-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
New MASA /cacerts resource; and the optional omission IDevID root CA cert #261
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -42,10 +42,12 @@ author: | |
|
||
|
||
normative: | ||
RFC2045: | ||
# RFC2119: | ||
RFC3688: | ||
RFC4193: | ||
RFC4210: | ||
RFC5272: | ||
RFC5280: | ||
RFC5652: | ||
RFC6020: | ||
|
@@ -282,6 +284,11 @@ This is the Pledge's IDevID certificate. | |
Subsequently the Pledge will send a Pledge Voucher Request (PVR). Further elements of Pledge authentication may be present in the PVR, | ||
as detailed in {{VR-COSE}}. | ||
|
||
By default the Pledge will send a complete client certificate chain to the Registrar, up to and including the root CA certificate. | ||
This document defines an optional optimization that a Pledge may use: it MAY omit the root CA certificate from its DTLS client certificate message, | ||
but only if the MASA server implements the resource "/cacerts" that is described in {{brski-masa-extensions}}. This optimization reduces the data volume | ||
of the DTLS handshake, which is beneficial on constrained networks. | ||
|
||
### DTLS Handshake Fragmentation Considerations {#dtls-fragments} | ||
|
||
DTLS includes a mechanism to fragment handshake messages. This is described in {{Section 4.4 of RFC9147}}. | ||
|
@@ -662,6 +669,38 @@ If the certificate that the Registrar uses is marked as a id-kp-cmcRA certificat | |
|
||
In summary for typical Registrar use, where a single Registrar certificate is used, then the certificate MUST have EKU of: id-kp-cmcRA, id-kp-serverAuth, id-kp-clientAuth. | ||
|
||
## MASA Extensions {#brski-masa-extensions} | ||
|
||
This document supports efficient operation of Pledges in constrained networks, by letting a Pledge optionally omit the sending of its root CA certificate in the DTLS handshake with the Registrar. | ||
This optimization requires a Registrar to have an alternative method to obtain this root CA certificate, which it may need for validation and logging purposes. The alternative method defined here is | ||
that the Registrar can request the relevant root CA certificate(s) directly from the MASA. Although the operator of a Registrar may have already obtained such CA certificate(s) via a vendor-specific method | ||
(e.g. part of sales integration), a standardized method is still needed for cases where such vendor-specific methods do not exist or are not known to the operator. | ||
|
||
### Pledge CA Certificates Request | ||
A Registrar, after having established a TLS connection to the MASA, MAY request the full set of root CA certificates for all Pledges that are managed in scope of this MASA, by sending a Pledge CA | ||
Certificates Request. This uses a HTTPS GET with the operation MASA URI path of "/.well-known/brski/cacerts". | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Does this amend RFC8995, (which creates the BRSKI-MASA protocol), or does it amend RFC7030 (which defined cacerts), or ?? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @pritikin might have an opinion about whether there is any IANA Considerations here. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It does not amend 8995, since 8995 resources are left untouched. It adds a resource which be simply be recorded in the IANA registry here: https://www.iana.org/assignments/brski-parameters/brski-parameters.xhtml#brski-well-known-uris It also does not amend RFC7030 since it targets the BRSKI protocol and not EST. The name "cacerts" is simply borrowed and can be changed if it helps for clarity (but in principle, the well-known BRSKI and well-known EST namespaces are fully separate so we can borrow the name if we want.) The IANA section can be added in this PR once we think this is useful to have. (E.g. we might be able to quantify the performance gain and see if it's worth the extra text and complexity.) |
||
|
||
### Pledge CA Certificates Response | ||
A MASA server MUST support the HTTPS resource "/.well-known/brski/cacerts" for the GET method over the TLS connection where the client is a Registrar. | ||
|
||
If the request is processed successfully, the server response MUST have an HTTP 200 response code. Any other response code indicates an error and the client MAY either retry the operation | ||
or (eventually) abort the protocol. | ||
|
||
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}}. | ||
Comment on lines
+689
to
+692
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Didn't we create an alternative for certs-only? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. If we are are returning an SMIME document, maybe we should put some content in it for the human to review. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The only alternative we have finished was for the constrained Pledge: Coap content format 287 per RFC 9148. This is "application/pkix-cert" and can carry only a single X509 certificate. This can work well if the Registrar would signal the exact identity of the Pledge to the MASA and then the MASA can return the correct root CA cert for it. That would also avoid the problem of MASA possibly needing to return many (100s?) of certificates to the Registrar , not knowing which one the Registrar is going to need. (We did consider some alternatives for fetching multiple certs, e.g. via Coap resources name/0, name/1, etc. to fetch N certs one by one. But not pursued) |
||
|
||
The MASA MUST include at least the root CA certificate(s) of the IDevID certificate chain(s) of any Pledge that the Registrar may potentially require. | ||
To determine what the Registrar may potentially require, without knowing yet the exact identity of the Pledge, the MASA may use one or more of the following context information: | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The Registrar probably already has the IDevID, which is how it got the MASAUrl. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The Registar indeed already has the IDevID of the Pledge, including things like serial-number and Authority Key Identifier. So it could make use of this information to signal to the MASA what root CA cert it wants to have. That would be an extra barrier for a 3rd party to get certificate information. Not sure if a malicious 3rd party would learn much from getting all the root CA certs though. One idea is the following: Registrar sends a POST request with a complete voucher-request object to the resource "/rootcacert" which returns in response the single X.509 root CA cert. This is similar to how a Registrar sends the voucher-request object as an identifier to request the Pledge's audit log, in RFC 8995 5.8. The voucher-request object fully identifies the Pledge as well as the domain of the Registrar, which could be useful. And it allows code re-use I guess between MASA resource handlers. |
||
|
||
* The set of root CA certificates for all Pledges that are managed by the current MASA server; | ||
* The authentication method and credentials the Registrar used to connect to the MASA; | ||
* The MASA URI that the Registrar used to connect to the MASA. | ||
|
||
As an example, a MASA server that is connected to by using the Server Name Indicator (SNI) of "ca1.masa.example.com" may infer from this server URI that the Registrar is going to onboard | ||
a Pledge that uses "ca1" as the root CA of the Pledge IDevID certificate chain. | ||
|
||
<!-- ******************************************************************** --> | ||
|
||
# Pinning in Voucher Artifacts {#pinning} | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should this also say something about semi-promiscuous Registrars, where a human will be asked?
Obtaining the root certificate might help the human decide WTF this new device is.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In current text this use case is included in the broad "validation and logging purposes". Validation could be with or without human in the loop. It can be expanded a bit to mention different methods of validation; I'll think about that and do a PR update.