RFC 2459
Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and CRL Profile
Network Working Group R. Housley Request for Comments: 2459 SPYRUS Category: Standards Track W. Ford VeriSign W. Polk NIST D. Solo Citicorp January 1999 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and CRL Profile Status of this Memo This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This memo profiles the X.509 v3 certificate and X.509 v2 CRL for use in the Internet. An overview of the approach and model are provided as an introduction. The X.509 v3 certificate format is described in detail, with additional information regarding the format and semantics of Internet name forms (e.g., IP addresses). Standard certificate extensions are described and one new Internet-specific extension is defined. A required set of certificate extensions is specified. The X.509 v2 CRL format is described and a required extension set is defined as well. An algorithm for X.509 certificate path validation is described. Supplemental information is provided describing the format of public keys and digital signatures in X.509 certificates for common Internet public key encryption algorithms (i.e., RSA, DSA, and Diffie-Hellman). ASN.1 modules and examples are provided in the appendices. 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 RFC 2119.
Please send comments on this document to the ietf-pkix@imc.org mail list. Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................ 5 2 Requirements and Assumptions ................................ 6 2.1 Communication and Topology ................................ 6 2.2 Acceptability Criteria .................................... 7 2.3 User Expectations ......................................... 7 2.4 Administrator Expectations ................................ 7 3 Overview of Approach ........................................ 7 3.1 X.509 Version 3 Certificate ............................... 9 3.2 Certification Paths and Trust ............................. 10 3.3 Revocation ................................................ 12 3.4 Operational Protocols ..................................... 13 3.5 Management Protocols ...................................... 13 4 Certificate and Certificate Extensions Profile .............. 15 4.1 Basic Certificate Fields .................................. 15 4.1.1 Certificate Fields ...................................... 16 4.1.1.1 tbsCertificate ........................................ 16 4.1.1.2 signatureAlgorithm .................................... 16 4.1.1.3 signatureValue ........................................ 17 4.1.2 TBSCertificate .......................................... 17 4.1.2.1 Version ............................................... 17 4.1.2.2 Serial number ......................................... 18 4.1.2.3 Signature ............................................. 18 4.1.2.4 Issuer ................................................ 18 4.1.2.5 Validity .............................................. 21 4.1.2.5.1 UTCTime ............................................. 22 4.1.2.5.2 GeneralizedTime ..................................... 22 4.1.2.6 Subject ............................................... 22 4.1.2.7 Subject Public Key Info ............................... 23 4.1.2.8 Unique Identifiers .................................... 24 4.1.2.9 Extensions ............................................. 24 4.2 Certificate Extensions .................................... 24 4.2.1 Standard Extensions ..................................... 25 4.2.1.1 Authority Key Identifier .............................. 25 4.2.1.2 Subject Key Identifier ................................ 26 4.2.1.3 Key Usage ............................................. 27 4.2.1.4 Private Key Usage Period .............................. 29 4.2.1.5 Certificate Policies .................................. 29 4.2.1.6 Policy Mappings ....................................... 31 4.2.1.7 Subject Alternative Name .............................. 32
4.2.1.8 Issuer Alternative Name ............................... 34 4.2.1.9 Subject Directory Attributes .......................... 34 4.2.1.10 Basic Constraints .................................... 35 4.2.1.11 Name Constraints ..................................... 35 4.2.1.12 Policy Constraints ................................... 37 4.2.1.13 Extended key usage field ............................. 38 4.2.1.14 CRL Distribution Points .............................. 39 4.2.2 Private Internet Extensions ............................. 40 4.2.2.1 Authority Information Access .......................... 41 5 CRL and CRL Extensions Profile .............................. 42 5.1 CRL Fields ................................................ 43 5.1.1 CertificateList Fields .................................. 43 5.1.1.1 tbsCertList ........................................... 44 5.1.1.2 signatureAlgorithm .................................... 44 5.1.1.3 signatureValue ........................................ 44 5.1.2 Certificate List "To Be Signed" ......................... 44 5.1.2.1 Version ............................................... 45 5.1.2.2 Signature ............................................. 45 5.1.2.3 Issuer Name ........................................... 45 5.1.2.4 This Update ........................................... 45 5.1.2.5 Next Update ........................................... 45 5.1.2.6 Revoked Certificates .................................. 46 5.1.2.7 Extensions ............................................ 46 5.2 CRL Extensions ............................................ 46 5.2.1 Authority Key Identifier ................................ 47 5.2.2 Issuer Alternative Name ................................. 47 5.2.3 CRL Number .............................................. 47 5.2.4 Delta CRL Indicator ..................................... 48 5.2.5 Issuing Distribution Point .............................. 48 5.3 CRL Entry Extensions ...................................... 49 5.3.1 Reason Code ............................................. 50 5.3.2 Hold Instruction Code ................................... 50 5.3.3 Invalidity Date ......................................... 51 5.3.4 Certificate Issuer ...................................... 51 6 Certificate Path Validation ................................. 52 6.1 Basic Path Validation ..................................... 52 6.2 Extending Path Validation ................................. 56 7 Algorithm Support ........................................... 57 7.1 One-way Hash Functions .................................... 57 7.1.1 MD2 One-way Hash Function ............................... 57 7.1.2 MD5 One-way Hash Function ............................... 58 7.1.3 SHA-1 One-way Hash Function ............................. 58 7.2 Signature Algorithms ...................................... 58 7.2.1 RSA Signature Algorithm ................................. 59 7.2.2 DSA Signature Algorithm ................................. 60 7.3 Subject Public Key Algorithms ............................. 60 7.3.1 RSA Keys ................................................ 61 7.3.2 Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange Key ......................... 61
7.3.3 DSA Signature Keys ...................................... 63 8 References .................................................. 64 9 Intellectual Property Rights ................................ 66 10 Security Considerations .................................... 67 Appendix A. ASN.1 Structures and OIDs ......................... 70 A.1 Explicitly Tagged Module, 1988 Syntax ...................... 70 A.2 Implicitly Tagged Module, 1988 Syntax ...................... 84 Appendix B. 1993 ASN.1 Structures and OIDs .................... 91 B.1 Explicitly Tagged Module, 1993 Syntax ...................... 91 B.2 Implicitly Tagged Module, 1993 Syntax ...................... 108 Appendix C. ASN.1 Notes ....................................... 116 Appendix D. Examples .......................................... 117 D.1 Certificate ............................................... 117 D.2 Certificate ............................................... 120 D.3 End-Entity Certificate Using RSA .......................... 123 D.4 Certificate Revocation List ............................... 126 Appendix E. Authors' Addresses ................................ 128 Appendix F. Full Copyright Statement .......................... 129
1 Introduction This specification is one part of a family of standards for the X.509 Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) for the Internet. This specification is a standalone document; implementations of this standard may proceed independent from the other parts. This specification profiles the format and semantics of certificates and certificate revocation lists for the Internet PKI. Procedures are described for processing of certification paths in the Internet environment. Encoding rules are provided for popular cryptographic algorithms. Finally, ASN.1 modules are provided in the appendices for all data structures defined or referenced. The specification describes the requirements which inspire the creation of this document and the assumptions which affect its scope in Section 2. Section 3 presents an architectural model and describes its relationship to previous IETF and ISO/IEC/ITU standards. In particular, this document's relationship with the IETF PEM specifications and the ISO/IEC/ITU X.509 documents are described. The specification profiles the X.509 version 3 certificate in Section 4, and the X.509 version 2 certificate revocation list (CRL) in Section 5. The profiles include the identification of ISO/IEC/ITU and ANSI extensions which may be useful in the Internet PKI. The profiles are presented in the 1988 Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) rather than the 1994 syntax used in the ISO/IEC/ITU standards. This specification also includes path validation procedures in Section 6. These procedures are based upon the ISO/IEC/ITU definition, but the presentation assumes one or more self-signed trusted CA certificates. Implementations are required to derive the same results but are not required to use the specified procedures. Section 7 of the specification describes procedures for identification and encoding of public key materials and digital signatures. Implementations are not required to use any particular cryptographic algorithms. However, conforming implementations which use the identified algorithms are required to identify and encode the public key materials and digital signatures as described. Finally, four appendices are provided to aid implementers. Appendix A contains all ASN.1 structures defined or referenced within this specification. As above, the material is presented in the 1988 Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) rather than the 1994 syntax. Appendix B contains the same information in the 1994 ASN.1 notation as a service to implementers using updated toolsets. However, Appendix A takes precedence in case of conflict. Appendix C contains
notes on less familiar features of the ASN.1 notation used within this specification. Appendix D contains examples of a conforming certificate and a conforming CRL. 2 Requirements and Assumptions The goal of this specification is to develop a profile to facilitate the use of X.509 certificates within Internet applications for those communities wishing to make use of X.509 technology. Such applications may include WWW, electronic mail, user authentication, and IPsec. In order to relieve some of the obstacles to using X.509 certificates, this document defines a profile to promote the development of certificate management systems; development of application tools; and interoperability determined by policy. Some communities will need to supplement, or possibly replace, this profile in order to meet the requirements of specialized application domains or environments with additional authorization, assurance, or operational requirements. However, for basic applications, common representations of frequently used attributes are defined so that application developers can obtain necessary information without regard to the issuer of a particular certificate or certificate revocation list (CRL). A certificate user should review the certificate policy generated by the certification authority (CA) before relying on the authentication or non-repudiation services associated with the public key in a particular certificate. To this end, this standard does not prescribe legally binding rules or duties. As supplemental authorization and attribute management tools emerge, such as attribute certificates, it may be appropriate to limit the authenticated attributes that are included in a certificate. These other management tools may provide more appropriate methods of conveying many authenticated attributes. 2.1 Communication and Topology The users of certificates will operate in a wide range of environments with respect to their communication topology, especially users of secure electronic mail. This profile supports users without high bandwidth, real-time IP connectivity, or high connection availability. In addition, the profile allows for the presence of firewall or other filtered communication.
This profile does not assume the deployment of an X.500 Directory system. The profile does not prohibit the use of an X.500 Directory, but other means of distributing certificates and certificate revocation lists (CRLs) may be used. 2.2 Acceptability Criteria The goal of the Internet Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) is to meet the needs of deterministic, automated identification, authentication, access control, and authorization functions. Support for these services determines the attributes contained in the certificate as well as the ancillary control information in the certificate such as policy data and certification path constraints. 2.3 User Expectations Users of the Internet PKI are people and processes who use client software and are the subjects named in certificates. These uses include readers and writers of electronic mail, the clients for WWW browsers, WWW servers, and the key manager for IPsec within a router. This profile recognizes the limitations of the platforms these users employ and the limitations in sophistication and attentiveness of the users themselves. This manifests itself in minimal user configuration responsibility (e.g., trusted CA keys, rules), explicit platform usage constraints within the certificate, certification path constraints which shield the user from many malicious actions, and applications which sensibly automate validation functions. 2.4 Administrator Expectations As with user expectations, the Internet PKI profile is structured to support the individuals who generally operate CAs. Providing administrators with unbounded choices increases the chances that a subtle CA administrator mistake will result in broad compromise. Also, unbounded choices greatly complicate the software that shall process and validate the certificates created by the CA. 3 Overview of Approach Following is a simplified view of the architectural model assumed by the PKIX specifications.
+---+
| C | +------------+
| e | <-------------------->| End entity |
| r | Operational +------------+
| t | transactions ^
| | and management | Management
| / | transactions | transactions
| | | PKI users
| C | v
| R | -------------------+--+-----------+----------------
| L | ^ ^
| | | | PKI management
| | v | entities
| R | +------+ |
| e | <---------------------| RA | <---+ |
| p | Publish certificate +------+ | |
| o | | |
| s | | |
| I | v v
| t | +------------+
| o | <------------------------------| CA |
| r | Publish certificate +------------+
| y | Publish CRL ^
| | |
+---+ Management |
transactions |
v
+------+
| CA |
+------+
Figure 1 - PKI Entities
The components in this model are:
end entity: user of PKI certificates and/or end user system that
is the subject of a certificate;
CA: certification authority;
RA: registration authority, i.e., an optional system to
which a CA delegates certain management functions;
repository: a system or collection of distributed systems that
store certificates and CRLs and serves as a means of
distributing these certificates and CRLs to end
entities.
3.1 X.509 Version 3 Certificate Users of a public key shall be confident that the associated private key is owned by the correct remote subject (person or system) with which an encryption or digital signature mechanism will be used. This confidence is obtained through the use of public key certificates, which are data structures that bind public key values to subjects. The binding is asserted by having a trusted CA digitally sign each certificate. The CA may base this assertion upon technical means (a.k.a., proof of posession through a challenge- response protocol), presentation of the private key, or on an assertion by the subject. A certificate has a limited valid lifetime which is indicated in its signed contents. Because a certificate's signature and timeliness can be independently checked by a certificate-using client, certificates can be distributed via untrusted communications and server systems, and can be cached in unsecured storage in certificate-using systems. ITU-T X.509 (formerly CCITT X.509) or ISO/IEC/ITU 9594-8, which was first published in 1988 as part of the X.500 Directory recommendations, defines a standard certificate format [X.509]. The certificate format in the 1988 standard is called the version 1 (v1) format. When X.500 was revised in 1993, two more fields were added, resulting in the version 2 (v2) format. These two fields may be used to support directory access control. The Internet Privacy Enhanced Mail (PEM) RFCs, published in 1993, include specifications for a public key infrastructure based on X.509 v1 certificates [RFC 1422]. The experience gained in attempts to deploy RFC 1422 made it clear that the v1 and v2 certificate formats are deficient in several respects. Most importantly, more fields were needed to carry information which PEM design and implementation experience has proven necessary. In response to these new requirements, ISO/IEC/ITU and ANSI X9 developed the X.509 version 3 (v3) certificate format. The v3 format extends the v2 format by adding provision for additional extension fields. Particular extension field types may be specified in standards or may be defined and registered by any organization or community. In June 1996, standardization of the basic v3 format was completed [X.509]. ISO/IEC/ITU and ANSI X9 have also developed standard extensions for use in the v3 extensions field [X.509][X9.55]. These extensions can convey such data as additional subject identification information, key attribute information, policy information, and certification path constraints.
However, the ISO/IEC/ITU and ANSI X9 standard extensions are very broad in their applicability. In order to develop interoperable implementations of X.509 v3 systems for Internet use, it is necessary to specify a profile for use of the X.509 v3 extensions tailored for the Internet. It is one goal of this document to specify a profile for Internet WWW, electronic mail, and IPsec applications. Environments with additional requirements may build on this profile or may replace it. 3.2 Certification Paths and Trust A user of a security service requiring knowledge of a public key generally needs to obtain and validate a certificate containing the required public key. If the public-key user does not already hold an assured copy of the public key of the CA that signed the certificate, the CA's name, and related information (such as the validity period or name constraints), then it might need an additional certificate to obtain that public key. In general, a chain of multiple certificates may be needed, comprising a certificate of the public key owner (the end entity) signed by one CA, and zero or more additional certificates of CAs signed by other CAs. Such chains, called certification paths, are required because a public key user is only initialized with a limited number of assured CA public keys. There are different ways in which CAs might be configured in order for public key users to be able to find certification paths. For PEM, RFC 1422 defined a rigid hierarchical structure of CAs. There are three types of PEM certification authority: (a) Internet Policy Registration Authority (IPRA): This authority, operated under the auspices of the Internet Society, acts as the root of the PEM certification hierarchy at level 1. It issues certificates only for the next level of authorities, PCAs. All certification paths start with the IPRA. (b) Policy Certification Authorities (PCAs): PCAs are at level 2 of the hierarchy, each PCA being certified by the IPRA. A PCA shall establish and publish a statement of its policy with respect to certifying users or subordinate certification authorities. Distinct PCAs aim to satisfy different user needs. For example, one PCA (an organizational PCA) might support the general electronic mail needs of commercial organizations, and another PCA (a high-assurance PCA) might have a more stringent policy designed for satisfying legally binding digital signature requirements.
(c) Certification Authorities (CAs): CAs are at level 3 of the
hierarchy and can also be at lower levels. Those at level 3 are
certified by PCAs. CAs represent, for example, particular
organizations, particular organizational units (e.g., departments,
groups, sections), or particular geographical areas.
RFC 1422 furthermore has a name subordination rule which requires
that a CA can only issue certificates for entities whose names are
subordinate (in the X.500 naming tree) to the name of the CA itself.
The trust associated with a PEM certification path is implied by the
PCA name. The name subordination rule ensures that CAs below the PCA
are sensibly constrained as to the set of subordinate entities they
can certify (e.g., a CA for an organization can only certify entities
in that organization's name tree). Certificate user systems are able
to mechanically check that the name subordination rule has been
followed.
The RFC 1422 uses the X.509 v1 certificate formats. The limitations
of X.509 v1 required imposition of several structural restrictions to
clearly associate policy information or restrict the utility of
certificates. These restrictions included:
(a) a pure top-down hierarchy, with all certification paths
starting from IPRA;
(b) a naming subordination rule restricting the names of a CA's
subjects; and
(c) use of the PCA concept, which requires knowledge of individual
PCAs to be built into certificate chain verification logic.
Knowledge of individual PCAs was required to determine if a chain
could be accepted.
With X.509 v3, most of the requirements addressed by RFC 1422 can be
addressed using certificate extensions, without a need to restrict
the CA structures used. In particular, the certificate extensions
relating to certificate policies obviate the need for PCAs and the
constraint extensions obviate the need for the name subordination
rule. As a result, this document supports a more flexible
architecture, including:
(a) Certification paths may start with a public key of a CA in a
user's own domain, or with the public key of the top of a
hierarchy. Starting with the public key of a CA in a user's own
domain has certain advantages. In some environments, the local
domain is the most trusted.
(b) Name constraints may be imposed through explicit inclusion of
a name constraints extension in a certificate, but are not
required.
(c) Policy extensions and policy mappings replace the PCA
concept, which permits a greater degree of automation. The
application can determine if the certification path is acceptable
based on the contents of the certificates instead of a priori
knowledge of PCAs. This permits automation of certificate chain
processing.
3.3 Revocation
When a certificate is issued, it is expected to be in use for its
entire validity period. However, various circumstances may cause a
certificate to become invalid prior to the expiration of the validity
period. Such circumstances include change of name, change of
association between subject and CA (e.g., an employee terminates
employment with an organization), and compromise or suspected
compromise of the corresponding private key. Under such
circumstances, the CA needs to revoke the certificate.
X.509 defines one method of certificate revocation. This method
involves each CA periodically issuing a signed data structure called
a certificate revocation list (CRL). A CRL is a time stamped list
identifying revoked certificates which is signed by a CA and made
freely available in a public repository. Each revoked certificate is
identified in a CRL by its certificate serial number. When a
certificate-using system uses a certificate (e.g., for verifying a
remote user's digital signature), that system not only checks the
certificate signature and validity but also acquires a suitably-
recent CRL and checks that the certificate serial number is not on
that CRL. The meaning of "suitably-recent" may vary with local
policy, but it usually means the most recently-issued CRL. A CA
issues a new CRL on a regular periodic basis (e.g., hourly, daily, or
weekly). An entry is added to the CRL as part of the next update
following notification of revocation. An entry may be removed from
the CRL after appearing on one regularly scheduled CRL issued beyond
the revoked certificate's validity period.
An advantage of this revocation method is that CRLs may be
distributed by exactly the same means as certificates themselves,
namely, via untrusted communications and server systems.
One limitation of the CRL revocation method, using untrusted
communications and servers, is that the time granularity of
revocation is limited to the CRL issue period. For example, if a
revocation is reported now, that revocation will not be reliably
notified to certificate-using systems until the next periodic CRL is issued -- this may be up to one hour, one day, or one week depending on the frequency that the CA issues CRLs. As with the X.509 v3 certificate format, in order to facilitate interoperable implementations from multiple vendors, the X.509 v2 CRL format needs to be profiled for Internet use. It is one goal of this document to specify that profile. However, this profile does not require CAs to issue CRLs. Message formats and protocols supporting on-line revocation notification may be defined in other PKIX specifications. On-line methods of revocation notification may be applicable in some environments as an alternative to the X.509 CRL. On-line revocation checking may significantly reduce the latency between a revocation report and the distribution of the information to relying parties. Once the CA accepts the report as authentic and valid, any query to the on-line service will correctly reflect the certificate validation impacts of the revocation. However, these methods impose new security requirements; the certificate validator shall trust the on-line validation service while the repository does not need to be trusted. 3.4 Operational Protocols Operational protocols are required to deliver certificates and CRLs (or status information) to certificate using client systems. Provision is needed for a variety of different means of certificate and CRL delivery, including distribution procedures based on LDAP, HTTP, FTP, and X.500. Operational protocols supporting these functions are defined in other PKIX specifications. These specifications may include definitions of message formats and procedures for supporting all of the above operational environments, including definitions of or references to appropriate MIME content types. 3.5 Management Protocols Management protocols are required to support on-line interactions between PKI user and management entities. For example, a management protocol might be used between a CA and a client system with which a key pair is associated, or between two CAs which cross-certify each other. The set of functions which potentially need to be supported by management protocols include: (a) registration: This is the process whereby a user first makes itself known to a CA (directly, or through an RA), prior to that CA issuing a certificate or certificates for that user.
(b) initialization: Before a client system can operate securely
it is necessary to install key materials which have the
appropriate relationship with keys stored elsewhere in the
infrastructure. For example, the client needs to be securely
initialized with the public key and other assured information of
the trusted CA(s), to be used in validating certificate paths.
Furthermore, a client typically needs to be initialized with its
own key pair(s).
(c) certification: This is the process in which a CA issues a
certificate for a user's public key, and returns that certificate
to the user's client system and/or posts that certificate in a
repository.
(d) key pair recovery: As an option, user client key materials
(e.g., a user's private key used for encryption purposes) may be
backed up by a CA or a key backup system. If a user needs to
recover these backed up key materials (e.g., as a result of a
forgotten password or a lost key chain file), an on-line protocol
exchange may be needed to support such recovery.
(e) key pair update: All key pairs need to be updated regularly,
i.e., replaced with a new key pair, and new certificates issued.
(f) revocation request: An authorized person advises a CA of an
abnormal situation requiring certificate revocation.
(g) cross-certification: Two CAs exchange information used in
establishing a cross-certificate. A cross-certificate is a
certificate issued by one CA to another CA which contains a CA
signature key used for issuing certificates.
Note that on-line protocols are not the only way of implementing the
above functions. For all functions there are off-line methods of
achieving the same result, and this specification does not mandate
use of on-line protocols. For example, when hardware tokens are
used, many of the functions may be achieved as part of the physical
token delivery. Furthermore, some of the above functions may be
combined into one protocol exchange. In particular, two or more of
the registration, initialization, and certification functions can be
combined into one protocol exchange.
The PKIX series of specifications may define a set of standard
message formats supporting the above functions in future
specifications. In that case, the protocols for conveying these
messages in different environments (e.g., on-line, file transfer, e-
mail, and WWW) will also be described in those specifications.
4 Certificate and Certificate Extensions Profile This section presents a profile for public key certificates that will foster interoperability and a reusable PKI. This section is based upon the X.509 v3 certificate format and the standard certificate extensions defined in [X.509]. The ISO/IEC/ITU documents use the 1993 version of ASN.1; while this document uses the 1988 ASN.1 syntax, the encoded certificate and standard extensions are equivalent. This section also defines private extensions required to support a PKI for the Internet community. Certificates may be used in a wide range of applications and environments covering a broad spectrum of interoperability goals and a broader spectrum of operational and assurance requirements. The goal of this document is to establish a common baseline for generic applications requiring broad interoperability and limited special purpose requirements. In particular, the emphasis will be on supporting the use of X.509 v3 certificates for informal Internet electronic mail, IPsec, and WWW applications. 4.1 Basic Certificate Fields The X.509 v3 certificate basic syntax is as follows. For signature calculation, the certificate is encoded using the ASN.1 distinguished encoding rules (DER) [X.208]. ASN.1 DER encoding is a tag, length, value encoding system for each element. Certificate ::= SEQUENCE { tbsCertificate TBSCertificate, signatureAlgorithm AlgorithmIdentifier, signatureValue BIT STRING } TBSCertificate ::= SEQUENCE { version [0] EXPLICIT Version DEFAULT v1, serialNumber CertificateSerialNumber, signature AlgorithmIdentifier, issuer Name, validity Validity, subject Name, subjectPublicKeyInfo SubjectPublicKeyInfo, issuerUniqueID [1] IMPLICIT UniqueIdentifier OPTIONAL, -- If present, version shall be v2 or v3 subjectUniqueID [2] IMPLICIT UniqueIdentifier OPTIONAL, -- If present, version shall be v2 or v3 extensions [3] EXPLICIT Extensions OPTIONAL -- If present, version shall be v3 }
Version ::= INTEGER { v1(0), v2(1), v3(2) }
CertificateSerialNumber ::= INTEGER
Validity ::= SEQUENCE {
notBefore Time,
notAfter Time }
Time ::= CHOICE {
utcTime UTCTime,
generalTime GeneralizedTime }
UniqueIdentifier ::= BIT STRING
SubjectPublicKeyInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
algorithm AlgorithmIdentifier,
subjectPublicKey BIT STRING }
Extensions ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF Extension
Extension ::= SEQUENCE {
extnID OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
critical BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE,
extnValue OCTET STRING }
The following items describe the X.509 v3 certificate for use in the
Internet.
4.1.1 Certificate Fields
The Certificate is a SEQUENCE of three required fields. The fields
are described in detail in the following subsections.
4.1.1.1 tbsCertificate
The field contains the names of the subject and issuer, a public key
associated with the subject, a validity period, and other associated
information. The fields are described in detail in section 4.1.2;
the tbscertificate may also include extensions which are described in
section 4.2.
4.1.1.2 signatureAlgorithm
The signatureAlgorithm field contains the identifier for the
cryptographic algorithm used by the CA to sign this certificate.
Section 7.2 lists the supported signature algorithms.
An algorithm identifier is defined by the following ASN.1 structure:
AlgorithmIdentifier ::= SEQUENCE {
algorithm OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
parameters ANY DEFINED BY algorithm OPTIONAL }
The algorithm identifier is used to identify a cryptographic
algorithm. The OBJECT IDENTIFIER component identifies the algorithm
(such as DSA with SHA-1). The contents of the optional parameters
field will vary according to the algorithm identified. Section 7.2
lists the supported algorithms for this specification.
This field MUST contain the same algorithm identifier as the
signature field in the sequence tbsCertificate (see sec. 4.1.2.3).
4.1.1.3 signatureValue
The signatureValue field contains a digital signature computed upon
the ASN.1 DER encoded tbsCertificate. The ASN.1 DER encoded
tbsCertificate is used as the input to the signature function. This
signature value is then ASN.1 encoded as a BIT STRING and included in
the Certificate's signature field. The details of this process are
specified for each of the supported algorithms in Section 7.2.
By generating this signature, a CA certifies the validity of the
information in the tbsCertificate field. In particular, the CA
certifies the binding between the public key material and the subject
of the certificate.
4.1.2 TBSCertificate
The sequence TBSCertificate contains information associated with the
subject of the certificate and the CA who issued it. Every
TBSCertificate contains the names of the subject and issuer, a public
key associated with the subject, a validity period, a version number,
and a serial number; some may contain optional unique identifier
fields. The remainder of this section describes the syntax and
semantics of these fields. A TBSCertificate may also include
extensions. Extensions for the Internet PKI are described in Section
4.2.
4.1.2.1 Version
This field describes the version of the encoded certificate. When
extensions are used, as expected in this profile, use X.509 version 3
(value is 2). If no extensions are present, but a UniqueIdentifier
is present, use version 2 (value is 1). If only basic fields are
present, use version 1 (the value is omitted from the certificate as
the default value).
Implementations SHOULD be prepared to accept any version certificate. At a minimum, conforming implementations MUST recognize version 3 certificates. Generation of version 2 certificates is not expected by implementations based on this profile. 4.1.2.2 Serial number The serial number is an integer assigned by the CA to each certificate. It MUST be unique for each certificate issued by a given CA (i.e., the issuer name and serial number identify a unique certificate). 4.1.2.3 Signature This field contains the algorithm identifier for the algorithm used by the CA to sign the certificate. This field MUST contain the same algorithm identifier as the signatureAlgorithm field in the sequence Certificate (see sec. 4.1.1.2). The contents of the optional parameters field will vary according to the algorithm identified. Section 7.2 lists the supported signature algorithms. 4.1.2.4 Issuer The issuer field identifies the entity who has signed and issued the certificate. The issuer field MUST contain a non-empty distinguished name (DN). The issuer field is defined as the X.501 type Name. [X.501] Name is defined by the following ASN.1 structures: Name ::= CHOICE { RDNSequence } RDNSequence ::= SEQUENCE OF RelativeDistinguishedName RelativeDistinguishedName ::= SET OF AttributeTypeAndValue AttributeTypeAndValue ::= SEQUENCE { type AttributeType, value AttributeValue } AttributeType ::= OBJECT IDENTIFIER AttributeValue ::= ANY DEFINED BY AttributeType
DirectoryString ::= CHOICE {
teletexString TeletexString (SIZE (1..MAX)),
printableString PrintableString (SIZE (1..MAX)),
universalString UniversalString (SIZE (1..MAX)),
utf8String UTF8String (SIZE (1.. MAX)),
bmpString BMPString (SIZE (1..MAX)) }
The Name describes a hierarchical name composed of attributes, such
as country name, and corresponding values, such as US. The type of
the component AttributeValue is determined by the AttributeType; in
general it will be a DirectoryString.
The DirectoryString type is defined as a choice of PrintableString,
TeletexString, BMPString, UTF8String, and UniversalString. The
UTF8String encoding is the preferred encoding, and all certificates
issued after December 31, 2003 MUST use the UTF8String encoding of
DirectoryString (except as noted below). Until that date, conforming
CAs MUST choose from the following options when creating a
distinguished name, including their own:
(a) if the character set is sufficient, the string MAY be
represented as a PrintableString;
(b) failing (a), if the BMPString character set is sufficient the
string MAY be represented as a BMPString; and
(c) failing (a) and (b), the string MUST be represented as a
UTF8String. If (a) or (b) is satisfied, the CA MAY still choose
to represent the string as a UTF8String.
Exceptions to the December 31, 2003 UTF8 encoding requirements are as
follows:
(a) CAs MAY issue "name rollover" certificates to support an
orderly migration to UTF8String encoding. Such certificates would
include the CA's UTF8String encoded name as issuer and and the old
name encoding as subject, or vice-versa.
(b) As stated in section 4.1.2.6, the subject field MUST be
populated with a non-empty distinguished name matching the
contents of the issuer field in all certificates issued by the
subject CA regardless of encoding.
The TeletexString and UniversalString are included for backward
compatibility, and should not be used for certificates for new
subjects. However, these types may be used in certificates where the
name was previously established. Certificate users SHOULD be
prepared to receive certificates with these types.
In addition, many legacy implementations support names encoded in the ISO 8859-1 character set (Latin1String) but tag them as TeletexString. The Latin1String includes characters used in Western European countries which are not part of the TeletexString charcter set. Implementations that process TeletexString SHOULD be prepared to handle the entire ISO 8859-1 character set.[ISO 8859-1] As noted above, distinguished names are composed of attributes. This specification does not restrict the set of attribute types that may appear in names. However, conforming implementations MUST be prepared to receive certificates with issuer names containing the set of attribute types defined below. This specification also recommends support for additional attribute types. Standard sets of attributes have been defined in the X.500 series of specifications.[X.520] Implementations of this specification MUST be prepared to receive the following standard attribute types in issuer names: country, organization, organizational-unit, distinguished name qualifier, state or province name, and common name (e.g., "Susan Housley"). In addition, implementations of this specification SHOULD be prepared to receive the following standard attribute types in issuer names: locality, title, surname, given name, initials, and generation qualifier (e.g., "Jr.", "3rd", or "IV"). The syntax and associated object identifiers (OIDs) for these attribute types are provided in the ASN.1 modules in Appendices A and B. In addition, implementations of this specification MUST be prepared to receive the domainComponent attribute, as defined in [RFC 2247]. The Domain (Nameserver) System (DNS) provides a hierarchical resource labeling system. This attribute provides is a convenient mechanism for organizations that wish to use DNs that parallel their DNS names. This is not a replacement for the dNSName component of the alternative name field. Implementations are not required to convert such names into DNS names. The syntax and associated OID for this attribute type is provided in the ASN.1 modules in Appendices A and B. Certificate users MUST be prepared to process the issuer distinguished name and subject distinguished name (see sec. 4.1.2.6) fields to perform name chaining for certification path validation (see section 6). Name chaining is performed by matching the issuer distinguished name in one certificate with the subject name in a CA certificate. This specification requires only a subset of the name comparison functionality specified in the X.500 series of specifications. The requirements for conforming implementations are as follows:
(a) attribute values encoded in different types (e.g.,
PrintableString and BMPString) may be assumed to represent
different strings;
(b) attribute values in types other than PrintableString are case
sensitive (this permits matching of attribute values as binary
objects);
(c) attribute values in PrintableString are not case sensitive
(e.g., "Marianne Swanson" is the same as "MARIANNE SWANSON"); and
(d) attribute values in PrintableString are compared after
removing leading and trailing white space and converting internal
substrings of one or more consecutive white space characters to a
single space.
These name comparison rules permit a certificate user to validate
certificates issued using languages or encodings unfamiliar to the
certificate user.
In addition, implementations of this specification MAY use these
comparison rules to process unfamiliar attribute types for name
chaining. This allows implementations to process certificates with
unfamiliar attributes in the issuer name.
Note that the comparison rules defined in the X.500 series of
specifications indicate that the character sets used to encode data
in distinguished names are irrelevant. The characters themselves are
compared without regard to encoding. Implementations of the profile
are permitted to use the comparison algorithm defined in the X.500
series. Such an implementation will recognize a superset of name
matches recognized by the algorithm specified above.
4.1.2.5 Validity
The certificate validity period is the time interval during which the
CA warrants that it will maintain information about the status of the
certificate. The field is represented as a SEQUENCE of two dates:
the date on which the certificate validity period begins (notBefore)
and the date on which the certificate validity period ends
(notAfter). Both notBefore and notAfter may be encoded as UTCTime or
GeneralizedTime.
CAs conforming to this profile MUST always encode certificate
validity dates through the year 2049 as UTCTime; certificate validity
dates in 2050 or later MUST be encoded as GeneralizedTime.
4.1.2.5.1 UTCTime The universal time type, UTCTime, is a standard ASN.1 type intended for international applications where local time alone is not adequate. UTCTime specifies the year through the two low order digits and time is specified to the precision of one minute or one second. UTCTime includes either Z (for Zulu, or Greenwich Mean Time) or a time differential. For the purposes of this profile, UTCTime values MUST be expressed Greenwich Mean Time (Zulu) and MUST include seconds (i.e., times are YYMMDDHHMMSSZ), even where the number of seconds is zero. Conforming systems MUST interpret the year field (YY) as follows: Where YY is greater than or equal to 50, the year shall be interpreted as 19YY; and Where YY is less than 50, the year shall be interpreted as 20YY. 4.1.2.5.2 GeneralizedTime The generalized time type, GeneralizedTime, is a standard ASN.1 type for variable precision representation of time. Optionally, the GeneralizedTime field can include a representation of the time differential between local and Greenwich Mean Time. For the purposes of this profile, GeneralizedTime values MUST be expressed Greenwich Mean Time (Zulu) and MUST include seconds (i.e., times are YYYYMMDDHHMMSSZ), even where the number of seconds is zero. GeneralizedTime values MUST NOT include fractional seconds. 4.1.2.6 Subject The subject field identifies the entity associated with the public key stored in the subject public key field. The subject name may be carried in the subject field and/or the subjectAltName extension. If the subject is a CA (e.g., the basic constraints extension, as discussed in 4.2.1.10, is present and the value of cA is TRUE,) then the subject field MUST be populated with a non-empty distinguished name matching the contents of the issuer field (see sec. 4.1.2.4) in all certificates issued by the subject CA. If subject naming information is present only in the subjectAltName extension (e.g., a key bound only to an email address or URI), then the subject name MUST be an empty sequence and the subjectAltName extension MUST be critical.
Where it is non-empty, the subject field MUST contain an X.500 distinguished name (DN). The DN MUST be unique for each subject entity certified by the one CA as defined by the issuer name field. A CA may issue more than one certificate with the same DN to the same subject entity. The subject name field is defined as the X.501 type Name. Implementation requirements for this field are those defined for the issuer field (see sec. 4.1.2.4). When encoding attribute values of type DirectoryString, the encoding rules for the issuer field MUST be implemented. Implementations of this specification MUST be prepared to receive subject names containing the attribute types required for the issuer field. Implementations of this specification SHOULD be prepared to receive subject names containing the recommended attribute types for the issuer field. The syntax and associated object identifiers (OIDs) for these attribute types are provided in the ASN.1 modules in Appendices A and B. Implementations of this specification MAY use these comparison rules to process unfamiliar attribute types (i.e., for name chaining). This allows implementations to process certificates with unfamiliar attributes in the subject name. In addition, legacy implementations exist where an RFC 822 name is embedded in the subject distinguished name as an EmailAddress attribute. The attribute value for EmailAddress is of type IA5String to permit inclusion of the character '@', which is not part of the PrintableString character set. EmailAddress attribute values are not case sensitive (e.g., "fanfeedback@redsox.com" is the same as "FANFEEDBACK@REDSOX.COM"). Conforming implementations generating new certificates with electronic mail addresses MUST use the rfc822Name in the subject alternative name field (see sec. 4.2.1.7) to describe such identities. Simultaneous inclusion of the EmailAddress attribute in the subject distinguished name to support legacy implementations is deprecated but permitted. 4.1.2.7 Subject Public Key Info This field is used to carry the public key and identify the algorithm with which the key is used. The algorithm is identified using the AlgorithmIdentifier structure specified in section 4.1.1.2. The object identifiers for the supported algorithms and the methods for encoding the public key materials (public key and parameters) are specified in section 7.3.
4.1.2.8 Unique Identifiers These fields may only appear if the version is 2 or 3 (see sec. 4.1.2.1). The subject and issuer unique identifiers are present in the certificate to handle the possibility of reuse of subject and/or issuer names over time. This profile recommends that names not be reused for different entities and that Internet certificates not make use of unique identifiers. CAs conforming to this profile SHOULD NOT generate certificates with unique identifiers. Applications conforming to this profile SHOULD be capable of parsing unique identifiers and making comparisons. 4.1.2.9 Extensions This field may only appear if the version is 3 (see sec. 4.1.2.1). If present, this field is a SEQUENCE of one or more certificate extensions. The format and content of certificate extensions in the Internet PKI is defined in section 4.2.
(page 24 continued on part 2)
