this
document. The authors would also like to thank Alex Deacon and Barb
Fox for their contributions.
11. References
[CMS] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax", RFC 2630,
June 1999.
[CRMF] Myers, M., Adams, C., Solo, D. and D. Kemp, "Internet
X.509 Certificate Request Message Format", RFC 2511, March
1999.
[DH] B. Kaliski, "PKCS 3: Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement v1.4"
[DH-POP] H. Prafullchandra, J. Schaad, "Diffie-Hellman Proof-of-
Possession Algorithms", Work in Progress.
[HMAC] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M. and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, February
1997.
[PKCS1] Kaliski, B., "PKCS #1: RSA Encryption, Version 1.5", RFC
2313, March 1998.
[PKCS7] Kaliski, B., "PKCS #7: Cryptographic Message Syntax v1.5",
RFC 2315, October 1997.
[PKCS8] RSA Laboratories, "PKCS#8: Private-Key Information Syntax
Standard, Version 1.2", November 1, 1993.
[PKCS10] Kaliski, B., "PKCS #10: Certification Request Syntax
v1.5", RFC 2314, October 1997.
[PKIXCERT] Housley, R., Ford, W., Polk, W. and D. Solo "Internet
X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and CRL
Profile", RFC 2459, January 1999.
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[SMIMEV2] Dusse, S., Hoffman, P., Ramsdell, B., Lundblade, L. and L.
Repka, "S/MIME Version 2 Message Specification", RFC 2311,
March 1998.
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 39]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
[SMIMEV3] Ramsdell, B., "S/MIME Version 3 Message Specification",
RFC 2633, June 1999.
[X942] Rescorla, E., "Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method", RFC
2631, June 1999.
12. Authors' Addresses
Michael Myers
VeriSign Inc.
1350 Charleston Road
Mountain View, CA, 94043
Phone: (650) 429-3402
EMail: mmyers@verisign.com
Xiaoyi Liu
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
Phone: (480) 526-7430
EMail: xliu@cisco.com
Jim Schaad
EMail: jimsch@nwlink.com
Jeff Weinstein
EMail: jsw@meer.net
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 40]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
Appendix A ASN.1 Module
EnrollmentMessageSyntax
{ iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(4) internet(1)
security(5) mechansims(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0) id-mod-cmc(6) }
DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::=
BEGIN
-- EXPORTS All --
-- The types and values defined in this module are exported for use
-- in the other ASN.1 modules. Other applications may use them for
-- their own purposes.
IMPORTS
-- Information Directory Framework (X.501)
Name
FROM InformationFramework { joint-iso-itu-t ds(5)
modules(1) informationFramework(1) 3 }
-- Directory Authentication Framework (X.509)
AlgorithmIdentifier, AttributeCertificate, Certificate,
CertificateList, CertificateSerialNumber
FROM AuthenticationFramework { joint-iso-itu-t ds(5)
module(1) authenticationFramework(7) 3 }
-- PKIX Part 1 - Implicit
GeneralName, CRLReason, ReasonFlags
FROM PKIX1Implicit88 {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
id-pkix1-implicit-88(2)}
-- PKIX Part 1 - Explicit
SubjectPublicKeyInfo, Extension
FROM PKIX1Explicit88 {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
id-pkix1-explicit-88(1)}
-- Cryptographic Message Syntax
ContentInfo, Attribute
FROM CryptographicMessageSyntax { 1 2 840 113549 1 9 16 0 1}
-- CRMF
CertReqMsg
FROM CRMF { 1 3 6 1 5 5 7 0 5 };
id-pkix OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) identified-organization(3)
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 41]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) }
id-cmc OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-pkix 7} -- CMC controls
id-cct OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-pkix 12} -- CMC content types
-- The following controls have simple type content (usually OCTET
STRING)
id-cmc-identification OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-cmc 2}
id-cmc-identityProof OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-cmc 3}
id-cmc-dataReturn OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-cmc 4}
id-cmc-transactionId OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-cmc 5}
id-cmc-senderNonce OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-cmc 6}
id-cmc-recipientNonce OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-cmc 7}
id-cmc-regInfo OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-cmc 18}
id-cmc-responseInfo OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-cmc 19}
id-cmc-queryPending OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-cmc 21}
id-cmc-popLinkRandom OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-cmc 22)
id-cmc-popLinkWitness OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= (id-cmc 23)
-- This is the content type used for a request message in the
protocol
id-cct-PKIData OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-cct 2 }
PKIData ::= SEQUENCE {
controlSequence SEQUENCE SIZE(0..MAX) OF TaggedAttribute,
reqSequence SEQUENCE SIZE(0..MAX) OF TaggedRequest,
cmsSequence SEQUENCE SIZE(0..MAX) OF TaggedContentInfo,
otherMsgSequence SEQUENCE SIZE(0..MAX) OF OtherMsg
}
bodyIdMax INTEGER ::= 4294967295
BodyPartID ::= INTEGER(0..bodyIdMax)
TaggedAttribute ::= SEQUENCE {
bodyPartID BodyPartId,
attrType OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
attrValues SET OF AttributeValue
}
AttributeValue ::= ANY
TaggedRequest ::= CHOICE {
tcr [0] TaggedCertificationRequest,
crm [1] CertReqMsg
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 42]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
}
TaggedCertificationRequest ::= SEQUENCE {
bodyPartID BodyPartID,
certificationRequest CertificationRequest
}
CertificationRequest ::= SEQUENCE {
certificationRequestInfo SEQUENCE {
version INTEGER,
subject Name,
subjectPublicKeyInfo SEQUENCE {
algorithm AlgorithmIdentifier,
subjectPublicKey BIT STRING },
attributes [0] IMPLICIT SET OF Attribute },
signatureAlgorithm AlgorithmIdentifier,
signature BIT STRING
}
TaggedContentInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
bodyPartID BodyPartId,
contentInfo ContentInfo
}
OtherMsg ::= SEQUENCE {
bodyPartID BodyPartID,
otherMsgType OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
otherMsgValue ANY DEFINED BY otherMsgType }
-- This defines the response message in the protocol
id-cct-PKIResponse OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-cct 3 }
ResponseBody ::= SEQUENCE {
controlSequence SEQUENCE SIZE(0..MAX) OF TaggedAttribute,
cmsSequence SEQUENCE SIZE(0..MAX) OF TaggedContentInfo,
otherMsgSequence SEQUENCE SIZE(0..MAX) OF OtherMsg
}
-- Used to return status state in a response
id-cmc-cMCStatusInfo OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-cmc 1}
CMCStatusInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
cMCStatus CMCStatus,
bodyList SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF INTEGER,
statusString UTF8String OPTIONAL,
otherInfo CHOICE {
failInfo CMCFailInfo,
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 43]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
pendInfo PendInfo } OPTIONAL
}
PendInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
pendToken INTEGER,
pendTime GENERALIZEDTIME
}
CMCStatus ::= INTEGER {
success (0),
-- you got exactly what you asked for
failed (2),
-- you don't get it, more information elsewhere in the message
pending (3),
-- the request body part has not yet been processed,
-- requester is responsible to poll back on this
noSupport (4)
-- the requested operation is not supported
}
CMCFailInfo ::= INTEGER {
badAlg (0),
-- Unrecognized or unsupported algorithm
badMessageCheck (1),
-- integrity check failed
badRequest (2),
-- transaction not permitted or supported
badTime (3),
-- Message time field was not sufficiently close to the system
time
badCertId (4),
-- No certificate could be identified matching the provided
criteria
unsuportedExt (5),
-- A requested X.509 extension is not supported by the recipient
CA.
mustArchiveKeys (6),
-- Private key material must be supplied
badIdentity (7),
-- Identification Attribute failed to verify
popRequired (8),
-- Server requires a POP proof before issuing certificate
popFailed (9),
-- Server failed to get an acceptable POP for the request
noKeyReuse (10)
-- Server policy does not allow key re-use
internalCAError (11)
tryLater (12)
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 44]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
}
-- Used for LRAs to add extensions to certificate requests
id-cmc-addExtensions OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-cmc 8}
AddExtensions ::= SEQUENCE {
pkiDataReference BodyPartID,
certReferences SEQUENCE OF BodyPartID,
extensions SEQUENCE OF Extension
}
id-cmc-encryptedPOP OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-cmc 9}
id-cmc-decryptedPOP OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-cmc 10}
EncryptedPOP ::= SEQUENCE {
request TaggedRequest,
cms ContentInfo,
thePOPAlgID AlgorithmIdentifier,
witnessAlgID AlgorithmIdentifier,
witness OCTET STRING
}
DecryptedPOP ::= SEQUENCE {
bodyPartID BodyPartID,
thePOPAlgID AlgorithmIdentifier,
thePOP OCTET STRING
}
id-cmc-lraPOPWitness OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-cmc 11}
LraPopWitness ::= SEQUENCE {
pkiDataBodyid BodyPartID,
bodyIds SEQUENCE OF BodyPartID
}
--
id-cmc-getCert OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-cmc 15}
GetCert ::= SEQUENCE {
issuerName GeneralName,
serialNumber INTEGER }
id-cmc-getCRL OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-cmc 16}
GetCRL ::= SEQUENCE {
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 45]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
issuerName Name,
cRLName GeneralName OPTIONAL,
time GeneralizedTime OPTIONAL,
reasons ReasonFlags OPTIONAL }
id-cmc-revokeRequest OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-cmc 17}
RevRequest ::= SEQUENCE {
issuerName Name,
serialNumber INTEGER,
reason CRLReason,
invalidityDate GeneralizedTime OPTIONAL,
passphrase OCTET STRING OPTIONAL,
comment UTF8String OPTIONAL }
id-cmc-confirmCertAcceptance OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {pkix-cmc 24}
CMCCertId ::= IssuerSerial
-- The following is used to request V3 extensions be added to a
certificate
id-ExtensionReq OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {iso(1) member-body(2) us(840)
rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) 14}
ExtensionReq ::= SEQUENCE OF Extension
-- The following exists to allow Diffie-Hellman Certificate Requests
Messages to be
-- well-formed
id-alg-noSignature OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {id-pkix id-alg(6) 2}
NoSignatureValue ::= OCTET STRING
END
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 46]
RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS April 2000
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Myers, et al. Standards Track [Page 47]