| Internet-Draft | CMC: Compliance | September 2024 |
| Mandel, Ed & Turner, Ed | Expires 2 April 2025 | [Page] |
This document provides a set of compliance statements about the CMC (Certificate Management over CMS) enrollment protocol. The ASN.1 structures and the transport mechanisms for the CMC enrollment protocol are covered in other documents. This document provides the information needed to make a compliant version of CMC.¶
This document obsoletes RFCs 5274 and 6402.¶
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.¶
Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5274bis/.¶
Discussion of this document takes place on the WG LAMPS mailing list (mailto:spasm@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm/.¶
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/TBD.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 2 April 2025.¶
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English.¶
The CMC (Certificate Management over CMS) protocol is designed in terms of a client/server relationship. In the simplest case, the client is the requestor of the certificate (i.e., the End Entity (EE)) and the server is the issuer of the certificate (i.e., the Certification Authority (CA)). The introduction of a Registration Authority (RA) into the set of agents complicates the picture only slightly. The RA becomes the server with respect to the certificate requestor, and it becomes the client with respect to the certificate issuer. Any number of RAs can be inserted into the picture in this manner.¶
The RAs may serve specialized purposes that are not currently covered by this document. One such purpose would be a Key Escrow agent. As such, all certificate requests for encryption keys would be directed through this RA and it would take appropriate action to do the key archival. Key recovery requests could be defined in the CMC methodology allowing for the Key Escrow agent to perform that operation acting as the final server in the chain of agents.¶
If there are multiple RAs in the system, it is considered normal that not all RAs will see all certificate requests. The routing between the RAs may be dependent on the content of the certificate requests involved.¶
This document is divided into six sections, each section specifying the requirements that are specific to a class of agents in the CMC model. These are 1) all Entities, 2) all Servers, 3) all Clients, 4) all End-Entities, 5) all Registration Authorities, 6) all Certification Authorities.¶
This document obsoletes [CMC-COMPv1] and [CMC-Updates].¶
There are several different terms, abbreviations, and acronyms used in this document that we define here for convenience and consistency of usage:¶
Refers to the entity that owns a key pair and for whom a certificate is issued.¶
Refers to an entity that acts as an intermediary between the EE and the CA. Multiple RAs can exist between the End-Entity and the Certification Authority. RAs may perform additional services such as key generation or key archival. This document uses the term RA for both RA and LRA.¶
Refers to the entity that issues certificates.¶
Refers to an entity that creates a PKI Request. In this document, both RAs and EEs can be clients.¶
Refers to the entities that process PKI Requests and create PKI Responses. In this document both CAs and RAs can be servers.¶
Refers to the Public Key Cryptography Standard #10 [PKCS10], which defines a certification request syntax.¶
Refers to the Certificate Request Message Format RFC [CRMF]. CMC uses this certification request syntax defined in this document as part of the protocol.¶
Refers to the Cryptographic Message Syntax RFC [CMS]. This document provides for basic cryptographic services including encryption and signing with and without key management.¶
Refers to the requests/responses described in this document. PKI Requests include certification requests, revocation requests, etc. PKI Responses include certs-only messages, failure messages, etc.¶
Refers to the client proving they are who they say that they are to the server.¶
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.¶
Refers to the outermost CMS wrapping layer.¶
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.¶
TODO for -03:¶
Update cryptographic algorithm requirements¶
-02 version changes:¶
Updated text in intro¶
Changed "all agents" to "all entities" in overview¶
Updated section header numbering¶
-01 version changes:¶
Changed RFC 5272 references to draft-mandel-lamps-rfc5272bis¶
Changed RFC 5273 references to draft-mandel-lamps-rfc5273bis¶
-00 version changes:¶
Added "Changes Since 5274 and 6402" section¶
Updated references¶
Merged [CMC-Updates] text¶
Updated and moved Acknowledgments¶
All [CMC-STRUCT] and [CMC-TRANS] compliance statements MUST be adhered to unless specifically stated otherwise in this document.¶
All entities MUST support Full PKI Requests, Simple PKI Responses, and Full PKI Responses. Servers SHOULD support Simple PKI Requests.¶
All entities MUST support the use of the CRMF syntax for certification requests. Support for the PKCS #10 syntax for certification requests SHOULD be implemented by servers.¶
The extendedFailInfo field SHOULD NOT be populated in the CMCStatusInfoV2 object; the failInfo field SHOULD be used to relay this information. If the extendedFailInfo field is used, it is suggested that an additional CMCStatusInfoV2 item exist for the same body part with a failInfo field.¶
All entities MUST implement the HTTP transport mechanism as defined in [CMC-TRANS]. Other transport mechanisms MAY be implemented.¶
All entities MUST verify DSA-SHA1 and RSA-SHA1 signatures in SignedData (see [CMS-ALG]). Entities MAY verify other signature algorithms. It is strongly suggested that RSA-PSS with SHA-1 be verified (see [CMS-RSA-PSS]). It is strongly suggested that SHA-256 using RSA and RSA-PSS be verified (see [RSA-256]).¶
All entities MUST generate either DSA-SHA1 or RSA-SHA1 signatures for SignedData (see [CMS-ALG]). Other signatures algorithms MAY be used for generation.¶
All entities MUST support Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) as the content encryption algorithm for EnvelopedData (see [CMS-AES]). Other content encryption algorithms MAY be implemented.¶
All entities MUST support RSA as a key transport algorithm for EnvelopedData (see [CMS-ALG]). All entities SHOULD support RSA-OAEP (see [CMS-RSA-OAEP]) as a key transport algorithm. Other key transport algorithms MAY be implemented.¶
If an entity supports key agreement for EnvelopedData, it MUST support Diffie-Hellman (see [CMS-DH]).¶
If an entity supports PasswordRecipientInfo for EnvelopedData or AuthenticatedData, it MUST support PBKDF2 [PBKDF2] for key derivation algorithms. It MUST support AES key wrap (see [AES-WRAP] as the key encryption algorithm.¶
If AuthenticatedData is supported, PasswordRecipientInfo MUST be supported.¶
Algorithm requirements for the Identity Proof Version 2 control Section 6.2.1 of [CMC-STRUCT] are: SHA-1 MUST be implemented for hashAlgId. SHA-256 SHOULD be implemented for hashAlgId. HMAC-SHA1 MUST be implemented for macAlgId. HMAC-SHA256 SHOULD be implemented for macAlgId.¶
Algorithm requirements for the Pop Link Witness Version 2 control Section 6.3.1 of [CMC-STRUCT] are: SHA-1 MUST be implemented for keyGenAlgorithm. SHA-256 SHOULD be implemented for keyGenAlgorithm. PBKDF2 [PBKDF2] MAY be implemented for keyGenAlgorithm. HMAC-SHA1 MUST be implemented for macAlgorithm. HMAC-SHA256 SHOULD be implemented for macAlgorithm.¶
Algorithm requirements for the Encrypted POP and Decrypted POP controls Section 6.7 of [CMC-STRUCT] are: SHA-1 MUST be implemented for witnessAlgID. SHA-256 SHOULD be implemented for witnessAlgID. HMAC-SHA1 MUST be implemented for thePOPAlgID. HMAC-SHA256 SHOULD be implemented for thePOPAlgID.¶
Algorithm requirements for Publish Trust Anchors control Section 6.15 of [CMC-STRUCT] are: SHA-1 MUST be implemented for hashAlgorithm. SHA-256 SHOULD be implemented for hashAlgorithm.¶
If an EE generates DH keys for certification, it MUST support Section 4 of [DH-POP]. EEs MAY support Section 3 of [DH-POP]. CAs and RAs that do POP verification MUST support Section 4 of [DH-POP] and SHOULD support Section 3 of [DH-POP].¶
EEs that need to use a signature algorithm for keys that cannot produce a signature MUST support Appendix C of [CMC-STRUCT] and MUST support the Encrypted/Decrypted POP controls. CAs and RAs that do POP verification MUST support this signature algorithm and MUST support the Encrypted/Decrypted POP controls.¶
The following table lists the name and level of support required for each control.¶
| Control | EE | RA | CA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extended CMC Status Info | MUST | MUST | MUST |
| CMC Status Info | SHOULD | SHOULD | SHOULD |
| Identity Proof Version 2 | MUST | MUST | MUST |
| Identity Proof | SHOULD | SHOULD | SHOULD |
| Identification | MUST | MUST | MUST |
| POP Link Random | MUST | MUST | MUST |
| POP Link Witness Version 2 | MUST | MUST | MUST |
| POP Link Witness | SHOULD | MUST | MUST |
| Data Return | MUST | MUST | MUST |
| Modify Cert Request | N/A | MUST | (2) |
| Add Extensions | N/A | MAY | (1) |
| Transaction ID | MUST | MUST | MUST |
| Sender Nonce | MUST | MUST | MUST |
| Recipient Nonce | MUST | MUST | MUST |
| Encrypted POP | (4) | (5) | SHOULD |
| Decrypted POP | (4) | (5) | SHOULD |
| RA POP Witness | N/A | SHOULD | (1) |
| Get Certificate | optional | optional | optional |
| Get CRL | optional | optional | optional |
| Revocation Request | SHOULD | SHOULD | MUST |
| Registration Info | SHOULD | SHOULD | SHOULD |
| Response Information | SHOULD | SHOULD | SHOULD |
| Query Pending | MUST | MUST | MUST |
| Confirm Cert. Acceptance | MUST | MUST | MUST |
| Publish Trust Anchors | (3) | (3) | (3) |
| Authenticate Data | (3) | (3) | (3) |
| Batch Request | N/A | MUST | (2) |
| Batch Responses | N/A | MUST | (2) |
| Publication Information | optional | optional | optional |
| Control Processed | N/A | MUST | (2) |
| RA Identity Proof Witness | N/A | MUST | (2) |
| Response Body | (6) | (6) | N/A. |
Notes:¶
CAs SHOULD implement this control if designed to work with RAs.¶
CAs MUST implement this control if designed to work with RAs.¶
Implementation is optional for these controls. We strongly suggest that they be implemented in order to populate client trust anchors.¶
EEs only need to implement this if (a) they support key agreement algorithms or (b) they need to operate in environments where the hardware keys cannot provide POP.¶
RAs SHOULD implement this if they implement RA POP Witness.¶
EE's SHOULD implement if designed to work with RAs and MUST implement if intended to be used in environments where RAs are used for identity validation or key generation. RAs SHOULD implement and validate responses for consistency.¶
Strong consideration should be given to implementing the Authenticate Data and Publish Trust Anchors controls as this gives a simple method for distributing trust anchors into clients without user intervention.¶
The following additional restrictions are placed on CRMF features:¶
The registration control tokens id-regCtrl-regToken and id-regCtrl- authToken MUST NOT be used. No specific CMC feature is used to replace these items, but generally the CMC controls identification and identityProof will perform the same service and are more specifically defined.¶
The control token id-regCtrl-pkiArchiveOptions SHOULD NOT be supported. An alternative method is under development to provide this functionality.¶
The behavior of id-regCtrl-oldCertID is not presently used. It is replaced by issuing the new certificate and using the id-cmc- publishCert to remove the old certificate from publication. This operation would not normally be accompanied by an immediate revocation of the old certificate; however, that can be accomplished by the id-cmc-revokeRequest control.¶
The id-regCtrl-protocolEncrKey is not used.¶
There are no additional requirements.¶
There are no additional requirements.¶
If an entity implements Diffie-Hellman, it MUST implement either the DH-POP Proof-of-Possession as defined in Section 4 of [DH-POP] or the challenge-response POP controls id-cmc-encryptedPOP and id-cmc- decryptedPOP.¶
RAs SHOULD be able to do delegated POP. RAs implementing this feature MUST implement the id-cmc-lraPOPWitness control.¶
All RAs MUST implement the promotion of the id-aa-cmc-unsignedData as covered in Section 3.2.3 of [CMC-STRUCT].¶
Providing for CAs to work in an environment with RAs is strongly suggested. Implementation of such support is strongly suggested as this permits the delegation of substantial administrative interaction onto an RA rather than at the CA.¶
CAs MUST perform at least minimal checks on all public keys before issuing a certificate. At a minimum, a check for syntax would occur with the POP operation. Additionally, CAs SHOULD perform simple checks for known bad keys such as small subgroups for DSA-SHA1 and DH keys [SMALL-SUB-GROUP] or known bad exponents for RSA keys.¶
CAs MUST enforce POP checking before issuing any certificate. CAs MAY delegate the POP operation to an RA for those cases where 1) a challenge/response message pair must be used, 2) an RA performs escrow of a key and checks for POP in that manner, or 3) an unusual algorithm is used and that validation is done at the RA.¶
CAs SHOULD implement both the DH-POP Proof-of-Possession as defined in Section 4 of [DH-POP] and the challenge-response POP controls id- cmc-encryptedPOP and id-cmc-decryptedPOP.¶
This document uses [CMC-STRUCT] and [CMC-TRANS] as building blocks to this document. The security sections of those two documents are included by reference.¶
Knowledge of how an entity is expected to operate is vital in determining which sections of requirements are applicable to that entity. Care needs to be taken in determining which sections apply and fully implementing the necessary code.¶
Cryptographic algorithms have and will be broken or weakened. Implementers and users need to check that the cryptographic algorithms listed in this document make sense from a security level. The IETF from time to time may issue documents dealing with the current state of the art. Two examples of such documents are [SMALL-SUB-GROUP] and [HASH-ATTACKS].¶
Obviously, the authors of this version of the document would like to thank Jim Schaad and Michael Myers for their work on the previous version of this document.¶
The acknowledgment from the previous version of this document follows:¶
The authors and the PKIX Working Group are grateful for the participation of Xiaoyi Liu and Jeff Weinstein in helping to author the original versions of this document.¶
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.¶