Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
93929190898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 6253

Host Identity Protocol Certificates

Pages: 12
Obsoleted by:  8002
Updates:  5201

ToP   noToC   RFC6253 - Page 1
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                           T. Heer
Request for Comments: 6253                COMSYS, RWTH Aachen University
Updates: 5201                                                S. Varjonen
Category: Experimental     Helsinki Institute for Information Technology
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                 May 2011


                  Host Identity Protocol Certificates

Abstract

The Certificate (CERT) parameter is a container for digital certificates. It is used for carrying these certificates in Host Identity Protocol (HIP) control packets. This document specifies the CERT parameter and the error signaling in case of a failed verification. Additionally, this document specifies the representations of Host Identity Tags in X.509 version 3 (v3) and Simple Public Key Infrastructure (SPKI) certificates. The concrete use of certificates, including how certificates are obtained, requested, and which actions are taken upon successful or failed verification, is specific to the scenario in which the certificates are used. Hence, the definition of these scenario- specific aspects is left to the documents that use the CERT parameter. This document updates RFC 5201. Status of This Memo This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for examination, experimental implementation, and evaluation. This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6253.
ToP   noToC   RFC6253 - Page 2
Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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
   (http://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.

   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.

1. Introduction

Digital certificates bind pieces of information to a public key by means of a digital signature and thus enable the holder of a private key to generate cryptographically verifiable statements. The Host Identity Protocol (HIP) [RFC5201] defines a new cryptographic namespace based on asymmetric cryptography. The identity of each host is derived from a public key, allowing hosts to digitally sign data and issue certificates with their private key. This document specifies the CERT parameter, which is used to transmit digital certificates in HIP. It fills the placeholder specified in Section 5.2 of [RFC5201] and thus updates [RFC5201].

1.1. Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
ToP   noToC   RFC6253 - Page 3

2. CERT Parameter

The CERT parameter is a container for certain types of digital certificates. It does not specify any certificate semantics. However, it defines supplementary parameters that help HIP hosts to transmit semantically grouped CERT parameters in a more systematic way. The specific use of the CERT parameter for different use cases is intentionally not discussed in this document, because it is specific to a concrete use case. Hence, the use of the CERT parameter will be defined in the documents that use the CERT parameter. The CERT parameter is covered and protected, when present, by the HIP SIGNATURE field and is a non-critical parameter. The CERT parameter can be used in all HIP packets. However, using it in the first Initiator (I1) packet is NOT RECOMMENDED, because it can increase the processing times of I1s, which can be problematic when processing storms of I1s. Each HIP control packet MAY contain multiple CERT parameters. These parameters MAY be related or unrelated. Related certificates are managed in Cert groups. A Cert group specifies a group of related CERT parameters that SHOULD be interpreted in a certain order (e.g., for expressing certificate chains). For grouping CERT parameters, the Cert group and the Cert count field MUST be set. Ungrouped certificates exhibit a unique Cert group field and set the Cert count to 1. CERT parameters with the same Cert group number in the group field indicate a logical grouping. The Cert count field indicates the number of CERT parameters in the group. CERT parameters that belong to the same Cert group MAY be contained in multiple sequential HIP control packets. This is indicated by a higher Cert count than the amount of CERT parameters with matching Cert group fields in a HIP control packet. The CERT parameters MUST be placed in ascending order, within a HIP control packet, according to their Cert group field. Cert groups MAY only span multiple packets if the Cert group does not fit the packet. A HIP packet MUST NOT contain more than one incomplete Cert group that continues in the next HIP control packet. The Cert ID acts as a sequence number to identify the certificates in a Cert group. The numbers in the Cert ID field MUST start from 1 up to Cert count. The Cert group and Cert ID namespaces are managed locally by each host that sends CERT parameters in HIP control packets.
ToP   noToC   RFC6253 - Page 4
     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Type              |             Length            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Cert group   |  Cert count   |    Cert ID    |   Cert type   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                          Certificate                          /
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     /                               |            Padding            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    Type          768
    Length        Length in octets, excluding Type, Length, and Padding.
    Cert group    Group ID grouping multiple related CERT parameters.
    Cert count    Total count of certificates that are sent, possibly
                  in several consecutive HIP control packets.
    Cert ID       The sequence number for this certificate.
    Cert Type     Indicates the type of the certificate.
    Padding       Any Padding, if necessary, to make the TLV a multiple
                  of 8 bytes.

   The certificates MUST use the algorithms defined in [RFC5201] as the
   signature and hash algorithms.

   The following certificate types are defined:

             +--------------------------------+-------------+
             |           Cert format          | Type number |
             +--------------------------------+-------------+
             |            Reserved            |      0      |
             |            X.509 v3            |      1      |
             |              SPKI              |      2      |
             |    Hash and URL of X.509 v3    |      3      |
             |      Hash and URL of SPKI      |      4      |
             |      LDAP URL of X.509 v3      |      5      |
             |        LDAP URL of SPKI        |      6      |
             | Distinguished Name of X.509 v3 |      7      |
             |   Distinguished Name of SPKI   |      8      |
             +--------------------------------+-------------+

   The next sections outline the use of Host Identity Tags (HITs) in
   X.509 v3 and in Simple Public Key Infrastructure (SPKI) certificates.
   X.509 v3 certificates and the handling procedures are defined in
   [RFC5280].  The wire format for X.509 v3 is the Distinguished
   Encoding Rules format as defined in [X.690].  The SPKI, the handling
   procedures, and the formats are defined in [RFC2693].
ToP   noToC   RFC6253 - Page 5
   Hash and Uniform Resource Locator (URL) encodings (3 and 4) are used
   as defined in Section 3.6 of [RFC5996].  Using hash and URL encodings
   results in smaller HIP control packets than by including the
   certificate(s), but requires the receiver to resolve the URL or check
   a local cache against the hash.

   Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) URL encodings (5 and 6)
   are used as defined in [RFC4516].  Using LDAP URL encoding results in
   smaller HIP control packets but requires the receiver to retrieve the
   certificate or check a local cache against the URL.

   Distinguished Name (DN) encodings (7 and 8) are represented by the
   string representation of the certificate's subject DN as defined in
   [RFC4514].  Using the DN encoding results in smaller HIP control
   packets, but requires the receiver to retrieve the certificate or
   check a local cache against the DN.

3. X.509 v3 Certificate Object and Host Identities

If needed, HITs can represent an issuer, a subject, or both in X.509 v3. HITs are represented as IPv6 addresses as defined in [RFC4843]. When the Host Identifier (HI) is used to sign the certificate, the respective HIT MUST be placed into the Issuer Alternative Name (IAN) extension using the GeneralName form iPAddress as defined in [RFC5280]. When the certificate is issued for a HIP host, identified by a HIT and HI, the respective HIT MUST be placed into the Subject Alternative Name (SAN) extension using the GeneralName form iPAddress, and the full HI is presented as the subject's public key info as defined in [RFC5280]. The following examples illustrate how HITs are presented as issuer and subject in the X.509 v3 extension alternative names. Format of X509v3 extensions: X509v3 Issuer Alternative Name: IP Address:hit-of-issuer X509v3 Subject Alternative Name: IP Address:hit-of-subject Example X509v3 extensions: X509v3 Issuer Alternative Name: IP Address:2001:14:6cf:fae7:bb79:bf78:7d64:c056 X509v3 Subject Alternative Name: IP Address:2001:1c:5a14:26de:a07c:385b:de35:60e3 Appendix B shows a full example of an X.509 v3 certificate with HIP content.
ToP   noToC   RFC6253 - Page 6
   As another example, consider a managed Public Key Infrastructure
   (PKI) environment in which the peers have certificates that are
   anchored in (potentially different) managed trust chains.  In this
   scenario, the certificates issued to HIP hosts are signed by
   intermediate Certification Authorities (CAs) up to a root CA.  In
   this example, the managed PKI environment is neither HIP aware, nor
   can it be configured to compute HITs and include them in the
   certificates.

   When HIP communications are established, the HIP hosts not only need
   to send their identity certificates (or pointers to their
   certificates), but also the chain of intermediate CAs (or pointers to
   the CAs) up to the root CA, or to a CA that is trusted by the remote
   peer.  This chain of certificates MUST be sent in a Cert group as
   specified in Section 2.  The HIP peers validate each other's
   certificates and compute peer HITs based on the certificate public
   keys.

4. SPKI Cert Object and Host Identities

When using SPKI certificates to transmit information related to HIP hosts, HITs need to be enclosed within the certificates. HITs can represent an issuer, a subject, or both. In the following, we define the representation of those identifiers for SPKI given as S-expressions. Note that the S-expressions are only the human- readable representation of SPKI certificates. Full HIs are presented in the public key sequences of SPKI certificates. As an example, the Host Identity Tag of a host is expressed as follows: Format: (hash hit hit-of-host) Example: (hash hit 2001:13:724d:f3c0:6ff0:33c2:15d8:5f50) Appendix A shows a full example of a SPKI certificate with HIP content.

5. Revocation of Certificates

Revocation of X.509 v3 certificates is handled as defined in Section 5 of [RFC5280]. Revocation of SPKI certificates is handled as defined in Section 5 of [RFC2693].
ToP   noToC   RFC6253 - Page 7

6. Error Signaling

If the Initiator does not send the certificate that the Responder requires, the Responder may take actions (e.g., reject the connection). The Responder MAY signal this to the Initiator by sending a HIP NOTIFY message with NOTIFICATION parameter error type CREDENTIALS_REQUIRED. If the verification of a certificate fails, a verifier MAY signal this to the provider of the certificate by sending a HIP NOTIFY message with NOTIFICATION parameter error type INVALID_CERTIFICATE. NOTIFICATION PARAMETER - ERROR TYPES Value ------------------------------------ ----- CREDENTIALS_REQUIRED 48 The Responder is unwilling to set up an association, as the Initiator did not send the needed credentials. INVALID_CERTIFICATE 50 Sent in response to a failed verification of a certificate. Notification Data MAY contain n groups of 2 octets (n calculated from the NOTIFICATION parameter length), in order Cert group and Cert ID of the Certificate parameter that caused the failure.

7. IANA Considerations

This document defines the CERT parameter for the Host Identity Protocol [RFC5201]. This parameter is defined in Section 2 with type 768. The parameter type number is also defined in [RFC5201]. The CERT parameter has an 8-bit unsigned integer field for different certificate types, for which IANA has created and now maintains a new sub-registry entitled "HIP Certificate Types" under the "Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Parameters". Initial values for the Certificate type registry are given in Section 2. New values for the Certificate types from the unassigned space are assigned through IETF Review. In Section 6, this document defines two new types for the "NOTIFY Message Types" sub-registry under "Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Parameters".
ToP   noToC   RFC6253 - Page 8

8. Security Considerations

Certificate grouping allows the certificates to be sent in multiple consecutive packets. This might allow similar attacks, as IP-layer fragmentation allows, for example, the sending of fragments in the wrong order and skipping some fragments to delay or stall packet processing by the victim in order to use resources (e.g., CPU or memory). Hence, hosts SHOULD implement mechanisms to discard certificate groups with outstanding certificates if state space is scarce. Checking of the URL and LDAP entries might allow denial-of-service (DoS) attacks, where the target host may be subjected to bogus work. Security considerations for SPKI certificates are discussed in [RFC2693] and for X.509 v3 in [RFC5280].

9. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank A. Keranen, D. Mattes, M. Komu, and T. Henderson for the fruitful conversations on the subject. D. Mattes most notably contributed the non-HIP aware use case in Section 3.

10. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2693] Ellison, C., Frantz, B., Lampson, B., Rivest, R., Thomas, B., and T. Ylonen, "SPKI Certificate Theory", RFC 2693, September 1999. [RFC4514] Zeilenga, K., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): String Representation of Distinguished Names", RFC 4514, June 2006. [RFC4516] Smith, M., Ed., and T. Howes, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): Uniform Resource Locator", RFC 4516, June 2006. [RFC4843] Nikander, P., Laganier, J., and F. Dupont, "An IPv6 Prefix for Overlay Routable Cryptographic Hash Identifiers (ORCHID)", RFC 4843, April 2007. [RFC5201] Moskowitz, R., Nikander, P., Jokela, P., Ed., and T. Henderson, "Host Identity Protocol", RFC 5201, April 2008.
ToP   noToC   RFC6253 - Page 9
   [RFC5280]  Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
              Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
              Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
              (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008.

   [RFC5996]  Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen,
              "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)",
              RFC 5996, September 2010.

   [X.690]    ITU-T, "Recommendation X.690 (2002) | ISO/IEC 8825-1:2002,
              Information Technology - ASN.1 encoding rules:
              Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical
              Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules
              (DER)", July 2002.
ToP   noToC   RFC6253 - Page 10

Appendix A. SPKI Certificate Example

This section shows an SPKI certificate with encoded HITs. The example has been indented for readability. (sequence (public_key (rsa-pkcs1-sha1 (e #010001#) (n |yDwznOwX0w+zvQbpWoTnfWrUPLKW2NFrpXbsIcH/QBSLb k1RKTZhLasFwvtSHAjqh220W8gRiQAGIqKplyrDEqSrJp OdIsHIQ8BQhJAyILWA1Sa6f5wAnWozDfgdXoKLNdT8ZNB mzluPiw4ozc78p6MHElH75Hm3yHaWxT+s83M=| ) ) ) (cert (issuer (hash hit 2001:15:2453:698a:9aa:253a:dcb5:981e) ) (subject (hash hit 2001:12:ccd6:4715:72a3:2ab1:77e4:4acc) ) (not-before "2011-01-12_13:43:09") (not-after "2011-01-22_13:43:09") ) (signature (hash sha1 |h5fC8HUMATTtK0cjYqIgeN3HCIMA|) |u8NTRutINI/AeeZgN6bngjvjYPtVahvY7MhGfenTpT7MCgBy NoZglqH5Cy2vH6LrQFYWx0MjWoYwHKimEuBKCNd4TK6hrCyAI CIDJAZ70TyKXgONwDNWPOmcc3lFmsih8ezkoBseFWHqRGISIm MLdeaMciP4lVfxPY2AQKdMrBc=| ) )
ToP   noToC   RFC6253 - Page 11

Appendix B. X.509 v3 Certificate Example

This section shows a X.509 v3 certificate with encoded HITs. Certificate: Data: Version: 3 (0x2) Serial Number: 0 (0x0) Signature Algorithm: sha1WithRSAEncryption Issuer: CN=Example issuing host, DC=example, DC=com Validity Not Before: Mar 11 09:01:39 2011 GMT Not After : Mar 21 09:01:39 2011 GMT Subject: CN=Example subject host, DC=example, DC=com Subject Public Key Info: Public Key Algorithm: rsaEncryption RSA Public Key: (1024 bit) Modulus (1024 bit): 00:c0:db:38:50:8e:63:ed:96:ea:c6:c4:ec:a3:36: 62:e2:28:e9:74:9c:f5:2f:cb:58:0e:52:54:60:b5: fa:98:87:0d:22:ab:d8:6a:61:74:a9:ee:0b:ae:cd: 18:6f:05:ab:69:66:42:46:00:a2:c0:0c:3a:28:67: 09:cc:52:27:da:79:3e:67:d7:d8:d0:7c:f1:a1:26: fa:38:8f:73:f5:b0:20:c6:f2:0b:7d:77:43:aa:c7: 98:91:7e:1e:04:31:0d:ca:94:55:20:c4:4f:ba:b1: df:d4:61:9d:dd:b9:b5:47:94:6c:06:91:69:30:42: 9c:0a:8b:e3:00:ce:49:ab:e3 Exponent: 65537 (0x10001) X509v3 extensions: X509v3 Issuer Alternative Name: IP Address:2001:13:8d83:41c5:dc9f:38ed:e742:7281 X509v3 Subject Alternative Name: IP Address:2001:1c:6e02:d3e0:9b90:8417:673e:99db Signature Algorithm: sha1WithRSAEncryption 83:68:b4:38:63:a6:ae:57:68:e2:4d:73:5d:8f:11:e4:ba:30: a0:19:ca:86:22:e9:6b:e9:36:96:af:95:bd:e8:02:b9:72:2f: 30:a2:62:ac:b2:fa:3d:25:c5:24:fd:8d:32:aa:01:4f:a5:8a: f5:06:52:56:0a:86:55:39:2b:ee:7a:7b:46:14:d7:5d:15:82: 4d:74:06:ca:b7:8c:54:c1:6b:33:7f:77:82:d8:95:e1:05:ca: e2:0d:22:1d:86:fc:1c:c4:a4:cf:c6:bc:ab:ec:b8:2a:1e:4b: 04:7e:49:9c:8f:9d:98:58:9c:63:c5:97:b5:41:94:f7:ef:93: 57:29
ToP   noToC   RFC6253 - Page 12

Authors' Addresses

Tobias Heer Chair of Communication and Distributed Systems - COMSYS RWTH Aachen University Ahornstrasse 55 Aachen Germany Phone: +49 241 80 20 776 EMail: heer@cs.rwth-aachen.de URI: http://www.comsys.rwth-aachen.de/team/tobias-heer/ Samu Varjonen Helsinki Institute for Information Technology Gustaf Haellstroemin katu 2b Helsinki Finland EMail: samu.varjonen@hiit.fi URI: http://www.hiit.fi