Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile
Network Working Group R. Housley
Request for Comments: 3280 RSA Laboratories
Obsoletes: 2459 W. Polk
Category: Standards Track NIST
W. Ford
VeriSign
D. Solo
Citigroup
April 2002
Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure
Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (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 (2002). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This memo profiles the X.509 v3 certificate and X.509 v2 Certificate
Revocation List (CRL) for use in the Internet. An overview of this
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. Standard certificate extensions are described and two
Internet-specific extensions are defined. A set of required
certificate extensions is specified. The X.509 v2 CRL format is
described in detail, and required extensions are defined. An
algorithm for X.509 certification path validation is described. An
ASN.1 module and examples are provided in the appendices.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 Requirements and Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1 Communication and Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Acceptability Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3 User Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4 Administrator Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3 Overview of Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
3.1 X.509 Version 3 Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2 Certification Paths and Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3 Revocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4 Operational Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.5 Management Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4 Certificate and Certificate Extensions Profile . . . . . 14
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1.2 TBSCertificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1.2.1 Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1.2.2 Serial number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1.2.3 Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.1.2.4 Issuer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.1.2.5 Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.1.2.5.1 UTCTime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.1.2.5.2 GeneralizedTime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.1.2.6 Subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.1.2.7 Subject Public Key Info . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.2.1.2 Subject Key Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.2.1.3 Key Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.2.1.4 Private Key Usage Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.2.1.5 Certificate Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.2.1.6 Policy Mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.2.1.7 Subject Alternative Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.2.1.8 Issuer Alternative Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.2.1.9 Subject Directory Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.2.1.10 Basic Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.2.1.11 Name Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.2.1.12 Policy Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.2.1.13 Extended Key Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.2.1.14 CRL Distribution Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.2.1.15 Inhibit Any-Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.2.1.16 Freshest CRL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.2.2 Internet Certificate Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.2.2.1 Authority Information Access . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.2.2.2 Subject Information Access . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5 CRL and CRL Extensions Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.1 CRL Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.1.1 CertificateList Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.1.1.1 tbsCertList . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
5.1.1.2 signatureAlgorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.1.1.3 signatureValue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.1.2 Certificate List "To Be Signed" . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.1.2.1 Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.1.2.2 Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.1.2.3 Issuer Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.1.2.4 This Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.1.2.5 Next Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.1.2.6 Revoked Certificates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.1.2.7 Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.2 CRL Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.2.1 Authority Key Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.2.2 Issuer Alternative Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.2.3 CRL Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.2.4 Delta CRL Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.2.5 Issuing Distribution Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.2.6 Freshest CRL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.3 CRL Entry Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.3.1 Reason Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.3.2 Hold Instruction Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.3.3 Invalidity Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.3.4 Certificate Issuer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6 Certificate Path Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.1 Basic Path Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.1.1 Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.1.2 Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.1.3 Basic Certificate Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6.1.4 Preparation for Certificate i+1 . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6.1.5 Wrap-up procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6.1.6 Outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
6.2 Extending Path Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
6.3 CRL Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
6.3.1 Revocation Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
6.3.2 Initialization and Revocation State Variables . . . . 82
6.3.3 CRL Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
8 Intellectual Property Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
9 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Appendix A. ASN.1 Structures and OIDs . . . . . . . . . . . 92
A.1 Explicitly Tagged Module, 1988 Syntax . . . . . . . . . 92
A.2 Implicitly Tagged Module, 1988 Syntax . . . . . . . . . 105
Appendix B. ASN.1 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Appendix C. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
C.1 DSA Self-Signed Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
C.2 End Entity Certificate Using DSA . . . . . . . . . . . 119
C.3 End Entity Certificate Using RSA . . . . . . . . . . . 122
C.4 Certificate Revocation List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Author Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
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 profiles the format and semantics of certificates
and certificate revocation lists (CRLs) for the Internet PKI.
Procedures are described for processing of certification paths in the
Internet environment. Finally, ASN.1 modules are provided in the
appendices for all data structures defined or referenced.
Section 2 describes Internet PKI requirements, and the assumptions
which affect the scope of this document. Section 3 presents an
architectural model and describes its relationship to previous IETF
and ISO/IEC/ITU-T standards. In particular, this document's
relationship with the IETF PEM specifications and the ISO/IEC/ITU-T
X.509 documents are described.
Section 4 profiles the X.509 version 3 certificate, and section 5
profiles the X.509 version 2 CRL. The profiles include the
identification of ISO/IEC/ITU-T 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 1997 ASN.1
syntax used in the most recent ISO/IEC/ITU-T standards.
Section 6 includes certification path validation procedures. These
procedures are based upon the ISO/IEC/ITU-T definition.
Implementations are REQUIRED to derive the same results but are not
required to use the specified procedures.
Procedures for identification and encoding of public key materials
and digital signatures are defined in [PKIXALGS]. Implementations of
this specification are not required to use any particular
cryptographic algorithms. However, conforming implementations which
use the algorithms identified in [PKIXALGS] MUST identify and encode
the public key materials and digital signatures as described in that
specification.
Finally, three 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
ASN.1. Appendix B contains notes on less familiar features of the
ASN.1 notation used within this specification. Appendix C contains
examples of a conforming certificate and a conforming CRL.
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
This specification obsoletes RFC 2459. This specification differs
from RFC 2459 in five basic areas:
* To promote interoperable implementations, a detailed algorithm
for certification path validation is included in section 6.1 of
this specification; RFC 2459 provided only a high-level
description of path validation.
* An algorithm for determining the status of a certificate using
CRLs is provided in section 6.3 of this specification. This
material was not present in RFC 2459.
* To accommodate new usage models, detailed information describing
the use of delta CRLs is provided in Section 5 of this
specification.
* Identification and encoding of public key materials and digital
signatures are not included in this specification, but are now
described in a companion specification [PKIXALGS].
* Four additional extensions are specified: three certificate
extensions and one CRL extension. The certificate extensions are
subject info access, inhibit any-policy, and freshest CRL. The
freshest CRL extension is also defined as a CRL extension.
* Throughout the specification, clarifications have been
introduced to enhance consistency with the ITU-T X.509
specification. X.509 defines the certificate and CRL format as
well as many of the extensions that appear in this specification.
These changes were introduced to improve the likelihood of
interoperability between implementations based on this
specification with implementations based on the ITU-T
specification.
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.
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
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
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 or a LDAP directory system. The profile does not prohibit the
use of an X.500 Directory or a LDAP directory; however, any 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.
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
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 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.
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;
CRL issuer: an optional system to which a CA delegates the
publication of certificate revocation lists;
repository: a system or collection of distributed systems that stores
certificates and CRLs and serves as a means of
distributing these certificates and CRLs to end entities.
Note that an Attribute Authority (AA) might also choose to delegate
the publication of CRLs to a CRL issuer.
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
+---+
| C | +------------+
| e | <-------------------->| End entity |
| r | Operational +------------+
| t | transactions ^
| i | and management | Management
| f | transactions | transactions PKI
| i | | users
| c | v
| a | ======================= +--+------------+ ==============
| t | ^ ^
| e | | | PKI
| | v | management
| & | +------+ | entities
| | <---------------------| RA |<----+ |
| C | Publish certificate +------+ | |
| R | | |
| L | | |
| | v v
| R | +------------+
| e | <------------------------------| CA |
| p | Publish certificate +------------+
| o | Publish CRL ^ ^
| s | | | Management
| i | +------------+ | | transactions
| t | <--------------| CRL Issuer |<----+ |
| o | Publish CRL +------------+ v
| r | +------+
| y | | CA |
+---+ +------+
Figure 1 - PKI Entities
3.1 X.509 Version 3 Certificate
Users of a public key require confidence 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 possession 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
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
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 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.
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 had proven necessary. In response to these new
requirements, ISO/IEC, ITU-T 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-T, 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-T, 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
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
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:
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
(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 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 certification path
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.
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
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 or CRL
issuer 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
new CRL is issued 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 MUST NOT be removed
from the CRL until it appears 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 servers and untrusted communications.
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 all currently issued CRLs
are updated -- this may be up to one hour, one day, or one week
depending on the frequency that CRLs are issued.
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 the issuance of CRLs. Message formats and protocols
supporting on-line revocation notification are 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 a revocation 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 needs to trust the on-line validation service
while the repository does not need to be trusted.
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
3.4 Operational Protocols
Operational protocols are required to deliver certificates and CRLs
(or status information) to certificate using client systems.
Provisions are 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.
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
(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 defines a set of standard message
formats supporting the above functions. The protocols for conveying
these messages in different environments (e.g., e-mail, file
transfer, and WWW) are 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 and ITU-T documents use
the 1997 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.
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
4.1 Basic Certificate Fields
The X.509 v3 certificate basic syntax is as follows. For signature
calculation, the data that is to be signed is encoded using the ASN.1
distinguished encoding rules (DER) [X.690]. 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 MUST be v2 or v3
subjectUniqueID [2] IMPLICIT UniqueIdentifier OPTIONAL,
-- If present, version MUST be v2 or v3
extensions [3] EXPLICIT Extensions OPTIONAL
-- If present, version MUST 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
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
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 usually includes 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.
[PKIXALGS] lists supported signature algorithms, but other signature
algorithms MAY also be supported.
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.
This field MUST contain the same algorithm identifier as the
signature field in the sequence tbsCertificate (section 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
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
signature value is encoded as a BIT STRING and included in the
signature field. The details of this process are specified for each
of algorithms listed in [PKIXALGS].
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 usually includes
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, version MUST be 3
(value is 2). If no extensions are present, but a UniqueIdentifier
is present, the version SHOULD be 2 (value is 1); however version MAY
be 3. If only basic fields are present, the version SHOULD be 1 (the
value is omitted from the certificate as the default value); however
the version MAY be 2 or 3.
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 MUST be a positive 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). CAs MUST force the serialNumber to be a non-negative
integer.
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
Given the uniqueness requirements above, serial numbers can be
expected to contain long integers. Certificate users MUST be able to
handle serialNumber values up to 20 octets. Conformant CAs MUST NOT
use serialNumber values longer than 20 octets.
Note: Non-conforming CAs may issue certificates with serial numbers
that are negative, or zero. Certificate users SHOULD be prepared to
gracefully handle such certificates.
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 (section
4.1.1.2). The contents of the optional parameters field will vary
according to the algorithm identified. [PKIXALGS] lists the
supported signature algorithms, but other signature algorithms MAY
also be supported.
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 ::= SEQUENCE OF RelativeDistinguishedName
RelativeDistinguishedName ::=
SET OF AttributeTypeAndValue
AttributeTypeAndValue ::= SEQUENCE {
type AttributeType,
value AttributeValue }
AttributeType ::= OBJECT IDENTIFIER
AttributeValue ::= ANY DEFINED BY AttributeType
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
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 [RFC 2279] 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.
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
In addition, many legacy implementations support names encoded in the
ISO 8859-1 character set (Latin1String) [ISO 8859-1] but tag them as
TeletexString. TeletexString encodes a larger character set than ISO
8859-1, but it encodes some characters differently. Implementations
SHOULD be prepared to handle both encodings.
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 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 and subject (section 4.1.2.6) names:
* country,
* organization,
* organizational-unit,
* distinguished name qualifier,
* state or province name,
* common name (e.g., "Susan Housley"), and
* serial number.
In addition, implementations of this specification SHOULD be prepared
to receive the following standard attribute types in issuer and
subject names:
* locality,
* title,
* surname,
* given name,
* initials,
* pseudonym, 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 Appendix A.
In addition, implementations of this specification MUST be prepared
to receive the domainComponent attribute, as defined in [RFC 2247].
The Domain Name System (DNS) provides a hierarchical resource
labeling system. This attribute provides 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
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
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 Appendix A.
Certificate users MUST be prepared to process the issuer
distinguished name and subject distinguished name (section 4.1.2.6)
fields to perform name chaining for certification path validation
(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.
Conforming implementations are REQUIRED to implement the following
name comparison rules:
(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 this 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.
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
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.
The validity period for a certificate is the period of time from
notBefore through notAfter, inclusive.
4.1.2.5.1 UTCTime
The universal time type, UTCTime, is a standard ASN.1 type intended
for representation of dates and time. 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.
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
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 (section 4.1.2.4) in
all certificates issued by the subject CA. If the subject is a CRL
issuer (e.g., the key usage extension, as discussed in 4.2.1.3, is
present and the value of cRLSign is TRUE) then the subject field MUST
be populated with a non-empty distinguished name matching the
contents of the issuer field (section 4.1.2.4) in all CRLs issued by
the subject CRL issuer. 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 (section 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 Appendix A. 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").
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
Conforming implementations generating new certificates with
electronic mail addresses MUST use the rfc822Name in the subject
alternative name field (section 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 (e.g., RSA, DSA, or Diffie-Hellman). 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 [PKIXALGS].
4.1.2.8 Unique Identifiers
These fields MUST only appear if the version is 2 or 3 (section
4.1.2.1). These fields MUST NOT appear if the version is 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.
4.1.2.9 Extensions
This field MUST only appear if the version is 3 (section 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.
4.2 Certificate Extensions
The extensions defined for X.509 v3 certificates provide methods for
associating additional attributes with users or public keys and for
managing a certification hierarchy. The X.509 v3 certificate format
also allows communities to define private extensions to carry
information unique to those communities. Each extension in a
certificate is designated as either critical or non-critical. A
certificate using system MUST reject the certificate if it encounters
a critical extension it does not recognize; however, a non-critical
extension MAY be ignored if it is not recognized. The following
sections present recommended extensions used within Internet
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
certificates and standard locations for information. Communities may
elect to use additional extensions; however, caution ought to be
exercised in adopting any critical extensions in certificates which
might prevent use in a general context.
Each extension includes an OID and an ASN.1 structure. When an
extension appears in a certificate, the OID appears as the field
extnID and the corresponding ASN.1 encoded structure is the value of
the octet string extnValue. A certificate MUST NOT include more than
one instance of a particular extension. For example, a certificate
may contain only one authority key identifier extension (section
4.2.1.1). An extension includes the boolean critical, with a default
value of FALSE. The text for each extension specifies the acceptable
values for the critical field.
Conforming CAs MUST support key identifiers (sections 4.2.1.1 and
4.2.1.2), basic constraints (section 4.2.1.10), key usage (section
4.2.1.3), and certificate policies (section 4.2.1.5) extensions. If
the CA issues certificates with an empty sequence for the subject
field, the CA MUST support the subject alternative name extension
(section 4.2.1.7). Support for the remaining extensions is OPTIONAL.
Conforming CAs MAY support extensions that are not identified within
this specification; certificate issuers are cautioned that marking
such extensions as critical may inhibit interoperability.
At a minimum, applications conforming to this profile MUST recognize
the following extensions: key usage (section 4.2.1.3), certificate
policies (section 4.2.1.5), the subject alternative name (section
4.2.1.7), basic constraints (section 4.2.1.10), name constraints
(section 4.2.1.11), policy constraints (section 4.2.1.12), extended
key usage (section 4.2.1.13), and inhibit any-policy (section
4.2.1.15).
In addition, applications conforming to this profile SHOULD recognize
the authority and subject key identifier (sections 4.2.1.1 and
4.2.1.2), and policy mapping (section 4.2.1.6) extensions.
4.2.1 Standard Extensions
This section identifies standard certificate extensions defined in
[X.509] for use in the Internet PKI. Each extension is associated
with an OID defined in [X.509]. These OIDs are members of the id-ce
arc, which is defined by the following:
id-ce OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { joint-iso-ccitt(2) ds(5) 29 }
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
4.2.1.1 Authority Key Identifier
The authority key identifier extension provides a means of
identifying the public key corresponding to the private key used to
sign a certificate. This extension is used where an issuer has
multiple signing keys (either due to multiple concurrent key pairs or
due to changeover). The identification MAY be based on either the
key identifier (the subject key identifier in the issuer's
certificate) or on the issuer name and serial number.
The keyIdentifier field of the authorityKeyIdentifier extension MUST
be included in all certificates generated by conforming CAs to
facilitate certification path construction. There is one exception;
where a CA distributes its public key in the form of a "self-signed"
certificate, the authority key identifier MAY be omitted. The
signature on a self-signed certificate is generated with the private
key associated with the certificate's subject public key. (This
proves that the issuer possesses both the public and private keys.)
In this case, the subject and authority key identifiers would be
identical, but only the subject key identifier is needed for
certification path building.
The value of the keyIdentifier field SHOULD be derived from the
public key used to verify the certificate's signature or a method
that generates unique values. Two common methods for generating key
identifiers from the public key, and one common method for generating
unique values, are described in section 4.2.1.2. Where a key
identifier has not been previously established, this specification
RECOMMENDS use of one of these methods for generating keyIdentifiers.
Where a key identifier has been previously established, the CA SHOULD
use the previously established identifier.
This profile RECOMMENDS support for the key identifier method by all
certificate users.
This extension MUST NOT be marked critical.
id-ce-authorityKeyIdentifier OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ce 35 }
AuthorityKeyIdentifier ::= SEQUENCE {
keyIdentifier [0] KeyIdentifier OPTIONAL,
authorityCertIssuer [1] GeneralNames OPTIONAL,
authorityCertSerialNumber [2] CertificateSerialNumber OPTIONAL }
KeyIdentifier ::= OCTET STRING
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
4.2.1.2 Subject Key Identifier
The subject key identifier extension provides a means of identifying
certificates that contain a particular public key.
To facilitate certification path construction, this extension MUST
appear in all conforming CA certificates, that is, all certificates
including the basic constraints extension (section 4.2.1.10) where
the value of cA is TRUE. The value of the subject key identifier
MUST be the value placed in the key identifier field of the Authority
Key Identifier extension (section 4.2.1.1) of certificates issued by
the subject of this certificate.
For CA certificates, subject key identifiers SHOULD be derived from
the public key or a method that generates unique values. Two common
methods for generating key identifiers from the public key are:
(1) The keyIdentifier is composed of the 160-bit SHA-1 hash of the
value of the BIT STRING subjectPublicKey (excluding the tag,
length, and number of unused bits).
(2) The keyIdentifier is composed of a four bit type field with
the value 0100 followed by the least significant 60 bits of the
SHA-1 hash of the value of the BIT STRING subjectPublicKey
(excluding the tag, length, and number of unused bit string bits).
One common method for generating unique values is a monotonically
increasing sequence of integers.
For end entity certificates, the subject key identifier extension
provides a means for identifying certificates containing the
particular public key used in an application. Where an end entity
has obtained multiple certificates, especially from multiple CAs, the
subject key identifier provides a means to quickly identify the set
of certificates containing a particular public key. To assist
applications in identifying the appropriate end entity certificate,
this extension SHOULD be included in all end entity certificates.
For end entity certificates, subject key identifiers SHOULD be
derived from the public key. Two common methods for generating key
identifiers from the public key are identified above.
Where a key identifier has not been previously established, this
specification RECOMMENDS use of one of these methods for generating
keyIdentifiers. Where a key identifier has been previously
established, the CA SHOULD use the previously established identifier.
This extension MUST NOT be marked critical.
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
id-ce-subjectKeyIdentifier OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ce 14 }
SubjectKeyIdentifier ::= KeyIdentifier
4.2.1.3 Key Usage
The key usage extension defines the purpose (e.g., encipherment,
signature, certificate signing) of the key contained in the
certificate. The usage restriction might be employed when a key that
could be used for more than one operation is to be restricted. For
example, when an RSA key should be used only to verify signatures on
objects other than public key certificates and CRLs, the
digitalSignature and/or nonRepudiation bits would be asserted.
Likewise, when an RSA key should be used only for key management, the
keyEncipherment bit would be asserted.
This extension MUST appear in certificates that contain public keys
that are used to validate digital signatures on other public key
certificates or CRLs. When this extension appears, it SHOULD be
marked critical.
id-ce-keyUsage OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ce 15 }
KeyUsage ::= BIT STRING {
digitalSignature (0),
nonRepudiation (1),
keyEncipherment (2),
dataEncipherment (3),
keyAgreement (4),
keyCertSign (5),
cRLSign (6),
encipherOnly (7),
decipherOnly (8) }
Bits in the KeyUsage type are used as follows:
The digitalSignature bit is asserted when the subject public key
is used with a digital signature mechanism to support security
services other than certificate signing (bit 5), or CRL signing
(bit 6). Digital signature mechanisms are often used for entity
authentication and data origin authentication with integrity.
The nonRepudiation bit is asserted when the subject public key is
used to verify digital signatures used to provide a non-
repudiation service which protects against the signing entity
falsely denying some action, excluding certificate or CRL signing.
In the case of later conflict, a reliable third party may
determine the authenticity of the signed data.
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
Further distinctions between the digitalSignature and
nonRepudiation bits may be provided in specific certificate
policies.
The keyEncipherment bit is asserted when the subject public key is
used for key transport. For example, when an RSA key is to be
used for key management, then this bit is set.
The dataEncipherment bit is asserted when the subject public key
is used for enciphering user data, other than cryptographic keys.
The keyAgreement bit is asserted when the subject public key is
used for key agreement. For example, when a Diffie-Hellman key is
to be used for key management, then this bit is set.
The keyCertSign bit is asserted when the subject public key is
used for verifying a signature on public key certificates. If the
keyCertSign bit is asserted, then the cA bit in the basic
constraints extension (section 4.2.1.10) MUST also be asserted.
The cRLSign bit is asserted when the subject public key is used
for verifying a signature on certificate revocation list (e.g., a
CRL, delta CRL, or an ARL). This bit MUST be asserted in
certificates that are used to verify signatures on CRLs.
The meaning of the encipherOnly bit is undefined in the absence of
the keyAgreement bit. When the encipherOnly bit is asserted and
the keyAgreement bit is also set, the subject public key may be
used only for enciphering data while performing key agreement.
The meaning of the decipherOnly bit is undefined in the absence of
the keyAgreement bit. When the decipherOnly bit is asserted and
the keyAgreement bit is also set, the subject public key may be
used only for deciphering data while performing key agreement.
This profile does not restrict the combinations of bits that may be
set in an instantiation of the keyUsage extension. However,
appropriate values for keyUsage extensions for particular algorithms
are specified in [PKIXALGS].
4.2.1.4 Private Key Usage Period
This extension SHOULD NOT be used within the Internet PKI. CAs
conforming to this profile MUST NOT generate certificates that
include a critical private key usage period extension.
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
The private key usage period extension allows the certificate issuer
to specify a different validity period for the private key than the
certificate. This extension is intended for use with digital
signature keys. This extension consists of two optional components,
notBefore and notAfter. The private key associated with the
certificate SHOULD NOT be used to sign objects before or after the
times specified by the two components, respectively. CAs conforming
to this profile MUST NOT generate certificates with private key usage
period extensions unless at least one of the two components is
present and the extension is non-critical.
Where used, notBefore and notAfter are represented as GeneralizedTime
and MUST be specified and interpreted as defined in section
4.1.2.5.2.
id-ce-privateKeyUsagePeriod OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ce 16 }
PrivateKeyUsagePeriod ::= SEQUENCE {
notBefore [0] GeneralizedTime OPTIONAL,
notAfter [1] GeneralizedTime OPTIONAL }
4.2.1.5 Certificate Policies
The certificate policies extension contains a sequence of one or more
policy information terms, each of which consists of an object
identifier (OID) and optional qualifiers. Optional qualifiers, which
MAY be present, are not expected to change the definition of the
policy.
In an end entity certificate, these policy information terms indicate
the policy under which the certificate has been issued and the
purposes for which the certificate may be used. In a CA certificate,
these policy information terms limit the set of policies for
certification paths which include this certificate. When a CA does
not wish to limit the set of policies for certification paths which
include this certificate, it MAY assert the special policy anyPolicy,
with a value of { 2 5 29 32 0 }.
Applications with specific policy requirements are expected to have a
list of those policies which they will accept and to compare the
policy OIDs in the certificate to that list. If this extension is
critical, the path validation software MUST be able to interpret this
extension (including the optional qualifier), or MUST reject the
certificate.
To promote interoperability, this profile RECOMMENDS that policy
information terms consist of only an OID. Where an OID alone is
insufficient, this profile strongly recommends that use of qualifiers
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
be limited to those identified in this section. When qualifiers are
used with the special policy anyPolicy, they MUST be limited to the
qualifiers identified in this section.
This specification defines two policy qualifier types for use by
certificate policy writers and certificate issuers. The qualifier
types are the CPS Pointer and User Notice qualifiers.
The CPS Pointer qualifier contains a pointer to a Certification
Practice Statement (CPS) published by the CA. The pointer is in the
form of a URI. Processing requirements for this qualifier are a
local matter. No action is mandated by this specification regardless
of the criticality value asserted for the extension.
User notice is intended for display to a relying party when a
certificate is used. The application software SHOULD display all
user notices in all certificates of the certification path used,
except that if a notice is duplicated only one copy need be
displayed. To prevent such duplication, this qualifier SHOULD only
be present in end entity certificates and CA certificates issued to
other organizations.
The user notice has two optional fields: the noticeRef field and the
explicitText field.
The noticeRef field, if used, names an organization and
identifies, by number, a particular textual statement prepared by
that organization. For example, it might identify the
organization "CertsRUs" and notice number 1. In a typical
implementation, the application software will have a notice file
containing the current set of notices for CertsRUs; the
application will extract the notice text from the file and display
it. Messages MAY be multilingual, allowing the software to select
the particular language message for its own environment.
An explicitText field includes the textual statement directly in
the certificate. The explicitText field is a string with a
maximum size of 200 characters.
If both the noticeRef and explicitText options are included in the
one qualifier and if the application software can locate the notice
text indicated by the noticeRef option, then that text SHOULD be
displayed; otherwise, the explicitText string SHOULD be displayed.
Note: While the explicitText has a maximum size of 200 characters,
some non-conforming CAs exceed this limit. Therefore, certificate
users SHOULD gracefully handle explicitText with more than 200
characters.
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
id-ce-certificatePolicies OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ce 32 }
anyPolicy OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ce-certificate-policies 0 }
certificatePolicies ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF PolicyInformation
PolicyInformation ::= SEQUENCE {
policyIdentifier CertPolicyId,
policyQualifiers SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF
PolicyQualifierInfo OPTIONAL }
CertPolicyId ::= OBJECT IDENTIFIER
PolicyQualifierInfo ::= SEQUENCE {
policyQualifierId PolicyQualifierId,
qualifier ANY DEFINED BY policyQualifierId }
-- policyQualifierIds for Internet policy qualifiers
id-qt OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix 2 }
id-qt-cps OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-qt 1 }
id-qt-unotice OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-qt 2 }
PolicyQualifierId ::=
OBJECT IDENTIFIER ( id-qt-cps | id-qt-unotice )
Qualifier ::= CHOICE {
cPSuri CPSuri,
userNotice UserNotice }
CPSuri ::= IA5String
UserNotice ::= SEQUENCE {
noticeRef NoticeReference OPTIONAL,
explicitText DisplayText OPTIONAL}
NoticeReference ::= SEQUENCE {
organization DisplayText,
noticeNumbers SEQUENCE OF INTEGER }
DisplayText ::= CHOICE {
ia5String IA5String (SIZE (1..200)),
visibleString VisibleString (SIZE (1..200)),
bmpString BMPString (SIZE (1..200)),
utf8String UTF8String (SIZE (1..200)) }
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
4.2.1.6 Policy Mappings
This extension is used in CA certificates. It lists one or more
pairs of OIDs; each pair includes an issuerDomainPolicy and a
subjectDomainPolicy. The pairing indicates the issuing CA considers
its issuerDomainPolicy equivalent to the subject CA's
subjectDomainPolicy.
The issuing CA's users might accept an issuerDomainPolicy for certain
applications. The policy mapping defines the list of policies
associated with the subject CA that may be accepted as comparable to
the issuerDomainPolicy.
Each issuerDomainPolicy named in the policy mapping extension SHOULD
also be asserted in a certificate policies extension in the same
certificate. Policies SHOULD NOT be mapped either to or from the
special value anyPolicy (section 4.2.1.5).
This extension MAY be supported by CAs and/or applications, and it
MUST be non-critical.
id-ce-policyMappings OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ce 33 }
PolicyMappings ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF SEQUENCE {
issuerDomainPolicy CertPolicyId,
subjectDomainPolicy CertPolicyId }
4.2.1.7 Subject Alternative Name
The subject alternative names extension allows additional identities
to be bound to the subject of the certificate. Defined options
include an Internet electronic mail address, a DNS name, an IP
address, and a uniform resource identifier (URI). Other options
exist, including completely local definitions. Multiple name forms,
and multiple instances of each name form, MAY be included. Whenever
such identities are to be bound into a certificate, the subject
alternative name (or issuer alternative name) extension MUST be used;
however, a DNS name MAY be represented in the subject field using the
domainComponent attribute as described in section 4.1.2.4.
Because the subject alternative name is considered to be definitively
bound to the public key, all parts of the subject alternative name
MUST be verified by the CA.
Further, if the only subject identity included in the certificate is
an alternative name form (e.g., an electronic mail address), then the
subject distinguished name MUST be empty (an empty sequence), and the
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 33]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
subjectAltName extension MUST be present. If the subject field
contains an empty sequence, the subjectAltName extension MUST be
marked critical.
When the subjectAltName extension contains an Internet mail address,
the address MUST be included as an rfc822Name. The format of an
rfc822Name is an "addr-spec" as defined in RFC 822 [RFC 822]. An
addr-spec has the form "local-part@domain". Note that an addr-spec
has no phrase (such as a common name) before it, has no comment (text
surrounded in parentheses) after it, and is not surrounded by "<" and
">". Note that while upper and lower case letters are allowed in an
RFC 822 addr-spec, no significance is attached to the case.
When the subjectAltName extension contains a iPAddress, the address
MUST be stored in the octet string in "network byte order," as
specified in RFC 791 [RFC 791]. The least significant bit (LSB) of
each octet is the LSB of the corresponding byte in the network
address. For IP Version 4, as specified in RFC 791, the octet string
MUST contain exactly four octets. For IP Version 6, as specified in
RFC 1883, the octet string MUST contain exactly sixteen octets [RFC 1883].
When the subjectAltName extension contains a domain name system
label, the domain name MUST be stored in the dNSName (an IA5String).
The name MUST be in the "preferred name syntax," as specified by RFC 1034 [RFC 1034]. Note that while upper and lower case letters are
allowed in domain names, no signifigance is attached to the case. In
addition, while the string " " is a legal domain name, subjectAltName
extensions with a dNSName of " " MUST NOT be used. Finally, the use
of the DNS representation for Internet mail addresses (wpolk.nist.gov
instead of wpolk@nist.gov) MUST NOT be used; such identities are to
be encoded as rfc822Name.
Note: work is currently underway to specify domain names in
international character sets. Such names will likely not be
accommodated by IA5String. Once this work is complete, this profile
will be revisited and the appropriate functionality will be added.
When the subjectAltName extension contains a URI, the name MUST be
stored in the uniformResourceIdentifier (an IA5String). The name
MUST NOT be a relative URL, and it MUST follow the URL syntax and
encoding rules specified in [RFC 1738]. The name MUST include both a
scheme (e.g., "http" or "ftp") and a scheme-specific-part. The
scheme-specific-part MUST include a fully qualified domain name or IP
address as the host.
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 34]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
As specified in [RFC 1738], the scheme name is not case-sensitive
(e.g., "http" is equivalent to "HTTP"). The host part is also not
case-sensitive, but other components of the scheme-specific-part may
be case-sensitive. When comparing URIs, conforming implementations
MUST compare the scheme and host without regard to case, but assume
the remainder of the scheme-specific-part is case sensitive.
When the subjectAltName extension contains a DN in the directoryName,
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 subjectAltName MAY carry additional name types through the use of
the otherName field. The format and semantics of the name are
indicated through the OBJECT IDENTIFIER in the type-id field. The
name itself is conveyed as value field in otherName. For example,
Kerberos [RFC 1510] format names can be encoded into the otherName,
using using a Kerberos 5 principal name OID and a SEQUENCE of the
Realm and the PrincipalName.
Subject alternative names MAY be constrained in the same manner as
subject distinguished names using the name constraints extension as
described in section 4.2.1.11.
If the subjectAltName extension is present, the sequence MUST contain
at least one entry. Unlike the subject field, conforming CAs MUST
NOT issue certificates with subjectAltNames containing empty
GeneralName fields. For example, an rfc822Name is represented as an
IA5String. While an empty string is a valid IA5String, such an
rfc822Name is not permitted by this profile. The behavior of clients
that encounter such a certificate when processing a certificication
path is not defined by this profile.
Finally, the semantics of subject alternative names that include
wildcard characters (e.g., as a placeholder for a set of names) are
not addressed by this specification. Applications with specific
requirements MAY use such names, but they must define the semantics.
id-ce-subjectAltName OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ce 17 }
SubjectAltName ::= GeneralNames
GeneralNames ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF GeneralName
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 35]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
GeneralName ::= CHOICE {
otherName [0] OtherName,
rfc822Name [1] IA5String,
dNSName [2] IA5String,
x400Address [3] ORAddress,
directoryName [4] Name,
ediPartyName [5] EDIPartyName,
uniformResourceIdentifier [6] IA5String,
iPAddress [7] OCTET STRING,
registeredID [8] OBJECT IDENTIFIER }
OtherName ::= SEQUENCE {
type-id OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
value [0] EXPLICIT ANY DEFINED BY type-id }
EDIPartyName ::= SEQUENCE {
nameAssigner [0] DirectoryString OPTIONAL,
partyName [1] DirectoryString }
4.2.1.8 Issuer Alternative Names
As with 4.2.1.7, this extension is used to associate Internet style
identities with the certificate issuer. Issuer alternative names
MUST be encoded as in 4.2.1.7.
Where present, this extension SHOULD NOT be marked critical.
id-ce-issuerAltName OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ce 18 }
IssuerAltName ::= GeneralNames
4.2.1.9 Subject Directory Attributes
The subject directory attributes extension is used to convey
identification attributes (e.g., nationality) of the subject. The
extension is defined as a sequence of one or more attributes. This
extension MUST be non-critical.
id-ce-subjectDirectoryAttributes OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ce 9 }
SubjectDirectoryAttributes ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF Attribute
4.2.1.10 Basic Constraints
The basic constraints extension identifies whether the subject of the
certificate is a CA and the maximum depth of valid certification
paths that include this certificate.
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 36]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
The cA boolean indicates whether the certified public key belongs to
a CA. If the cA boolean is not asserted, then the keyCertSign bit in
the key usage extension MUST NOT be asserted.
The pathLenConstraint field is meaningful only if the cA boolean is
asserted and the key usage extension asserts the keyCertSign bit
(section 4.2.1.3). In this case, it gives the maximum number of non-
self-issued intermediate certificates that may follow this
certificate in a valid certification path. A certificate is self-
issued if the DNs that appear in the subject and issuer fields are
identical and are not empty. (Note: The last certificate in the
certification path is not an intermediate certificate, and is not
included in this limit. Usually, the last certificate is an end
entity certificate, but it can be a CA certificate.) A
pathLenConstraint of zero indicates that only one more certificate
may follow in a valid certification path. Where it appears, the
pathLenConstraint field MUST be greater than or equal to zero. Where
pathLenConstraint does not appear, no limit is imposed.
This extension MUST appear as a critical extension in all CA
certificates that contain public keys used to validate digital
signatures on certificates. This extension MAY appear as a critical
or non-critical extension in CA certificates that contain public keys
used exclusively for purposes other than validating digital
signatures on certificates. Such CA certificates include ones that
contain public keys used exclusively for validating digital
signatures on CRLs and ones that contain key management public keys
used with certificate enrollment protocols. This extension MAY
appear as a critical or non-critical extension in end entity
certificates.
CAs MUST NOT include the pathLenConstraint field unless the cA
boolean is asserted and the key usage extension asserts the
keyCertSign bit.
id-ce-basicConstraints OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ce 19 }
BasicConstraints ::= SEQUENCE {
cA BOOLEAN DEFAULT FALSE,
pathLenConstraint INTEGER (0..MAX) OPTIONAL }
4.2.1.11 Name Constraints
The name constraints extension, which MUST be used only in a CA
certificate, indicates a name space within which all subject names in
subsequent certificates in a certification path MUST be located.
Restrictions apply to the subject distinguished name and apply to
subject alternative names. Restrictions apply only when the
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 37]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
specified name form is present. If no name of the type is in the
certificate, the certificate is acceptable.
Name constraints are not applied to certificates whose issuer and
subject are identical (unless the certificate is the final
certificate in the path). (This could prevent CAs that use name
constraints from employing self-issued certificates to implement key
rollover.)
Restrictions are defined in terms of permitted or excluded name
subtrees. Any name matching a restriction in the excludedSubtrees
field is invalid regardless of information appearing in the
permittedSubtrees. This extension MUST be critical.
Within this profile, the minimum and maximum fields are not used with
any name forms, thus minimum MUST be zero, and maximum MUST be
absent.
For URIs, the constraint applies to the host part of the name. The
constraint MAY specify a host or a domain. Examples would be
"foo.bar.com"; and ".xyz.com". When the the constraint begins with
a period, it MAY be expanded with one or more subdomains. That is,
the constraint ".xyz.com" is satisfied by both abc.xyz.com and
abc.def.xyz.com. However, the constraint ".xyz.com" is not satisfied
by "xyz.com". When the constraint does not begin with a period, it
specifies a host.
A name constraint for Internet mail addresses MAY specify a
particular mailbox, all addresses at a particular host, or all
mailboxes in a domain. To indicate a particular mailbox, the
constraint is the complete mail address. For example, "root@xyz.com"
indicates the root mailbox on the host "xyz.com". To indicate all
Internet mail addresses on a particular host, the constraint is
specified as the host name. For example, the constraint "xyz.com" is
satisfied by any mail address at the host "xyz.com". To specify any
address within a domain, the constraint is specified with a leading
period (as with URIs). For example, ".xyz.com" indicates all the
Internet mail addresses in the domain "xyz.com", but not Internet
mail addresses on the host "xyz.com".
DNS name restrictions are expressed as foo.bar.com. Any DNS name
that can be constructed by simply adding to the left hand side of the
name satisfies the name constraint. For example, www.foo.bar.com
would satisfy the constraint but foo1.bar.com would not.
Legacy implementations exist where an RFC 822 name is embedded in the
subject distinguished name in an attribute of type EmailAddress
(section 4.1.2.6). When rfc822 names are constrained, but the
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 38]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
certificate does not include a subject alternative name, the rfc822
name constraint MUST be applied to the attribute of type EmailAddress
in the subject distinguished name. The ASN.1 syntax for EmailAddress
and the corresponding OID are supplied in Appendix A.
Restrictions of the form directoryName MUST be applied to the subject
field in the certificate and to the subjectAltName extensions of type
directoryName. Restrictions of the form x400Address MUST be applied
to subjectAltName extensions of type x400Address.
When applying restrictions of the form directoryName, an
implementation MUST compare DN attributes. At a minimum,
implementations MUST perform the DN comparison rules specified in
Section 4.1.2.4. CAs issuing certificates with a restriction of the
form directoryName SHOULD NOT rely on implementation of the full ISO
DN name comparison algorithm. This implies name restrictions MUST be
stated identically to the encoding used in the subject field or
subjectAltName extension.
The syntax of iPAddress MUST be as described in section 4.2.1.7 with
the following additions specifically for Name Constraints. For IPv4
addresses, the ipAddress field of generalName MUST contain eight (8)
octets, encoded in the style of RFC 1519 (CIDR) to represent an
address range [RFC 1519]. For IPv6 addresses, the ipAddress field
MUST contain 32 octets similarly encoded. For example, a name
constraint for "class C" subnet 10.9.8.0 is represented as the octets
0A 09 08 00 FF FF FF 00, representing the CIDR notation
10.9.8.0/255.255.255.0.
The syntax and semantics for name constraints for otherName,
ediPartyName, and registeredID are not defined by this specification.
id-ce-nameConstraints OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ce 30 }
NameConstraints ::= SEQUENCE {
permittedSubtrees [0] GeneralSubtrees OPTIONAL,
excludedSubtrees [1] GeneralSubtrees OPTIONAL }
GeneralSubtrees ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF GeneralSubtree
GeneralSubtree ::= SEQUENCE {
base GeneralName,
minimum [0] BaseDistance DEFAULT 0,
maximum [1] BaseDistance OPTIONAL }
BaseDistance ::= INTEGER (0..MAX)
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 39]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
4.2.1.12 Policy Constraints
The policy constraints extension can be used in certificates issued
to CAs. The policy constraints extension constrains path validation
in two ways. It can be used to prohibit policy mapping or require
that each certificate in a path contain an acceptable policy
identifier.
If the inhibitPolicyMapping field is present, the value indicates the
number of additional certificates that may appear in the path before
policy mapping is no longer permitted. For example, a value of one
indicates that policy mapping may be processed in certificates issued
by the subject of this certificate, but not in additional
certificates in the path.
If the requireExplicitPolicy field is present, the value of
requireExplicitPolicy indicates the number of additional certificates
that may appear in the path before an explicit policy is required for
the entire path. When an explicit policy is required, it is
necessary for all certificates in the path to contain an acceptable
policy identifier in the certificate policies extension. An
acceptable policy identifier is the identifier of a policy required
by the user of the certification path or the identifier of a policy
which has been declared equivalent through policy mapping.
Conforming CAs MUST NOT issue certificates where policy constraints
is a empty sequence. That is, at least one of the
inhibitPolicyMapping field or the requireExplicitPolicy field MUST be
present. The behavior of clients that encounter a empty policy
constraints field is not addressed in this profile.
This extension MAY be critical or non-critical.
id-ce-policyConstraints OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ce 36 }
PolicyConstraints ::= SEQUENCE {
requireExplicitPolicy [0] SkipCerts OPTIONAL,
inhibitPolicyMapping [1] SkipCerts OPTIONAL }
SkipCerts ::= INTEGER (0..MAX)
4.2.1.13 Extended Key Usage
This extension indicates one or more purposes for which the certified
public key may be used, in addition to or in place of the basic
purposes indicated in the key usage extension. In general, this
extension will appear only in end entity certificates. This
extension is defined as follows:
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 40]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
id-ce-extKeyUsage OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ce 37 }
ExtKeyUsageSyntax ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF KeyPurposeId
KeyPurposeId ::= OBJECT IDENTIFIER
Key purposes may be defined by any organization with a need. Object
identifiers used to identify key purposes MUST be assigned in
accordance with IANA or ITU-T Recommendation X.660 [X.660].
This extension MAY, at the option of the certificate issuer, be
either critical or non-critical.
If the extension is present, then the certificate MUST only be used
for one of the purposes indicated. If multiple purposes are
indicated the application need not recognize all purposes indicated,
as long as the intended purpose is present. Certificate using
applications MAY require that a particular purpose be indicated in
order for the certificate to be acceptable to that application.
If a CA includes extended key usages to satisfy such applications,
but does not wish to restrict usages of the key, the CA can include
the special keyPurposeID anyExtendedKeyUsage. If the
anyExtendedKeyUsage keyPurposeID is present, the extension SHOULD NOT
be critical.
If a certificate contains both a key usage extension and an extended
key usage extension, then both extensions MUST be processed
independently and the certificate MUST only be used for a purpose
consistent with both extensions. If there is no purpose consistent
with both extensions, then the certificate MUST NOT be used for any
purpose.
The following key usage purposes are defined:
anyExtendedKeyUsage OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ce-extKeyUsage 0 }
id-kp OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix 3 }
id-kp-serverAuth OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 1 }
-- TLS WWW server authentication
-- Key usage bits that may be consistent: digitalSignature,
-- keyEncipherment or keyAgreement
id-kp-clientAuth OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 2 }
-- TLS WWW client authentication
-- Key usage bits that may be consistent: digitalSignature
-- and/or keyAgreement
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 41]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
id-kp-codeSigning OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 3 }
-- Signing of downloadable executable code
-- Key usage bits that may be consistent: digitalSignature
id-kp-emailProtection OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 4 }
-- E-mail protection
-- Key usage bits that may be consistent: digitalSignature,
-- nonRepudiation, and/or (keyEncipherment or keyAgreement)
id-kp-timeStamping OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 8 }
-- Binding the hash of an object to a time
-- Key usage bits that may be consistent: digitalSignature
-- and/or nonRepudiation
id-kp-OCSPSigning OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 9 }
-- Signing OCSP responses
-- Key usage bits that may be consistent: digitalSignature
-- and/or nonRepudiation
4.2.1.14 CRL Distribution Points
The CRL distribution points extension identifies how CRL information
is obtained. The extension SHOULD be non-critical, but this profile
RECOMMENDS support for this extension by CAs and applications.
Further discussion of CRL management is contained in section 5.
The cRLDistributionPoints extension is a SEQUENCE of
DistributionPoint. A DistributionPoint consists of three fields,
each of which is optional: distributionPoint, reasons, and cRLIssuer.
While each of these fields is optional, a DistributionPoint MUST NOT
consist of only the reasons field; either distributionPoint or
cRLIssuer MUST be present. If the certificate issuer is not the CRL
issuer, then the cRLIssuer field MUST be present and contain the Name
of the CRL issuer. If the certificate issuer is also the CRL issuer,
then the cRLIssuer field MUST be omitted and the distributionPoint
field MUST be present. If the distributionPoint field is omitted,
cRLIssuer MUST be present and include a Name corresponding to an
X.500 or LDAP directory entry where the CRL is located.
When the distributionPoint field is present, it contains either a
SEQUENCE of general names or a single value, nameRelativeToCRLIssuer.
If the cRLDistributionPoints extension contains a general name of
type URI, the following semantics MUST be assumed: the URI is a
pointer to the current CRL for the associated reasons and will be
issued by the associated cRLIssuer. The expected values for the URI
are those defined in 4.2.1.7. Processing rules for other values are
not defined by this specification.
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 42]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
If the DistributionPointName contains multiple values, each name
describes a different mechanism to obtain the same CRL. For example,
the same CRL could be available for retrieval through both LDAP and
HTTP.
If the DistributionPointName contains the single value
nameRelativeToCRLIssuer, the value provides a distinguished name
fragment. The fragment is appended to the X.500 distinguished name
of the CRL issuer to obtain the distribution point name. If the
cRLIssuer field in the DistributionPoint is present, then the name
fragment is appended to the distinguished name that it contains;
otherwise, the name fragment is appended to the certificate issuer
distinguished name. The DistributionPointName MUST NOT use the
nameRealtiveToCRLIssuer alternative when cRLIssuer contains more than
one distinguished name.
If the DistributionPoint omits the reasons field, the CRL MUST
include revocation information for all reasons.
The cRLIssuer identifies the entity who signs and issues the CRL. If
present, the cRLIssuer MUST contain at least one an X.500
distinguished name (DN), and MAY also contain other name forms.
Since the cRLIssuer is compared to the CRL issuer name, the X.501
type Name MUST follow the encoding rules for the issuer name field in
the certificate (section 4.1.2.4).
id-ce-cRLDistributionPoints OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ce 31 }
CRLDistributionPoints ::= SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF DistributionPoint
DistributionPoint ::= SEQUENCE {
distributionPoint [0] DistributionPointName OPTIONAL,
reasons [1] ReasonFlags OPTIONAL,
cRLIssuer [2] GeneralNames OPTIONAL }
DistributionPointName ::= CHOICE {
fullName [0] GeneralNames,
nameRelativeToCRLIssuer [1] RelativeDistinguishedName }
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 43]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
ReasonFlags ::= BIT STRING {
unused (0),
keyCompromise (1),
cACompromise (2),
affiliationChanged (3),
superseded (4),
cessationOfOperation (5),
certificateHold (6),
privilegeWithdrawn (7),
aACompromise (8) }
4.2.1.15 Inhibit Any-Policy
The inhibit any-policy extension can be used in certificates issued
to CAs. The inhibit any-policy indicates that the special anyPolicy
OID, with the value { 2 5 29 32 0 }, is not considered an explicit
match for other certificate policies. The value indicates the number
of additional certificates that may appear in the path before
anyPolicy is no longer permitted. For example, a value of one
indicates that anyPolicy may be processed in certificates issued by
the subject of this certificate, but not in additional certificates
in the path.
This extension MUST be critical.
id-ce-inhibitAnyPolicy OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ce 54 }
InhibitAnyPolicy ::= SkipCerts
SkipCerts ::= INTEGER (0..MAX)
4.2.1.16 Freshest CRL (a.k.a. Delta CRL Distribution Point)
The freshest CRL extension identifies how delta CRL information is
obtained. The extension MUST be non-critical. Further discussion of
CRL management is contained in section 5.
The same syntax is used for this extension and the
cRLDistributionPoints extension, and is described in section
4.2.1.14. The same conventions apply to both extensions.
id-ce-freshestCRL OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ce 46 }
FreshestCRL ::= CRLDistributionPoints
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 44]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
4.2.2 Private Internet Extensions
This section defines two extensions for use in the Internet Public
Key Infrastructure. These extensions may be used to direct
applications to on-line information about the issuing CA or the
subject. As the information may be available in multiple forms, each
extension is a sequence of IA5String values, each of which represents
a URI. The URI implicitly specifies the location and format of the
information and the method for obtaining the information.
An object identifier is defined for the private extension. The
object identifier associated with the private extension is defined
under the arc id-pe within the arc id-pkix. Any future extensions
defined for the Internet PKI are also expected to be defined under
the arc id-pe.
id-pkix OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=
{ iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) }
id-pe OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix 1 }
4.2.2.1 Authority Information Access
The authority information access extension indicates how to access CA
information and services for the issuer of the certificate in which
the extension appears. Information and services may include on-line
validation services and CA policy data. (The location of CRLs is not
specified in this extension; that information is provided by the
cRLDistributionPoints extension.) This extension may be included in
end entity or CA certificates, and it MUST be non-critical.
id-pe-authorityInfoAccess OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pe 1 }
AuthorityInfoAccessSyntax ::=
SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF AccessDescription
AccessDescription ::= SEQUENCE {
accessMethod OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
accessLocation GeneralName }
id-ad OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix 48 }
id-ad-caIssuers OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ad 2 }
id-ad-ocsp OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ad 1 }
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 45]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
Each entry in the sequence AuthorityInfoAccessSyntax describes the
format and location of additional information provided by the CA that
issued the certificate in which this extension appears. The type and
format of the information is specified by the accessMethod field; the
accessLocation field specifies the location of the information. The
retrieval mechanism may be implied by the accessMethod or specified
by accessLocation.
This profile defines two accessMethod OIDs: id-ad-caIssuers and
id-ad-ocsp.
The id-ad-caIssuers OID is used when the additional information lists
CAs that have issued certificates superior to the CA that issued the
certificate containing this extension. The referenced CA issuers
description is intended to aid certificate users in the selection of
a certification path that terminates at a point trusted by the
certificate user.
When id-ad-caIssuers appears as accessMethod, the accessLocation
field describes the referenced description server and the access
protocol to obtain the referenced description. The accessLocation
field is defined as a GeneralName, which can take several forms.
Where the information is available via http, ftp, or ldap,
accessLocation MUST be a uniformResourceIdentifier. Where the
information is available via the Directory Access Protocol (DAP),
accessLocation MUST be a directoryName. The entry for that
directoryName contains CA certificates in the crossCertificatePair
attribute. When the information is available via electronic mail,
accessLocation MUST be an rfc822Name. The semantics of other
id-ad-caIssuers accessLocation name forms are not defined.
The id-ad-ocsp OID is used when revocation information for the
certificate containing this extension is available using the Online
Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) [RFC 2560].
When id-ad-ocsp appears as accessMethod, the accessLocation field is
the location of the OCSP responder, using the conventions defined in
[RFC 2560].
Additional access descriptors may be defined in other PKIX
specifications.
4.2.2.2 Subject Information Access
The subject information access extension indicates how to access
information and services for the subject of the certificate in which
the extension appears. When the subject is a CA, information and
services may include certificate validation services and CA policy
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 46]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
data. When the subject is an end entity, the information describes
the type of services offered and how to access them. In this case,
the contents of this extension are defined in the protocol
specifications for the suported services. This extension may be
included in subject or CA certificates, and it MUST be non-critical.
id-pe-subjectInfoAccess OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pe 11 }
SubjectInfoAccessSyntax ::=
SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF AccessDescription
AccessDescription ::= SEQUENCE {
accessMethod OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
accessLocation GeneralName }
Each entry in the sequence SubjectInfoAccessSyntax describes the
format and location of additional information provided by the subject
of the certificate in which this extension appears. The type and
format of the information is specified by the accessMethod field; the
accessLocation field specifies the location of the information. The
retrieval mechanism may be implied by the accessMethod or specified
by accessLocation.
This profile defines one access method to be used when the subject is
a CA, and one access method to be used when the subject is an end
entity. Additional access methods may be defined in the future in
the protocol specifications for other services.
The id-ad-caRepository OID is used when the subject is a CA, and
publishes its certificates and CRLs (if issued) in a repository. The
accessLocation field is defined as a GeneralName, which can take
several forms. Where the information is available via http, ftp, or
ldap, accessLocation MUST be a uniformResourceIdentifier. Where the
information is available via the directory access protocol (dap),
accessLocation MUST be a directoryName. When the information is
available via electronic mail, accessLocation MUST be an rfc822Name.
The semantics of other name forms of of accessLocation (when
accessMethod is id-ad-caRepository) are not defined by this
specification.
The id-ad-timeStamping OID is used when the subject offers
timestamping services using the Time Stamp Protocol defined in
[PKIXTSA]. Where the timestamping services are available via http or
ftp, accessLocation MUST be a uniformResourceIdentifier. Where the
timestamping services are available via electronic mail,
accessLocation MUST be an rfc822Name. Where timestamping services
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 47]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
are available using TCP/IP, the dNSName or ipAddress name forms may
be used. The semantics of other name forms of accessLocation (when
accessMethod is id-ad-timeStamping) are not defined by this
specification.
Additional access descriptors may be defined in other PKIX
specifications.
id-ad OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix 48 }
id-ad-caRepository OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ad 5 }
id-ad-timeStamping OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-ad 3 }
5 CRL and CRL Extensions Profile
As discussed above, one goal of this X.509 v2 CRL profile is to
foster the creation of an interoperable and reusable Internet PKI.
To achieve this goal, guidelines for the use of extensions are
specified, and some assumptions are made about the nature of
information included in the CRL.
CRLs may be used in a wide range of applications and environments
covering a broad spectrum of interoperability goals and an even
broader spectrum of operational and assurance requirements. This
profile establishes a common baseline for generic applications
requiring broad interoperability. The profile defines a set of
information that can be expected in every CRL. Also, the profile
defines common locations within the CRL for frequently used
attributes as well as common representations for these attributes.
CRL issuers issue CRLs. In general, the CRL issuer is the CA. CAs
publish CRLs to provide status information about the certificates
they issued. However, a CA may delegate this responsibility to
another trusted authority. Whenever the CRL issuer is not the CA
that issued the certificates, the CRL is referred to as an indirect
CRL.
Each CRL has a particular scope. The CRL scope is the set of
certificates that could appear on a given CRL. For example, the
scope could be "all certificates issued by CA X", "all CA
certificates issued by CA X", "all certificates issued by CA X that
have been revoked for reasons of key compromise and CA compromise",
or could be a set of certificates based on arbitrary local
information, such as "all certificates issued to the NIST employees
located in Boulder".
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 48]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
A complete CRL lists all unexpired certificates, within its scope,
that have been revoked for one of the revocation reasons covered by
the CRL scope. The CRL issuer MAY also generate delta CRLs. A delta
CRL only lists those certificates, within its scope, whose revocation
status has changed since the issuance of a referenced complete CRL.
The referenced complete CRL is referred to as a base CRL. The scope
of a delta CRL MUST be the same as the base CRL that it references.
This profile does not define any private Internet CRL extensions or
CRL entry extensions.
Environments with additional or special purpose requirements may
build on this profile or may replace it.
Conforming CAs are not required to issue CRLs if other revocation or
certificate status mechanisms are provided. When CRLs are issued,
the CRLs MUST be version 2 CRLs, include the date by which the next
CRL will be issued in the nextUpdate field (section 5.1.2.5), include
the CRL number extension (section 5.2.3), and include the authority
key identifier extension (section 5.2.1). Conforming applications
that support CRLs are REQUIRED to process both version 1 and version
2 complete CRLs that provide revocation information for all
certificates issued by one CA. Conforming applications are NOT
REQUIRED to support processing of delta CRLs, indirect CRLs, or CRLs
with a scope other than all certificates issued by one CA.
5.1 CRL Fields
The X.509 v2 CRL syntax is as follows. For signature calculation,
the data that is to be signed is ASN.1 DER encoded. ASN.1 DER
encoding is a tag, length, value encoding system for each element.
CertificateList ::= SEQUENCE {
tbsCertList TBSCertList,
signatureAlgorithm AlgorithmIdentifier,
signatureValue BIT STRING }
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 49]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
TBSCertList ::= SEQUENCE {
version Version OPTIONAL,
-- if present, MUST be v2
signature AlgorithmIdentifier,
issuer Name,
thisUpdate Time,
nextUpdate Time OPTIONAL,
revokedCertificates SEQUENCE OF SEQUENCE {
userCertificate CertificateSerialNumber,
revocationDate Time,
crlEntryExtensions Extensions OPTIONAL
-- if present, MUST be v2
} OPTIONAL,
crlExtensions [0] EXPLICIT Extensions OPTIONAL
-- if present, MUST be v2
}
-- Version, Time, CertificateSerialNumber, and Extensions
-- are all defined in the ASN.1 in section 4.1
-- AlgorithmIdentifier is defined in section 4.1.1.2
The following items describe the use of the X.509 v2 CRL in the
Internet PKI.
5.1.1 CertificateList Fields
The CertificateList is a SEQUENCE of three required fields. The
fields are described in detail in the following subsections.
5.1.1.1 tbsCertList
The first field in the sequence is the tbsCertList. This field is
itself a sequence containing the name of the issuer, issue date,
issue date of the next list, the optional list of revoked
certificates, and optional CRL extensions. When there are no revoked
certificates, the revoked certificates list is absent. When one or
more certificates are revoked, each entry on the revoked certificate
list is defined by a sequence of user certificate serial number,
revocation date, and optional CRL entry extensions.
5.1.1.2 signatureAlgorithm
The signatureAlgorithm field contains the algorithm identifier for
the algorithm used by the CRL issuer to sign the CertificateList.
The field is of type AlgorithmIdentifier, which is defined in section
4.1.1.2. [PKIXALGS] lists the supported algorithms for this
specification, but other signature algorithms MAY also be supported.
Housley, et. al. Standards Track [Page 50]
RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure April 2002
This field MUST contain the same algorithm identifier as the
signature field in the sequence tbsCertList (section 5.1.2.2).
5.1.1.3 signatureValue
The signatureValue field contains a digital signature computed upon
the ASN.1 DER encoded tbsCertList. The ASN.1 DER encoded tbsCertList
is used as the input to the sig