Network Working Group R. Barnes Internet-Draft Cisco Intended status: Standards Track S. Iyengar Expires: 26 October 2020 Facebook N. Sullivan Cloudflare E. Rescorla Mozilla 24 April 2020 Delegated Credentials for TLS draft-ietf-tls-subcerts-08 Abstract The organizational separation between the operator of a TLS endpoint and the certification authority can create limitations. For example, the lifetime of certificates, how they may be used, and the algorithms they support are ultimately determined by the certification authority. This document describes a mechanism by which operators may delegate their own credentials for use in TLS, without breaking compatibility with peers that do not support this specification. Discussion Venues This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/tlswg/tls-subcerts (https://github.com/tlswg/tls- subcerts). Status of This Memo 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." Barnes, et al. Expires 26 October 2020 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Delegated Credentials for TLS April 2020 This Internet-Draft will expire on 26 October 2020. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Delegated Credentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. Client and Server behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.1. Server authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.2. Client authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1.3. Validating a Delegated Credential . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2. Certificate Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.1. Security of delegated credential's private key . . . . . 12 6.2. Re-use of delegated credentials in multiple contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.3. Revocation of delegated credentials . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.4. Interactions with session resumption . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.5. Privacy considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.6. The impact of signature forgery attacks . . . . . . . . . 13 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix A. ASN.1 Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Barnes, et al. Expires 26 October 2020 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Delegated Credentials for TLS April 2020 1. Introduction Typically, a TLS server uses a certificate provided by some entity other than the operator of the server (a "Certification Authority" or CA) [RFC8446] [RFC5280]. This organizational separation makes the TLS server operator dependent on the CA for some aspects of its operations, for example: * Whenever the server operator wants to deploy a new certificate, it has to interact with the CA. * The server operator can only use TLS signature schemes for which the CA will issue credentials. These dependencies cause problems in practice. Server operators often deploy TLS termination services in locations such as remote data centers or Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) where it may be difficult to detect key compromises. Short-lived certificates may be used to limit the exposure of keys in these cases. However, short-lived certificates need to be renewed more frequently than long-lived certificates. If an external CA is unable to issue a certificate in time to replace a deployed certificate, the server would no longer be able to present a valid certificate to clients. With short-lived certificates, there is a smaller window of time to renew a certificates and therefore a higher risk that an outage at a CA will negatively affect the uptime of the service. To reduce the dependency on external CAs, this document proposes a limited delegation mechanism that allows a TLS peer to issue its own credentials within the scope of a certificate issued by an external CA. These credentials only enable the recipient of the delegation to speak for names that the CA has authorized. For clarity, we will refer to the certificate issued by the CA as a "certificate", or "delegation certificate", and the one issued by the operator as a "delegated credential" or "DC". 2. Conventions and 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. Barnes, et al. Expires 26 October 2020 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Delegated Credentials for TLS April 2020 2.1. Change Log (*) indicates changes to the wire protocol. draft-08 * Include details about the impact of signature forgery attacks * Copy edits * Fix section about DC reuse * Incorporate feedback from Jonathan Hammell and Kevin Jacobs on the list draft-07 * Minor text improvements draft-06 * Modified IANA section, fixed nits draft-05 * Removed support for PKCS 1.5 RSA signature algorithms. * Additional security considerations. draft-04 * Add support for client certificates. draft-03 * Remove protocol version from the Credential structure. (*) draft-02 * Change public key type. (*) * Change DelegationUsage extension to be NULL and define its object identifier. * Drop support for TLS 1.2. * Add the protocol version and credential signature algorithm to the Credential structure. (*) Barnes, et al. Expires 26 October 2020 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Delegated Credentials for TLS April 2020 * Specify undefined behavior in a few cases: when the client receives a DC without indicated support; when the client indicates the extension in an invalid protocol version; and when DCs are sent as extensions to certificates other than the end-entity certificate. 3. Solution Overview A delegated credential is a digitally signed data structure with two semantic fields: a validity interval and a public key (along with its associated signature algorithm). The signature on the credential indicates a delegation from the certificate that is issued to the peer. The secret key used to sign a credential corresponds to the public key of the peer's X.509 end-entity certificate [RFC5280]. A TLS handshake that uses delegated credentials differs from a standard handshake in a few important ways: * The initiating peer provides an extension in its ClientHello or CertificateRequest that indicates support for this mechanism. * The peer sending the Certificate message provides both the certificate chain terminating in its certificate as well as the delegated credential. * The authenticating initiator uses information from the peer's certificate to verify the delegated credential and that the peer is asserting an expected identity. * Peers accepting the delegated credential use it as the certificate key for the TLS handshake As detailed in Section 4, the delegated credential is cryptographically bound to the end-entity certificate with which the credential may be used. This document specifies the use of delegated credentials in TLS 1.3 or later; their use in prior versions of the protocol is not allowed. Delegated credentials allow a peer to terminate TLS connections on behalf of the certificate owner. If a credential is stolen, there is no mechanism for revoking it without revoking the certificate itself. To limit exposure in case of delegated credential private key compromise, delegated credentials have a maximum validity period. In the absence of an application profile standard specifying otherwise, the maximum validity period is set to 7 days. Peers MUST NOT issue credentials with a validity period longer than the maximum validity period. This mechanism is described in detail in Section 4.1. Barnes, et al. Expires 26 October 2020 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Delegated Credentials for TLS April 2020 It was noted in [XPROT] that certificates in use by servers that support outdated protocols such as SSLv2 can be used to forge signatures for certificates that contain the keyEncipherment KeyUsage ([RFC5280] section 4.2.1.3). In order to prevent this type of cross- protocol attack, we define a new DelegationUsage extension to X.509 that permits use of delegated credentials. (See Section 4.2.) 3.1. Rationale Delegated credentials present a better alternative than other delegation mechanisms like proxy certificates [RFC3820] for several reasons: * There is no change needed to certificate validation at the PKI layer. * X.509 semantics are very rich. This can cause unintended consequences if a service owner creates a proxy certificate where the properties differ from the leaf certificate. For this reason, delegated credentials have very restricted semantics that should not conflict with X.509 semantics. * Proxy certificates rely on the certificate path building process to establish a binding between the proxy certificate and the server certificate. Since the certificate path building process is not cryptographically protected, it is possible that a proxy certificate could be bound to another certificate with the same public key, with different X.509 parameters. Delegated credentials, which rely on a cryptographic binding between the entire certificate and the delegated credential, cannot. * Each delegated credential is bound to a specific signature algorithm that may be used to sign the TLS handshake ([RFC8446] section 4.2.3). This prevents them from being used with other, perhaps unintended signature algorithms. 3.2. Related Work Many of the use cases for delegated credentials can also be addressed using purely server-side mechanisms that do not require changes to client behavior (e.g., a PKCS#11 interface or a remote signing mechanism [KEYLESS]). These mechanisms, however, incur per- transaction latency, since the front-end server has to interact with a back-end server that holds a private key. The mechanism proposed in this document allows the delegation to be done off-line, with no per-transaction latency. The figure below compares the message flows for these two mechanisms with TLS 1.3 [RFC8446]. Barnes, et al. Expires 26 October 2020 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Delegated Credentials for TLS April 2020 Remote key signing: Client Front-End Back-End |----ClientHello--->| | |<---ServerHello----| | |<---Certificate----| | | |<---remote sign---->| |<---CertVerify-----| | | ... | | Delegated credentials: Client Front-End Back-End | |<--DC distribution->| |----ClientHello--->| | |<---ServerHello----| | |<---Certificate----| | |<---CertVerify-----| | | ... | | These two mechanisms can be complementary. A server could use credentials for clients that support them, while using [KEYLESS] to support legacy clients. The private key for a delegated credential can be used in place of a certificate private key, so it is important that the Front-End and Back-End are parties that have a trusted relationship. Use of short-lived certificates with automated certificate issuance, e.g., with Automated Certificate Managment Environment (ACME) [RFC8555], reduces the risk of key compromise, but has several limitations. Specifically, it introduces an operationally-critical dependency on an external party. It also limits the types of algorithms supported for TLS authentication to those the CA is willing to issue a certificate for. Nonetheless, existing automated issuance APIs like ACME may be useful for provisioning delegated credentials. 4. Delegated Credentials While X.509 forbids end-entity certificates from being used as issuers for other certificates, it is valid to use them to issue other signed objects as long as the certificate contains the digitalSignature KeyUsage ([RFC5280] section 4.2.1.3). We define a new signed object format that would encode only the semantics that are needed for this application. The credential has the following structure: Barnes, et al. Expires 26 October 2020 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Delegated Credentials for TLS April 2020 struct { uint32 valid_time; SignatureScheme expected_cert_verify_algorithm; opaque ASN1_subjectPublicKeyInfo<1..2^24-1>; } Credential; valid_time: Time in seconds relative to the beginning of the delegation certificate's notBefore value after which the delegated credential is no longer valid. This MUST NOT exceed 7 days. expected_cert_verify_algorithm: The signature algorithm of the credential key pair, where the type SignatureScheme is as defined in [RFC8446]. This is expected to be the same as CertificateVerify.algorithm sent by the server. Only signature algorithms allowed for use in CertificateVerify messages are allowed. When using RSA, the public key MUST NOT use the rsaEncryption OID, as a result, the following algorithms are not allowed for use with delegated credentials: rsa_pss_rsae_sha256, rsa_pss_rsae_sha384, rsa_pss_rsae_sha512. ASN1_subjectPublicKeyInfo: The credential's public key, a DER- encoded [X.690] SubjectPublicKeyInfo as defined in [RFC5280]. The delegated credential has the following structure: struct { Credential cred; SignatureScheme algorithm; opaque signature<0..2^16-1>; } DelegatedCredential; algorithm: The signature algorithm used to verify DelegatedCredential.signature. signature: The delegation, a signature that binds the credential to the end-entity certificate's public key as specified below. The signature scheme is specified by DelegatedCredential.algorithm. The signature of the DelegatedCredential is computed over the concatenation of: 1. A string that consists of octet 32 (0x20) repeated 64 times. 2. The context string "TLS, server delegated credentials" for servers and "TLS, client delegated credentials" for clients. 3. A single 0 byte, which serves as the separator. Barnes, et al. Expires 26 October 2020 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Delegated Credentials for TLS April 2020 4. The DER-encoded X.509 end-entity certificate used to sign the DelegatedCredential. 5. DelegatedCredential.cred. 6. DelegatedCredential.algorithm. The signature effectively binds the credential to the parameters of the handshake in which it is used. In particular, it ensures that credentials are only used with the certificate and signature algorithm chosen by the delegator. The code changes required in order to create and verify delegated credentials, and the implementation complexity this entails, are localized to the TLS stack. This has the advantage of avoiding changes to security-critical and often delicate PKI code. 4.1. Client and Server behavior This document defines the following TLS extension code point. enum { ... delegated_credential(34), (65535) } ExtensionType; 4.1.1. Server authentication A client which supports this specification SHALL send a "delegated_credential" extension in its ClientHello. The body of the extension consists of a SignatureSchemeList: struct { SignatureScheme supported_signature_algorithm<2..2^16-2>; } SignatureSchemeList; If the client receives a delegated credential without indicating support, then the client MUST abort with an "unexpected_message" alert. If the extension is present, the server MAY send a delegated credential; if the extension is not present, the server MUST NOT send a delegated credential. The server MUST ignore the extension unless TLS 1.3 or a later version is negotiated. The server MUST send the delegated credential as an extension in the CertificateEntry of its end-entity certificate; the client SHOULD Barnes, et al. Expires 26 October 2020 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Delegated Credentials for TLS April 2020 ignore delegated credentials sent as extensions to any other certificate. The expected_cert_verify_algorithm field MUST be of a type advertised by the client in the SignatureSchemeList and is considered invalid otherwise. Clients that receive invalid delegated credentials MUST terminate the connection with an "illegal_parameter" alert. 4.1.2. Client authentication A server that supports this specification SHALL send a "delegated_credential" extension in the CertificateRequest message when requesting client authentication. The body of the extension consists of a SignatureSchemeList. If the server receives a delegated credential without indicating support in its CertificateRequest, then the server MUST abort with an "unexpected_message" alert. If the extension is present, the client MAY send a delegated credential; if the extension is not present, the client MUST NOT send a delegated credential. The client MUST ignore the extension unless TLS 1.3 or a later version is negotiated. The client MUST send the delegated credential as an extension in the CertificateEntry of its end-entity certificate; the server SHOULD ignore delegated credentials sent as extensions to any other certificate. The algorithm field MUST be of a type advertised by the server in the "signature_algorithms" extension of the CertificateRequest message and the expected_cert_verify_algorithm field MUST be of a type advertised by the server in the SignatureSchemeList and considered invalid otherwise. Servers that receive invalid delegated credentials MUST terminate the connection with an "illegal_parameter" alert. 4.1.3. Validating a Delegated Credential On receiving a delegated credential and a certificate chain, the peer validates the certificate chain and matches the end-entity certificate to the peer's expected identity. It also takes the following steps: 1. Verify that the current time is within the validity interval of the credential. This is done by asserting that the current time is no more than the delegation certificate's notBefore value plus DelegatedCredential.cred.valid_time. 2 Verify that the credential's remaining validity time is no more than the maximum Barnes, et al. Expires 26 October 2020 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Delegated Credentials for TLS April 2020 validity period. This is done by asserting that the current time is no more than the delegation certificate's notBefore value plus DelegatedCredential.cred.valid_time plus the maximum validity period. 2. Verify that expected_cert_verify_algorithm matches the scheme indicated in the peer's CertificateVerify message and that the algorithm is allowed for use with delegated credentials. 3. Verify that the end-entity certificate satisfies the conditions in Section 4.2. 4. Use the public key in the peer's end-entity certificate to verify the signature of the credential using the algorithm indicated by DelegatedCredential.algorithm. If one or more of these checks fail, then the delegated credential is deemed invalid. Clients and servers that receive invalid delegated credentials MUST terminate the connection with an "illegal_parameter" alert. If successful, the participant receiving the Certificate message uses the public key in the credential to verify the signature in the peer's CertificateVerify message. 4.2. Certificate Requirements We define a new X.509 extension, DelegationUsage, to be used in the certificate when the certificate permits the usage of delegated credentials. What follows is the ASN.1 [X.680] for the DelegationUsage certificate extension. ext-delegationUsage EXTENSION ::= { SYNTAX DelegationUsage IDENTIFIED BY id-ce-delegationUsage } DelegationUsage ::= NULL id-ce-delegationUsage OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) private(4) enterprise(1) id-cloudflare(44363) 44 } The extension MUST be marked non-critical. (See Section 4.2 of [RFC5280].) The client MUST NOT accept a delegated credential unless the server's end-entity certificate satisfies the following criteria: * It has the DelegationUsage extension. * It has the digitalSignature KeyUsage (see the KeyUsage extension defined in [RFC5280]). Barnes, et al. Expires 26 October 2020 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Delegated Credentials for TLS April 2020 5. IANA Considerations This document registers the "delegated_credentials" extension in the "TLS ExtensionType Values" registry. The "delegated_credentials" extension has been assigned a code point of 34. The IANA registry lists this extension as "Recommended" (i.e., "Y") and indicates that it may appear in the ClientHello (CH), CertificateRequest (CR), or Certificate (CT) messages in TLS 1.3 [RFC8446]. This document also defines an ASN.1 module for the DelegationUsage certificate extension in Appendix A. IANA is requested to register an Object Identfiier (OID) for the ASN.1 in "SMI Security for PKIX Module Identifier" arc. An OID for the DelegationUsage certificate extension is not needed as it is already assigned to the extension from Cloudflare's IANA Private Enterprise Number (PEN) arc. 6. Security Considerations 6.1. Security of delegated credential's private key Delegated credentials limit the exposure of the private key used in a TLS connection by limiting its validity period. An attacker who compromises the private key of a delegated credential can act as a man-in-the-middle until the delegated credential expires. However, they cannot create new delegated credentials. Thus, delegated credentials should not be used to send a delegation to an untrusted party, but is meant to be used between parties that have some trust relationship with each other. The secrecy of the delegated credential's private key is thus important and access control mechanisms SHOULD be used to protect it, including file system controls, physical security, or hardware security modules. 6.2. Re-use of delegated credentials in multiple contexts It is not possible to use the same delegated credential for both client and server authentication because issuing parties compute the corresponding signature using a context string unique to the intended role (client or server). 6.3. Revocation of delegated credentials Delegated credentials do not provide any additional form of early revocation. Since it is short lived, the expiry of the delegated credential would revoke the credential. Revocation of the long term private key that signs the delegated credential also implicitly revokes the delegated credential. Barnes, et al. Expires 26 October 2020 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Delegated Credentials for TLS April 2020 6.4. Interactions with session resumption If a client decides to cache the certificate chain and re-validate it when resuming a connection, the client SHOULD also cache the associated delegated credential and re-validate it. 6.5. Privacy considerations Delegated credentials can be valid for 7 days and it is much easier for a service to create delegated credential than a certificate signed by a CA. A service could determine the client time and clock skew by creating several delegated credentials with different expiry timestamps and observing whether the client would accept it. Client time could be unique and thus privacy sensitive clients, such as browsers in incognito mode, who do not trust the service might not want to advertise support for delegated credentials or limit the number of probes that a server can perform. 6.6. The impact of signature forgery attacks When TLS 1.2 servers support RSA key exchange, they may be vulnerable to attacks that allow forging an RSA signature over an arbitrary message [BLEI]. TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] (Section 7.4.7.1.) describes a mitigation strategy requiring careful implementation of timing resistant countermeasures for preventing these attacks. Experience shows that in practice, server implementations may fail to fully stop these attacks due to the complexity of this mitigation [ROBOT]. For TLS 1.2 servers that support RSA key exchange using a DC-enabled end- entity certificate, a hypothetical signature forgery attack would allow forging a signature over a delegated credential. The forged credential could then be used by the attacker as the equivalent of a man-in-the-middle certificate, valid for 7 days. Server operators should therefore minimize the risk of using DC- enabled end-entity certificates where a signature forgery oracle may be present. If possible, server operators may choose to use DC- enabled certificates only for signing credentials, and not for serving non-DC TLS traffic. Furthermore, server operators may use elliptic curve certificates for DC-enabled traffic, while using RSA certificates without the DelegationUsage certificate extension for non-DC traffic; this completely prevents such attacks. 7. Acknowledgements Thanks to David Benjamin, Christopher Patton, Kyle Nekritz, Anirudh Ramachandran, Benjamin Kaduk, Kazuho Oku, Daniel Kahn Gillmor, Watson Ladd, Robert Merget, Juraj Somorovsky, Nimrod Aviram for their discussions, ideas, and bugs they have found. Barnes, et al. Expires 26 October 2020 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Delegated Credentials for TLS April 2020 8. References 8.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [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, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018, . [X.680] ITU-T, "Information technology - Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1): Specification of basic notation", ISO/ IEC 8824-1:2015, November 2015. [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)", ISO/IEC 8825-1:2015, November 2015. 8.2. Informative References [BLEI] Bleichenbacher, D., "Chosen Ciphertext Attacks against Protocols Based on RSA Encryption Standard PKCS #1", Advances in Cryptology -- CRYPTO'98, LNCS vol. 1462, pages: 1-12 , 1998. [KEYLESS] Sullivan, N. and D. Stebila, "An Analysis of TLS Handshake Proxying", IEEE Trustcom/BigDataSE/ISPA 2015 , 2015. [RFC3820] Tuecke, S., Welch, V., Engert, D., Pearlman, L., and M. Thompson, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) Proxy Certificate Profile", RFC 3820, DOI 10.17487/RFC3820, June 2004, . Barnes, et al. Expires 26 October 2020 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Delegated Credentials for TLS April 2020 [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, . [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, . [RFC8555] Barnes, R., Hoffman-Andrews, J., McCarney, D., and J. Kasten, "Automatic Certificate Management Environment (ACME)", RFC 8555, DOI 10.17487/RFC8555, March 2019, . [ROBOT] Boeck, H., Somorovsky, J., and C. Young, "Return Of Bleichenbacher's Oracle Threat (ROBOT)", 27th USENIX Security Symposium , 2018. [XPROT] Jager, T., Schwenk, J., and J. Somorovsky, "On the Security of TLS 1.3 and QUIC Against Weaknesses in PKCS#1 v1.5 Encryption", Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security , 2015. Appendix A. ASN.1 Module The following ASN.1 module provides the complete definition of the DelegationUsage certificate extension. The ASN.1 module makes imports from [RFC5912]. Barnes, et al. Expires 26 October 2020 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Delegated Credentials for TLS April 2020 DelegatedCredentialExtn { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0) id-mod-delegated-credential-extn(TBD) } DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::= BEGIN -- EXPORT ALL IMPORTS EXTENSION FROM PKIX-CommonTypes-2009 -- From RFC 5912 { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0) id-mod-pkixCommon-02(57) } ; -- OID id-cloudflare OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) private(4) enterprise(1) 44363 } -- EXTENSION ext-delegationUsage EXTENSION ::= { SYNTAX DelegationUsage IDENTIFIED BY id-ce-delegationUsage } id-ce-delegationUsage OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-cloudflare 44 } DelegationUsage ::= NULL END Authors' Addresses Richard Barnes Cisco Email: rlb@ipv.sx Subodh Iyengar Facebook Email: subodh@fb.com Barnes, et al. Expires 26 October 2020 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Delegated Credentials for TLS April 2020 Nick Sullivan Cloudflare Email: nick@cloudflare.com Eric Rescorla Mozilla Email: ekr@rtfm.com Barnes, et al. Expires 26 October 2020 [Page 17]