RE: Signer certificate discovery for CRLs

["Santosh Chokhani" <chokhani@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stefan:

In terms of certificate discovery, your proposal for AIA in CRL is more
robust.  The whole idea of self-issued key rollover certificates and then
using the new key to issue CRL is fraught with security problems.  A secure
solution would be one where the new key is certified by the parent CA.  In
that case to obtain the new certificate, you could use AIA in CRL.

As to indirect CRL, your proposal is a good one.  The CRL DP in certificate
in question points to the indirect CRL.  You get that CRL.  The AIA in CRL
gets you started for the indirect CRL issuer certification path and you are
in business. 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ietf-pkix@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Stefan Santesson
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 7:30 PM
To: David A. Cooper
Cc: pkix
Subject: RE: Signer certificate discovery for CRLs



David,

Thanks for the clarifications, they make sense.
I did misread your pictures.

So can we conclude that for a re-keyed CA in accordance with RFC 3280,
either the CRL issuer certificate itself, or the location of the CRL issuer
certificate, will be clearly identified/available for the validating party
in some cases, but not in others?

Can we also conclude that there is no real discovery solution for indirect
CRLs?

Do you then agree then that it could be appropriate to allow AIA as a CRL
extension to facilitate discovery of CRL signer certificate?

Stefan Santesson 
Microsoft Security Center of Excellence (SCOE) 
  
________________________________________
From: David A. Cooper [mailto:david.cooper@xxxxxxxx] 
Sent: den 12 oktober 2004 21:14
To: Stefan Santesson
Cc: pkix
Subject: Re: Signer certificate discovery for CRLs

Stefan,

I believe that you are misinterpreting the figures.  They really do
represent three different cases, not three different certification paths
that have been constructed through the same PKI architecture.

In figure 1, CA 1 has generated self-issued key rollover certificates.  The
Root CA has issued a certificate to CA 1's new key, but not its old key
(either the Root CA never issued a certificate to CA 1's old key or that
certificate has expired).

In figure 2, CA 2 has also generated self-issued key rollover certificates. 
The Root CA has issued a certificate to CA 2's old key, but not its new key.

In figure 3, when CA 3 performed key rollover, it requested a new CA
certificate from the Root CA.  CA 3 did not generated self-issued key
rollover certificates.

Of course, another realistic scenario would be one in which a CA generated
self-issued key rollover certificates upon key rollover and then had the
Root CA issue a CA certificate to its new key.  In this case, as you
suggest, any of the certification paths from figures 1, 2, or 3 could be
constructed.

As for the contents of the AIA extension, here is what I have specified in
the "X.509 Certificate and CRL Extensions Profile for the Common Policy":

The authorityInfoAccess extension uses URIs for two purposes. When the
id-ad-caIssuers access method is used, the access location specifies where
certificates issued to the issuer of the certificate may be found. If LDAP
is used, the URI must include the DN of the entry containing the relevant
certificates and specify the directory attribute in which the certificates
are located. If the directory in which the certificates are stored expects
the "binary" option to be specified, then the attribute type must be
followed by ";binary" in the URI. If HTTP is used, the URI must point to a
file that has an extension of ".p7c" that contains a certs-only CMS message
(see RFC 2633). The CMS message should include all certificates issued to
the issuer of this certificate, but must at least contain all certificates
issued to the issuer of this certificate in which the subject public key may
be used to verify the signature on this certificate. .... For a certificate
issued by "Good CA", some examples of URIs that may appear as the access
location in an authorityInfoAccess extension when the id-ad-caIssuers access
method is used are: 
ldap://smime2.nist.gov/cn=Good%20CA,o=Test%20Certificates,c=US?cACertificate
,crossCertificatePair
ldap://129.6.20.71/cn=Good%20CA,o=Test%20Certificates,c=US?cACertificate;bin
ary,crossCertificatePair;binary
http://fictitious.nist.gov/fictitiousCertsOnlyCMSdirectory/certsIssuedToGood
CA.p7c
For both LDAP and HTTP, the URI provides the exact location where
information is to be located, so there is no requirement for the relying
party to try to figure out where information is located.

The HTTP URI points to a certs-only CMS message that includes all
certificates issued to the CA identified in the issuer field of the
certificate.

The LDAP URI points to the cACertificate and crossCertificatePair attributes
of the directory entry of the CA identified in the issuer field of the
certificate.  These two attributes together hold all of the certificates
issued to the CA:  the cACertificate attribute holds the CA's self-issued
certificates and the crossCertificatePair attribute holds the
cross-certificates issued to the CA by other CAs.

Dave


Stefan Santesson wrote:

David,
 
Thanks for these good thoughts and very useful scenarios.
 
I have some comments and questions on this.
 
First of all we can conclude that in some scenarios (figure 1) where a self
issued certificate is inserted into the path, you are likely to find the CRL
issuer cert in the path. (given that the new CA have a common key and
certificate for cert signing and CRL signing).
 
Figure 1, 2 and 3 describe the same case. It is just describing different
path building strategies. An application that has access locally to all
chaining options may however still choose path 2 for the certs and path 1
for the CRL independent of each other (which I think figure 3 tries to
describe)
 
Another comment is the structure of AIA extensions. The use I'm familiar
with doesn't use AIA to describe a directory entry where it is left to the
validation application logic to be intelligent enough to find appropriate
certificate data from the directory. The model I'm familiar with is when the
AIA URL explicitly identifies the exact location of the appropriate CA
certificate file, relieving the validation software from complex information
queries. If just location of explicit certificate files are identified
through AIA, the presence of an AIA may not help finding the CRL signer cert
if this is different from the CA certificate. This is also the problem with
Denis proposal.
 
I think we share the basic conclusion that the ability to locate the CRL
signer certificate directly through the CRL could be very useful. At least
in the case of indirect CRL but it could also be proven very useful in CA
re-keying scenarios.
 
The easiest solution would probably be to allow AIA to be used in its
current shape and structure as a CRL extension (MUST NOT be critical). It
would present a very clear and uncomplicated logic to certificate validating
applications in many cases.
 
Stefan Santesson 
Microsoft Security Center of Excellence (SCOE) 
  
________________________________________
From: David A. Cooper [mailto:david.cooper@xxxxxxxx] 
Sent: den 7 oktober 2004 18:35
To: Stefan Santesson
Cc: pkix
Subject: Re: Signer certificate discovery for CRLs
 
Stefan,

I think what you are proposing is a good idea.  In most cases, path
discovery algorithms assume that both the trust anchor (or trust anchors)
and the end entity certificate are provided as input.  In this case, one may
need to construct a certification path without a priori access to the end
entity certificate (the one with the subject public key corresponding to the
CRL signing key).  Including an AIA extension (or some other pointer) in the
CRL would provide the relying party with a simple way to obtain the end
entity certificate for the CRL signing key's certification path. On the
other hand, I believe that a relying party should be able to construct the
certification path even without an AIA extension in the CRL, so long as it
is not an indirect CRL.  Attached is a drawing of the three basic scenarios
that I expect a relying party may encounter:

In each of these scenarios, the CA has performed key rollover and is only
signing CRLs with its new key.  The diagrams would look similar, however, if
the CA simply choose to use different keys to sign certificates and CRLs for
some other reason.

If the PKI architecture resembled figure 1, then the certification path for
the CRL signing key would just be a subset of the certification path for the
EE certificate, so no addition path discovery would be needed.

If the PKI architecture resembled figure 1, then it would be necessary to
obtain the new-signed-with-old self-issued certificate.  In building the
certification path to the EE certificate, however, the relying party will
obtain the certificates pointed to by the AIA extension in the EE
certificate.  This AIA extension will point to a location containing all
certificates issued to CA 2, which would include both the certificate issued
by the Root to CA 2 and CA 2's self-issued certificate.  So, even though the
self-issued certificate would not be part of the certification path to the
EE certificate, it would be downloaded by the relying party during the
construction of that certification path.  (Yes, there are circular
dependency issues in figure 2, but that is another issue.)

A similar situation would happen if the PKI architecture resembled figure
3.  The AIA extension in the EE certificate would point to a location
containing certificates issued to CA 3.  When the relying party downloaded
these certificates, it would obtain both of the certificates issued by the
Root to CA 3 and so again would have the certificate needed to validate the
CRL signing key.

In the case of an indirect CRL, things may not work as well.  If indirect
CRLs were used, and the PKI architecture resembled figures 2 or 3 (replacing
"New Key" with a different CA), then the set of certificates pointed to by
the AIA extension in the EE certificate would not include the certificate of
the CRL signer.  One could find this certificate by building in the reverse
direction and using the SIA extension, but that may not be the most
convenient solution.

So, when indirect CRLs are being used, it seems that it would be very useful
to have a pointer in the CRL to the CRL signing certificate.  When the CRL
is not indirect, the need for this pointer does not seem to be as clear, but
I can't see any harm in including it.

Dave

Stefan Santesson wrote:
All,
 
I'm interested in the opinion from members on this list about discovery of
CRL signer's certificate in non directory centric environments.
 
The problem is the following.
 
The relying party (RP) needs to check validity of a certificate and finds a
CDP extension with a URL to the CRL. The RP retrieves this CRL which in this
particular case is either signed by another key of the CA (re-keyed CA) or
another entity (indirect CRL).
 
In this case the relying party needs to obtain the certificate of the CRL
signer which may NOT be part of the original chain. In a directory centric
solution this is retrieved from the directory, but what if such directory is
not available or accessible.
 
The RP have thus no hint where to find the CRL issuers certificate unless
the RP already have possession of it by some other means.
 
Is seems that CRLs would need an AIA extension with the option to point to
the location of the signers certificate in the same manner as is possible
for certificates.
 
Maybe AIA should be defined as both cert and CRL extension and not only
certificate extension as today.
 
Thoughts and comments?
 
Stefan Santesson
Microsoft Security Center of Excellence (SCOE)