Clarification of Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST): Transfer Encodings and ASN.1
RFC 8951
| Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(November 2020; No errata)
Updates RFC 7030
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Michael Richardson , Thomas Werner , Wei Pan | ||
| Last updated | 2020-11-19 | ||
| Replaces | draft-richardson-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html xml pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Russ Housley | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2020-05-14) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 8951 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Roman Danyliw | ||
| Send notices to | Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - Actions Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack | ||
| IANA expert review state | Expert Reviews OK | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Richardson
Request for Comments: 8951 Sandelman Software Works
Updates: 7030 T. Werner
Category: Standards Track Siemens
ISSN: 2070-1721 W. Pan
Huawei Technologies
November 2020
Clarification of Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST): Transfer
Encodings and ASN.1
Abstract
This document updates RFC 7030: Enrollment over Secure Transport to
resolve some errata that were reported and that have proven to cause
interoperability issues when RFC 7030 was extended.
This document deprecates the specification of "Content-Transfer-
Encoding" headers for Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST)
endpoints. This document fixes some syntactical errors in ASN.1 that
were present.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in 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/rfc8951.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Terminology
3. Changes to EST Endpoint Processing
3.1. White Space Processing
3.2. Changes to Section 4 of RFC 7030
3.2.1. Section 4.1.3
3.2.2. Section 4.3.1
3.2.3. Section 4.3.2
3.2.4. Section 4.4.2
3.2.5. Section 4.5.2
4. Clarification of ASN.1 for Certificate Attribute Set
5. Clarification of Error Messages for Certificate Enrollment
Operations
5.1. Updating Section 4.2.3: Simple Enroll and Re-enroll
Response
5.2. Updating Section 4.4.2: Server-Side Key Generation Response
6. Privacy Considerations
7. Security Considerations
8. IANA Considerations
9. References
9.1. Normative References
9.2. Informative References
Appendix A. ASN.1 Module
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
Enrollment over Secure Transport (EST) is defined in [RFC7030]. The
EST specification defines a number of HTTP endpoints for certificate
enrollment and management. The details of the transaction were
defined in terms of MIME headers, as defined in [RFC2045], rather
than in terms of the HTTP protocol, as defined in [RFC7230] and
[RFC7231].
[RFC2616] and later Appendix A.5 of [RFC7231] have text specifically
deprecating Content-Transfer-Encoding. However, [RFC7030]
incorrectly uses this header.
Any updates to [RFC7030] to bring it in line with HTTP processing
risk changing the on-wire protocol in a way that is not backwards
compatible. However, reports from implementers suggest that many
implementations do not send the Content-Transfer-Encoding, and many
of them ignore it. The consequence is that simply deprecating the
header would remain compatible with current implementations.
[BRSKI] extends [RFC7030], adding new functionality. Interop testing
of the protocol has revealed that unusual processing called out in
[RFC7030] causes confusion.
EST is currently specified as part of [IEC62351] and is widely used
in government, utilities, and financial markets today.
This document, therefore, revises [RFC7030] to reflect the field
reality, deprecating the extraneous field.
This document deals with errata numbers [errata4384], [errata5107],
[errata5108], and [errata5904].
This document deals with [errata5107] and [errata5904] in Section 3.
[errata5108] is dealt with in Section 5. [errata4384] is closed by
correcting the ASN.1 Module in Section 4.
2. Terminology
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.
3. Changes to EST Endpoint Processing
Sections 4.1.3 (CA Certificates Response, /cacerts), 4.3.1 and 4.3.2
(Full CMC, /fullcmc), 4.4.2 (Server-Side Key Generation,
/serverkeygen), and 4.5.2 (CSR Attributes, /csrattrs) of [RFC7030]
specify the use of base64 encoding with a Content-Transfer-Encoding
for requests and responses.
This document updates [RFC7030] to require the POST request and
payload response of all endpoints using base64 encoding, as specified
in Section 4 of [RFC4648]. In both cases, the Distinguished Encoding
Rules (DER) [X.690] are used to produce the input for the base64
encoding routine. This format is to be used regardless of any
Content-Transfer-Encoding header, and any value in such a header MUST
be ignored.
3.1. White Space Processing
Note that "base64" as used in the HTTP [RFC2616] does not permit
CRLF, while the "base64" used in MIME [RFC2045] does. This
specification clarifies that despite what [RFC2616] says, white space
including CR, LF, spaces (ASCII 32), and tabs (ASCII 9) SHOULD be
tolerated by receivers. Senders are not required to insert any kind
of white space.
3.2. Changes to Section 4 of RFC 7030
3.2.1. Section 4.1.3
Replace:
| A successful response MUST be a certs-only CMC Simple PKI
| Response, as defined in [RFC5272], containing the certificates
| described in the following paragraph. The HTTP content-type of
| "application/pkcs7-mime" is used. The Simple PKI Response is sent
| with a Content-Transfer-Encoding of "base64" [RFC2045].
with:
| A successful response MUST be a certs-only CMC Simple PKI
| Response, as defined in [RFC5272], containing the certificates
| described in the following paragraph. The HTTP content-type of
| "application/pkcs7-mime" is used. The CMC Simple PKI Response is
| encoded in base64 [RFC4648].
3.2.2. Section 4.3.1
Replace:
| If the HTTP POST to /fullcmc is not a valid Full PKI Request, the
| server MUST reject the message. The HTTP content-type used is
| "application/pkcs7-mime" with an smime-type parameter "CMC-
| request", as specified in [RFC5273]. The body of the message is
| the binary value of the encoding of the PKI Request with a
| Content-Transfer-Encoding of "base64" [RFC2045].
with:
| If the HTTP POST to /fullcmc is not a valid Full PKI Request, the
| server MUST reject the message. The HTTP content-type used is
| "application/pkcs7-mime" with an smime-type parameter "CMC-
| request", as specified in [RFC5273]. The body of the message is
| encoded in base64 [RFC4648].
3.2.3. Section 4.3.2
Replace:
| The body of the message is the binary value of the encoding of the
| PKI Response with a Content-Transfer-Encoding of "base64"
| [RFC2045].
with:
| The body of the message is the base64 [RFC4648] encoding of the
| PKI Response.
3.2.4. Section 4.4.2
Replace:
| An "application/pkcs8" part consists of the base64-encoded DER-
| encoded [X.690] PrivateKeyInfo with a Content-Transfer-Encoding of
| "base64" [RFC2045].
with:
| An "application/pkcs8" part consists of the base64-encoded, DER-
| encoded [X.690] PrivateKeyInfo.
Replace:
| In all three additional encryption cases, the EnvelopedData is
| returned in the response as an "application/pkcs7-mime" part with
| an smime-type parameter of "server-generated-key" and a Content-
| Transfer-Encoding of "base64".
with:
| In all three additional encryption cases, the EnvelopedData is
| returned in the response as an "application/pkcs7-mime" part with
| an smime-type parameter of "server-generated-key". It is base64
| encoded [RFC4648].
3.2.5. Section 4.5.2
This section is updated in its entirety in Section 4.
4. Clarification of ASN.1 for Certificate Attribute Set
Section 4.5.2 of [RFC7030] is to be replaced with the following text:
| 4.5.2 CSR Attributes Response
|
| If locally configured policy for an authenticated EST client
| indicates a CSR Attributes Response is to be provided, the server
| response MUST include an HTTP 200 response code. An HTTP response
| code of 204 or 404 indicates that a CSR Attributes Response is not
| available. Regardless of the response code, the EST server and CA
| MAY reject any subsequent enrollment requests for any reason,
| e.g., incomplete CSR attributes in the request.
|
| Responses to attribute request messages MUST be encoded as the
| content-type of "application/csrattrs" and are to be "base64"
| [RFC4648] encoded. The syntax for application/csrattrs body is as
| follows:
|
| CsrAttrs ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (0..MAX) OF AttrOrOID
|
| AttrOrOID ::= CHOICE {
| oid OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
| attribute Attribute {{AttrSet}} }
|
| AttrSet ATTRIBUTE ::= { ... }
|
| An EST server includes zero or more OIDs or attributes [RFC2986]
| that it requests the client to use in the certification request.
| The client MUST ignore any OID or attribute it does not recognize.
| When the server encodes CSR attributes as an empty SEQUENCE, it
| means that the server has no specific additional information it
| desires in a client certification request (this is functionally
| equivalent to an HTTP response code of 204 or 404).
|
| If the CA requires a particular cryptographic algorithm or use of
| a particular signature scheme (e.g., certification of a public key
| based on a certain elliptic curve or signing using a certain hash
| algorithm), it MUST provide that information in the CSR Attribute
| Response. If an EST server requires the linking of identity and
| POP information (see Section 3.5), it MUST include the
| challengePassword OID in the CSR Attributes Response.
|
| The structure of the CSR Attributes Response SHOULD, to the
| greatest extent possible, reflect the structure of the CSR it is
| requesting. Requests to use a particular signature scheme (e.g.,
| using a particular hash function) are represented as an OID to be
| reflected in the SignatureAlgorithm of the CSR. Requests to use a
| particular cryptographic algorithm (e.g., certification of a
| public key based on a certain elliptic curve) are represented as
| an attribute, to be reflected as the AlgorithmIdentifier of the
| SubjectPublicKeyInfo, with a type indicating the algorithm and the
| values indicating the particular parameters specific to the
| algorithm. Requests for descriptive information from the client
| are made by an attribute, to be represented as Attributes of the
| CSR, with a type indicating the [RFC2985] extensionRequest and the
| values indicating the particular attributes desired to be included
| in the resulting certificate's extensions.
|
| The sequence is Distinguished Encoding Rules (DER) encoded [X.690]
| and then base64 encoded (Section 4 of [RFC4648]). The resulting
| text forms the application/csrattr body, without headers.
|
| For example, if a CA requests that a client a) submit a
| certification request containing the challengePassword (indicating
| that linking of identity and POP information is requested; see
| Section 3.5), b) submit an extensionRequest with the Media Access
| Control (MAC) address [RFC2307] of the client, and c) use the
| secp384r1 elliptic curve to sign using the SHA384 hash function,
| then it takes the following:
|
| OID: challengePassword (1.2.840.113549.1.9.7)
|
| Attribute: type = extensionRequest (1.2.840.113549.1.9.14)
| value = macAddress (1.3.6.1.1.1.1.22)
|
| Attribute: type = id-ecPublicKey (1.2.840.10045.2.1)
| value = secp384r1 (1.3.132.0.34)
|
| OID: ecdsaWithSHA384 (1.2.840.10045.4.3.3)
|
| and encodes them into an ASN.1 SEQUENCE to produce:
|
| 30 41 06 09 2a 86 48 86 f7 0d 01 09 07 30 12 06 07 2a 86 48 ce 3d
| 02 01 31 07 06 05 2b 81 04 00 22 30 16 06 09 2a 86 48 86 f7 0d 01
| 09 0e 31 09 06 07 2b 06 01 01 01 01 16 06 08 2a 86 48 ce 3d 04 03
| 03
|
| and then base64 encodes the resulting ASN.1 SEQUENCE to produce:
|
| MEEGCSqGSIb3DQEJBzASBgcqhkjOPQIBMQcGBSuBBAAiMBYGCSqGSIb3DQEJDjEJ
| BgcrBgEBAQEWBggqhkjOPQQDAw==
5. Clarification of Error Messages for Certificate Enrollment
Operations
[errata5108] clarifies what format the error messages are to be in.
Previously, a client might be confused into believing that an error
returned with type text/plain was not intended to be an error.
5.1. Updating Section 4.2.3: Simple Enroll and Re-enroll Response
Replace:
| If the content-type is not set, the response data MUST be a
| plaintext human-readable error message containing explanatory
| information describing why the request was rejected (for example,
| indicating that CSR attributes are incomplete).
with:
| If the content-type is not set, the response data MUST be a
| plaintext human-readable error message containing explanatory
| information describing why the request was rejected (for example,
| indicating that CSR attributes are incomplete). Servers MAY use
| the "text/plain" content-type [RFC2046] for human-readable errors.
5.2. Updating Section 4.4.2: Server-Side Key Generation Response
Replace:
| If the content-type is not set, the response data MUST be a
| plaintext human-readable error message.
with:
| If the content-type is not set, the response data MUST be a
| plaintext human-readable error message. Servers MAY use the
| "text/plain" content-type [RFC2046] for human-readable errors.
6. Privacy Considerations
This document does not disclose any additional identities that either
an active or passive observer would see with [RFC7030].
7. Security Considerations
This document clarifies an existing security mechanism. It does not
create any new protocol mechanisms.
All security considerations from [RFC7030] also apply to the
clarifications described in this document.
8. IANA Considerations
The ASN.1 module in Appendix A of this document makes use of object
identifiers (OIDs).
IANA has registered an OID for id-mod-est-2019 (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.0.98)
in the "SMI Security for PKIX Module Identifier" registry for the
ASN.1 module.
The OID for the Asymmetric Decryption Key Identifier
(1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.2.54) was previously defined in [RFC7030].
IANA has updated the Reference column for the Asymmetric Decryption
Key Identifier attribute to also include a reference to this
document.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[errata4384]
RFC Errata, Erratum ID 4384, RFC 7030,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4384>.
[errata5107]
RFC Errata, Erratum ID 5107, RFC 7030,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5107>.
[errata5108]
RFC Errata, Erratum ID 5108, RFC 7030,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5108>.
[errata5904]
RFC Errata, Erratum ID 5904, RFC 7030,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5904>.
[IEC62351] International Electrotechnical Commission, "Power systems
management and associated information exchange - Data and
communications security - Part 9: Cyber security key
management for power system equipment", ISO/
IEC 62351-9:2017, May 2017.
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, DOI 10.17487/RFC2045, November 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2045>.
[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2046, November 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2046>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2986] Nystrom, M. and B. Kaliski, "PKCS #10: Certification
Request Syntax Specification Version 1.7", RFC 2986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2986, November 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2986>.
[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4648>.
[RFC5272] Schaad, J. and M. Myers, "Certificate Management over CMS
(CMC)", RFC 5272, DOI 10.17487/RFC5272, June 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5272>.
[RFC5273] Schaad, J. and M. Myers, "Certificate Management over CMS
(CMC): Transport Protocols", RFC 5273,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5273, June 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5273>.
[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, June 2010,
<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, July 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6268>.
[RFC7030] Pritikin, M., Ed., Yee, P., Ed., and D. Harkins, Ed.,
"Enrollment over Secure Transport", RFC 7030,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7030, October 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7030>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[X.680] ITU-T, "Information technology -- Abstract Syntax Notation
One (ASN.1): Specification of basic notation", ITU-T
Recommendation X.680, ISO/IEC 8824-1:2015, August 2015,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.680-201508-I/en>.
[X.681] ITU-T, "Information Technology - Abstract Syntax Notation
One (ASN.1): Information object specification", ITU-T
Recommendation X.681, ISO/IEC 8824-2:2015, August 2015,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.681>.
[X.682] ITU-T, "Information Technology - Abstract Syntax Notation
One (ASN.1): Constraint specification", ITU-T
Recommendation X.682, ISO/IEC 8824-3:2015, August 2015,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.682>.
[X.683] ITU-T, "Information Technology - Abstract Syntax Notation
One (ASN.1): Parameterization of ASN.1 specifications",
ITU-T Recommendation X.683, ISO/IEC 8824-4:2015, August
2015, <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.683>.
[X.690] 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 8825-1:2015,
August 2015, <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.690>.
9.2. Informative References
[BRSKI] Pritikin, M., Richardson, M. C., Eckert, T., Behringer, M.
H., and K. Watsen, "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key
Infrastructures (BRSKI)", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-45, 11
November 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-45>.
[RFC2307] Howard, L., "An Approach for Using LDAP as a Network
Information Service", RFC 2307, DOI 10.17487/RFC2307,
March 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2307>.
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2616, June 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2616>.
[RFC2985] Nystrom, M. and B. Kaliski, "PKCS #9: Selected Object
Classes and Attribute Types Version 2.0", RFC 2985,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2985, November 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2985>.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.
[RFC7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.
Appendix A. ASN.1 Module
This annex provides the normative ASN.1 definitions for the
structures described in this specification using ASN.1 as defined in
[X.680], [X.681], [X.682], and [X.683].
The ASN.1 modules makes imports from the ASN.1 modules in [RFC5912]
and [RFC6268].
There is no ASN.1 Module in [RFC7030]. This module has been created
by combining the lines that are contained in the document body.
PKIXEST-2019
{ iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7)
id-mod(0) id-mod-est-2019(98) }
DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::=
BEGIN
-- EXPORTS ALL --
IMPORTS
Attribute
FROM CryptographicMessageSyntax-2010 -- [RFC6268]
{ iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549)
pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) modules(0)
id-mod-cms-2009(58) }
ATTRIBUTE
FROM PKIX-CommonTypes-2009 -- [RFC5912]
{ iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
id-mod-pkixCommon-02(57) } ;
-- CSR Attributes
CsrAttrs ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (0..MAX) OF AttrOrOID
AttrOrOID ::= CHOICE {
oid OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
attribute Attribute {{AttrSet}} }
AttrSet ATTRIBUTE ::= { ... }
-- Asymmetric Decrypt Key Identifier Attribute
aa-asymmDecryptKeyID ATTRIBUTE ::=
{ TYPE AsymmetricDecryptKeyIdentifier
IDENTIFIED BY id-aa-asymmDecryptKeyID }
id-aa-asymmDecryptKeyID OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1)
member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9)
smime(16) aa(2) 54 }
AsymmetricDecryptKeyIdentifier ::= OCTET STRING
END
Acknowledgements
Huawei Technologies supported the efforts of Wei Pan and Michael
Richardson.
The ASN.1 Module was assembled by Russ Housley and formatted by Sean
Turner. Russ Housley provided editorial review.
Authors' Addresses
Michael Richardson
Sandelman Software Works
Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
Thomas Werner
Siemens
Email: thomas-werner@siemens.com
Wei Pan
Huawei Technologies
Email: william.panwei@huawei.com