| Internet Engineering Task Force | P. M. Hallam-Baker |
| Internet-Draft | Comodo Group Inc. |
| Intended status: Standards Track | R. N. Stradling |
| Expires: December 29, 2012 | Comodo CA Ltd. |
| June 29, 2012 |
DNS Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) Resource Record
draft-ietf-pkix-caa-09
The Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) DNS Resource Record allows a DNS domain name holder to specify one or more Certification Authorities (CAs) authorized to issue certificates for that domain. CAA resource records allow a public Certification Authority to implement additional controls to reduce the risk of unintended certificate mis-issue.
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 http://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 December 29, 2012.
Copyright (c) 2012 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.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
The following terms are used in this document:
The Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) DNS Resource Record allows a DNS domain name holder to specify the Certification Authorities authorized to issue certificates for that domain. Publication of CAA resource records allow a public Certification Authority (CA) to implement additional controls to reduce the risk of unintended certificate mis-issue.
Conformance with a published CAA record is a necessary but not sufficient condition for issueance of a certificate. Before issuing a certificate, a PKIX CA is required to validate the request according to the policies set out in its Certificate Policy Statement. In the case of a public CA that validates certificate requests as a third party, the certificate will be typically issued under a public trust anchor certificate embedded in one or more relevant Relying Applications.
Criteria for inclusion of embedded trust anchor certificates in applications are outside the scope of this document. Typically such criteria require the CA to publish a Certificate Practices Statement (CPS) that specifies how the requirements of the Certificate Policy (CP) are achieved. It is also common for a CA to engage an independent third party auditor to prepare an annual audit statement of its performance against its CPS.
A set of CAA records describes only current grants of authority to issue certificates for the corresponding DNS domain. Since a certificate is typically valid for at least a year, it is possible that a certificate that is not conformant with the CAA records currently published was conformant with the CAA records published at the time that the certificate was issued. Relying Applications MUST NOT use CAA records as part of certificate validation.
CAA Records MAY be used by Certificate Evaluators as a possible indicator of a security policy violation. Such use SHOULD take account of the possibility that published CAA records changed between the time a certificate was issued and the time at which the certificate was observed by the Certificate Evaluator.
A CAA RR consists of a flags byte and a tag-value pair referred to as a property. Multiple properties MAY be associated with the same domain name by publishing multiple CAA RRs at that domain name. The following flag is defined:
The following property tags are defined:
The following example informs CAs that certificates MUST NOT be issued except by the holder of the domain name 'ca.example.net' or an authorized agent thereof. Since the policy is published at the Public Delegation Point, the policy applies to all subordinate domains under example.com.
$ORIGIN example.com
. CAA 0 issue "ca.example.net"
If the domain name holder specifies one or more iodef properties, a certificate issuer MAY report invalid certificate requests to that address. In the following example the domain name holder specifies that reports MAY be made by means of email with the IODEF data as an attachment or a Web service or both:
$ORIGIN example.com
. CAA 0 issue "ca.example.net"
. CAA 0 iodef "mailto:security@example.com"
. CAA 0 iodef "http://iodef.example.com/"
A certificate issuer MAY specify additional parameters that allow customers to specify additional parameters governing certificate issuance. This might be the Certificate Policy under which the certificate is to be issued, the authentication process to be used might be specified or an account number specified by the CA to enable these parameters to be retrieved.
For example, the CA 'ca.example.net' has requested its customer 'example.com' to specify the CA's account number '230123' in each of the customer's CAA records.
$ORIGIN example.com
. CAA 0 issue "ca.example.net; account=230123"
The syntax and semantics of such parameters is left to site policy and is outside the scope of this document.
Future versions of this specification MAY use the critical flag to introduce new semantics that MUST be understood for correct processing of the record, preventing conforming CAs that do not recognize the record from issuing certificates for the indicated domains.
In the following example, the property 'tbs' is flagged as critical. Neither the example.net CA, nor any other issuer is authorized to issue under either policy unless the processing rules for the 'tbs' property tag are understood.
$ORIGIN example.com
. CAA 0 issue "ca.example.net; policy=ev"
. CAA 128 tbs "Unknown"
Note that the above restrictions only apply to issue of certificates. Since the validity of an end entity certificate is typically a year or more, it is quite possible that the CAA records published at a domain will change between the time a certificate was issued and validation by a relying party.
Before issuing a certificate, a compliant CA MUST check for publication of a relevant CAA Resource Record(s). If such record(s) are published, the requested certificate MUST consistent with them if it is to be issued. If the certificate requested is not consistent with the relevant CAA RRs, the CA MUST NOT issue the certificate.
The Issuer Authorization Set for a domain name consists of the set of all CAA Authorization Entries declared for the canonical form of the specified domain.
The DNS defines the CNAME and DNAME mechanisms for specifying domain name aliases. The canonical name of a DNS name is the name that results from performing all DNS alias operations. An issuer MUST perform CNAME and DNAME processing as defined in the DNS specifications [RFC1035] to resolve CAA records.
The Extended Issuer Authorization Set for a domain name is determined as follows:
For example, if the zone example.com has a CAA record defined for caa.example.com and no other domain in the zone, the Issuer Authorization Set is empty for all domains other than caa.example.com. The Extended Issuer Authorization Set is empty for example.com (because .com is a Public Delegation Point) and for x.example.com. The Extended Issuer set for x.caa.example.com, x.x.caa.example.com, etc. is the Issuer Authorization Set for caa.example.com.
If the Extended Issuer Authorization Set for a domain name is not empty, a Certification Authority MUST NOT issue a certificate unless the certificate conforms to at least one authorization entry in the Extended Issuer Authorization Set.
Use of DNSSEC to authenticate CAA RRs is strongly RECOMMENDED but not required. An issuer MUST NOT issue certificates if doing so would conflict with the corresponding extended issuer authorization set, irrespective of whether the corresponding DNS records are signed.
Use of DNSSEC allows an issuer to acquire and archive a non-repudiable proof that they were authorized to issue certificates for the domain. Verification of such archives MAY be an audit requirement to verify CAA record processing compliance. Publication of such archives MAY be a transparency requirement to verify CAA record processing compliance.
A compliant issuer SHOULD maintain an archive of the DNS transactions used to verify CAA eligibility.
In particular an issuer SHOULD ensure that where DNSSEC data is available that the corresponding signature and NSEC/NSEC3 records are preserved so as to enable later compliance audits.
A CAA RR contains a single property entry consisting of a tag value pair. Each tag represents a property of the CAA record. The value of a CAA property is that specified in the corresponding value field.
A domain name MAY have multiple CAA RRs associated with it and a given property MAY be specified more than once.
The CAA data field contains one property entry. A property entry consists of the following data fields:
+0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-|0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-|
| Flags | Tag Length = n |
+----------------+----------------+...+---------------+
| Tag char 0 | Tag Char 1 |...| Tag Char n-1 |
+----------------+----------------+...+---------------+
+----------------+----------------+.....+----------------+
| Value byte 0 | Value byte 1 |.....| Value byte m-1 |
+----------------+----------------+.....+----------------+
Where n is the length specified in the Tag length field and m is the remaining octets in the Value field (m = d - n - 2) where d is the length of the RDATA section.
The data fields are defined as follows:
The canonical presentation format of the CAA record is as follows:
CAA <flags> <tag> <value>
Where:
The issue property tag is used to request that certificate issuers perform CAA issue restriction processing for the domain and to grant authorization to specific certificate issuers.
The CAA issue property value has the following sub-syntax (specified in ABNF as per [RFC5234]).
Property = space [domain] * (space ";" parameter) space
domain = label *("." label)
label = 1* (ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" )
space = *(SP / HTAB)
parameter = / space tag "=" value
tag = 1* (ALPHA / DIGIT)
value = *VCHAR | DQUOTE *(%x20-21 / %x23-7E) DQUOTE
A CAA record with an issue parameter tag that does not specify a domain name is a request that certificate issuers perform CAA issue restriction processing for the corresponding domain without granting authorization to any certificate issuer.
This form of issue restriction would be appropriate to specify that no certificates are to be issued for the domain in question.
For example, the following CAA record set requests that no certificates be issued for the domain 'nocerts.example.com' by any certificate issuer.
nocerts.example.com CAA 0 issue ";"
A CAA record with an issue parameter tag that specifies a domain name is a request that certificate issuers perform CAA issue restriction processing for the corresponding domain and grants authorization to the certificate issuer specified by the domain name.
For example, the following CAA record set requests that no certificates be issued for the domain 'certs.example.com' by any certificate issuer other than the example.net certificate issuer.
certs.example.com CAA 0 issue "example.net"
CAA authorizations are additive. thus the result of specifying both the empty issuer and a specified issuer is the same as specifying just the specified issuer alone.
An issuer MAY choose to specify issuer-parameters that further constrain the issue of certificates by that issuer. For example specifying that certificates are to be subject to specific validation polices, billed to certain accounts or issued under specific trust anchors.
The syntax and semantics of issuer-parameters are determined by the issuer alone.
The iodef property specifies a means of reporting certificate issue requests or cases of certificate issue for the corresponding domain, that violate the security policy of the issuer or the domain name holder.
The Incident Object Description Exchange Format (IODEF) [RFC5070] is used to present the incident report in machine readable form.
The iodef property takes a URL as its parameter. The URL scheme type determines the method used for reporting:
CAA Records assert a security policy that the holder of a domain name wishes to be observed by certificate issuers. The effectiveness of CAA records as an access control mechanism is thus dependent on observance of CAA constraints by issuers.
Observance of CAA records by issuers is subject to accountability controls and proposed industry requirements [TBS].
While a Certification Authority can choose to ignore published CAA records, doing so increases both the probability that they will mis-issue a certificate and the consequences of doing so. Once it is known that a CA observes CAA records, malicious registration requests may disproportionately target the (negligent) CAs that do not, and so the mis-issue rate amongst the negligent CAs will likely increase. Since a CA could have avoided the mis-issue by performing CAA processing, the likelihood of sanctions against a negligent CA is increased. Failure to observe CAA issue restrictions provides an objective criteria for excluding issuers from embedded trust anchors.
In the case that a mis-issue event occurs for a domain that does not have CAA records published, a conformant CA may be able to claim that the incident could have been avoided had the domain name owner published appropriate records.
Use of CAA records does not prevent mis-issue by an authorized Certification Authority. , i.e., a CA that is authorized to issue certificates for the domain in question by CAA records..
Domain name holders SHOULD verify that the CAs they authorize to issue certificates for their domains employ appropriate controls to ensure that certificates are issued only to authorized parties within their organization.
Such controls are most appropriately determined by the domain name holder and the authorized CA(s) directly and are thus out of scope of this document.
Suppression of the CAA record or insertion of a bogus CAA record could enable an attacker to obtain a certificate from a CA that was not authorized to issue for that domain name.
A CA MUST mitigate this risk by employing DNSSEC verification whenever possible and rejecting certificate requests in any case where it is not possible to verify the non-existence or contents of a relevant CAA record.
In cases where DNSSEC is not deployed in a corresponding domain, a CA SHOULD attempt to mitigate this risk by employing appropriate DNS security controls. For example all portions of the DNS lookup process SHOULD be performed against the authoritative name server. Data cached by third parties MUST NOT be relied on but MAY be used to support additional anti-spoofing or anti-suppression controls.
Introduction of a malformed or malicious CAA RR could in theory enable a Denial of Service attack.
This specific threat is not considered to add significantly to the risk of running an insecure DNS service.
An attacker could, in principle, perform a Denial of Service attack against an issuer by requesting a certificate with a maliciously long DNS name. In practice, the DNS protocol imposes a maximum name length and CAA processing does not exacerbate the existing need to mitigate Denial of Service attacks to any meaningful degree.
A Certification Authority could make use of the critical flag to trick customers into publishing records which prevent competing Certification Authorities from issuing certificates even though the customer intends to authorize multiple providers.
In practice, such an attack would be of minimal effect since any competent competitor that found itself unable to issue certificates due to lack of support for a property marked critical SHOULD investigate the cause and report the reason to the customer who will thus discover the deception. It is thus unlikely that the attack would succeed and the attempt might lay the perpetrator open to civil or criminal sanctions.
[Note to IANA, the CAA resource record has already been assigned. On issue of this draft as an RFC, the record should be updated to reflect this document as the authoritative specification and this paragraph (but not the following ones deleted]
IANA has assigned Resource Record Type 257 for the CAA Resource Record Type and added the line depicted below to the registry named Resource Record (RR) TYPEs and QTYPEs as defined in BCP 42 [RFC6195] and located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters.
RR Name Value and meaning Reference
----------- --------------------------------------------- ---------
CAA 257 Certification Authority Restriction [RFC-THIS]
[Note to IANA, this is a new registry that needs to be created and this paragraph but not the following ones deleted.]
IANA has created the Certification Authority Authorization Properties registry with the following initial values:
Tag Meaning Reference
----------- ----------------------------------------------- ---------
issue Authorization Entry by Domain [RFC-THIS]
iodef Report incident by means of IODEF format report [RFC-THIS]
auth Reserved
path Reserved
policy Reserved
Addition of tag identifiers requires a public specification and expert review as set out in [RFC6195]
The authors would like to thank the following people who contributed to the design and documentation of this work item: Chris Evans, Stephen Farrell, Jeff Hodges, Paul Hoffman, Stephen Kent, Adam Langley, Ben Laurie, Chris Palmer, Scott Schmit, Sean Turner and Ben Wilson.
| [RFC3647] | Chokhani, S., Ford, W., Sabett, R., Merrill, C. and S. Wu, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate Policy and Certification Practices Framework", RFC 3647, November 2003. |