X.509 Certificate Extended Key Usage (EKU) for Automation

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶

This Internet-Draft will expire on 19 June 2025.¶

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Automation hardware and software products will strategically be more safe and secure by fulfilling mandatory, generic system requirements related to cyber security driven by federal offices like the European Union Cyber Resilience Act [EU-CRA] governed by the European Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Automation products connected to the internet would bear the CE marking to indicate they comply. Such regulation was announced in the 2020 EU Cybersecurity Strategy [EU-STRATEGY], and complements other legislation in this area, specifically the NIS2 Framework, Directive on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity across the Union [NIS2]. 2020 EU Cybersecurity Strategy suggests to implement and extend international standards such as the Security for industrial automation and control systems - Part 4-2: Technical security requirements for IACS components [IEC.62443-4-2] and the Industrial communication networks - Network and system security - Part 3-3: System security requirements and security levels [IEC.62443-3-3]. Automation hardware and software products of diverse vendors that are connected on automation networks and the internet build a typical automation solution. Harmonized attributes would allow transparency of security properties and interoperability for vendors in context of secure software and firmware updates, general-purpose configuration, trust anchor configuration, and secure safety communication.¶

A concrete example for Automation is a Rail Automation system. The Europe's Rail Joint Undertaking System Pillar [ERJU] will deliver a unified operational concept and a functional, safe, and secure system architecture alongside with system requirements for Rail Automation. The deliverables include due consideration of cyber security aspects based on the IEC 62443 series of standards, focused on the European railway network to which Directive 2016/797 - Interoperability of the rail system within the EU [Directive-2016_797] applies.¶

The ERJU System Pillar Cyber Security Working Group makes use of PKIs to generate X.509 PKI certificates. The certificates are used for the following purposes, among others:¶

• Validating signatures of general-purpose software configuration files.¶

• Validating signatures of trust anchor configuration files.¶

• Validating signatures of software and firmware update packages.¶

• Authenticating communication endpoints authorized for safety-critical communication.¶

[RFC5280] specifies several key usage extensions, defined via KeyPurposeIds, for X.509 certificates. Key usage extensions added to a certificate are meant to express intent as to the purpose of the named usage, for humans and for complying libraries. In addition, the IANA registry "SMI Security for PKIX Extended Key Purpose" [RFC7299] contains additional KeyPurposeIds. The use of the anyExtendedKeyUsage KeyPurposeId, as defined in Section 4.2.1.12 of [RFC5280], is generally considered a poor practice. This is especially true for certificates, whether they are multi-purpose or single-purpose, within the context of ERJU System Pillar.¶

If the purpose of the issued certificates is not restricted, i.e., the type of operations for which a public key contained in the certificate can be used are not specified, those certificates could be used for another purpose than intended, increasing the risk of cross-protocol attacks. Failure to ensure proper segregation of duties means that an application or system that generates the public/private keys and applies for a certificate to the operator certification authority could obtain a certificate that can be misused for tasks that this application or system is not entitled to perform. For example, management of trust anchor is a particularly critical task. A device could potentially accept a trust anchor configuration file signed by a service that uses a certificate with no EKU or with the KeyPurposeId id-kp-codeSigning (Section 4.2.1.12 of [RFC5280]) or id-kp-documentSigning [RFC9336]. A device should only accept trust anchor configuration files if the file is signed with a certificate that has been explicitly issued for this purpose.¶

The KeyPurposeId id-kp-serverAuth (Section 4.2.1.12 of [RFC5280]) can be used to identify that the certificate is for a TLS WWW server, and the KeyPurposeId id-kp-clientAuth (Section 4.2.1.12 of [RFC5280]) can be used to identify that the certificate is for a TLS WWW client. However, there are currently no KeyPurposeIds for usage with X.509 certificates for safety-critical communication.¶

This document addresses the above problems by defining keyPurposeIds for the EKU extension of X.509 public key certificates. These certificates are either used for signing files (general-purpose configuration and trust anchor configuration files, software and firmware update packages) or are used for safety-critical communication.¶

Vendor-defined KeyPurposeIds used within a PKI governed by the vendor or a group of vendors typically do not pose interoperability concerns, as non-critical extensions can be safely ignored if unrecognized. However, using or misusing KeyPurposeIds outside of their intended vendor-controlled environment can lead to interoperability issues. Therefore, it is advisable not to rely on vendor-defined KeyPurposeIds. Instead, the specification defines standard KeyPurposeIds to ensure interoperability across various vendors and industries.¶

Although the specification focuses on use in industrial automation, the definitions are intentionally broad to allow the use of the KeyPurposeIds defined in this document in other deployments as well. Whether and how any of the KeyPurpose OIDs defined in this document must be described in more detail in the technical standards and certificate policies relevant to the application domain.¶

2. Conventions and Definitions

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶

3. Extended Key Purpose for Automation

This specification defines the KeyPurposeIds id-kp-configSigning, id-kp-trustanchorSigning, id-kp-updateSigning, and id-kp-safetyCommunication and uses these, respectively, for: signing general-purpose or trust anchor configuration files, signing software or firmware update packages, or authenticating communication peers for safety-critical communication. As described in Section 4.2.1.12 of [RFC5280], "[i]f the [extended key usage] extension is present, then the certificate MUST only be used for one of the purposes indicated" and "[i]f multiple [key] purposes are indicated the application need not recognize all purposes indicated, as long as the intended purpose is present".¶

Systems or applications that verify the signature of a general-purpose or trust anchor configuration file, the signature of a software or firmware update package, or the authentication of a communication peer for safety-critical communication SHOULD require that corresponding KeyPurposeIds be specified by the EKU extension. If the certificate requester knows the certificate users are mandated to use these KeyPurposeIds, it MUST enforce their inclusion. Additionally, such a certificate requester MUST ensure that the KeyUsage extension be set to digitalSignature or nonRepudiation (also designated as contentCommitment) for signature verification and if needed to keyEncipherment for secret key encryption and/or keyAgreement for key agreement.¶

4. Including the Extended Key Purpose in Certificates

[RFC5280] specifies the EKU X.509 certificate extension for use on end entity certificates. The extension indicates one or more purposes for which the certified public key is valid. The EKU extension can be used in conjunction with the Key Usage (KU) extension, which indicates the set of basic cryptographic operations for which the certified key may be used. The EKU extension syntax is repeated here for convenience:¶

   ExtKeyUsageSyntax  ::=  SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF KeyPurposeId

   KeyPurposeId  ::=  OBJECT IDENTIFIER

As described in [RFC5280], the EKU extension may, at the option of the certificate issuer, be either critical or non-critical. The inclusion of KeyPurposeIds id-kp-configSigning, id-kp-trustanchorSigning, id-kp-updateSigning, and id-kp-safetyCommunication in a certificate indicates that the public key encoded in the certificate has been certified for the following usages:¶

• id-kp-configSigning¶

• A public key contained in a certificate containing the KeyPurposeId id-kp-configSigning may be used for verifying signatures of general-purpose configuration files of various formats (for example XML, YAML, or JSON). Configuration files are used to configure hardware or software.¶

• id-kp-trustanchorSigning¶

• A public key contained in a certificate containing the KeyPurposeId id-kp-trustanchorSigning may be used for verifying signatures of trust anchor configuration files of various formats (for example XML, YAML, or JSON). Trust anchor configuration files are used to add or remove trust anchors to the trust store of a device.¶

• id-kp-updateSigning¶

• A public key contained in a certificate containing the KeyPurposeId id-kp-updateSigning may be used for verifying signatures of secure software or firmware update packages. Update packages are used to install software (including bootloader, firmware, safety-related applications, and others) on systems.¶

• id-kp-safetyCommunication¶

• A public key contained in a certificate containing the KeyPurposeId id-kp-safetyCommunication may be used to authenticate a communication peer for safety-critical communication based on TLS or other protocols.¶

   id-kp  OBJECT IDENTIFIER  ::=
       { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
         security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) 3 }

   id-kp-configSigning        OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp TBD2 }
   id-kp-trustanchorSigning   OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp TBD3 }
   id-kp-updateSigning        OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp TBD4 }
   id-kp-safetyCommunication  OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp TBD5 }

5. Implications for a Certification Authority

The procedures and practices employed by a certification authority MUST ensure that the correct values for the EKU extension as well as the KU extension are inserted in each certificate that is issued. The inclusion of the id-kp-configSigning, id-kp-trustanchorSigning, id-kp-updateSigning, and id-kp-safetyCommunication KeyPurposeIds does not preclude the inclusion of other KeyPurposeIds.¶

6. Security Considerations

The Security Considerations of [RFC5280] are applicable to this document. These extended key usage key purposes do not introduce new security risks but instead reduces existing security risks by providing the means to identify if the certificate is generated to verify the signature of a general-purpose or trust anchor configuration file, the signature of a software or firmware update package, or the authentication of a communication peer for safety-critical communication.¶

To reduce the risk of specific cross-protocol attacks, the relying party or the relying party software may additionally prohibit use of specific combinations of KeyPurposeIds. The procedure for allowing or disallowing combinations of KeyPurposeIds using Excluded KeyPurposeId and Permitted KeyPurposeId, as carried out by a relying party, is defined in Section 4 of [RFC9336]. Examples of Excluded KeyPurposeIds include the presence of the anyExtendedKeyUsage KeyPurposeId or the complete absence of the EKU extension in a certificate. Examples of Permitted KeyPurposeIds include the presence of id-kp-configSigning, id-kp-trustanchorSigning, id-kp-updateSigning, and id-kp-safetyCommunication KeyPurposeIds.¶

7. Privacy Considerations

In some security protocols, such as TLS 1.2 [RFC5246], certificates are exchanged in the clear. In other security protocols, such as TLS 1.3 [RFC8446], the certificates are encrypted. The inclusion of the EKU extension can help an observer determine the purpose of the certificate. In addition, if the certificate is issued by a public certification authority, the inclusion of an EKU extension can help an attacker to monitor the Certificate Transparency logs [RFC9162] to identify the purpose of the certificate.¶

8. IANA Considerations

IANA is requested to register the following ASN.1 [X.680] module OID in the "SMI Security for PKIX Module Identifier" registry (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.0). This OID is defined in Appendix A.¶

IANA is also requested to register the following OIDs in the "SMI Security for PKIX Extended Key Purpose" registry (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3). These OIDs are defined in Section 4.¶

9. Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the authors of [RFC9336] and [RFC9509] for their excellent template.¶

We also thank all reviewers of this document for their valuable feedback.¶

10. References

Appendix A. ASN.1 Module

The following module adheres to ASN.1 specifications [X.680] and [X.690].¶

<CODE BEGINS>

Automation-EKU
  { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
    security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
    id-mod-eu-automation-eku (TBD1) }

DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::=
BEGIN

-- OID Arc

id-kp OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=
  { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
    security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) kp(3) }

-- Extended Key Usage Values

id-kp-configSigning        OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp TBD2 }
id-kp-trustanchorSigning   OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp TBD3 }
id-kp-updateSigning        OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp TBD4 }
id-kp-safetyCommunication  OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp TBD5 }

END


<CODE ENDS>

Appendix B. History of Changes

[RFC Editor: Please remove this appendix in the release version of the document.]¶

Changes from 00 -> 01:¶

• Fixed some minor nids and wording issues¶

draft-ietf-lamps-automation-keyusages version 00:¶

• Updated document and filename after WG adoption¶

Changes from 00 -> 01:¶

• Updated last paragraph of Section 1 addressing WG adoption comments by Rich and Russ¶

• Updated name and OID of ASN.1 module¶

draft-brockhaus-lamps-automation-keyusages version 00:¶

• Broadened the scope to general automation use case and use ERJU as an example.¶

• Fixed some nits reported.¶

draft-brockhaus-lamps-eu-rail-keyusages version 00:¶

• Initial version of the document following best practices from RFC 9336 and RFC 9509¶

Contributors

Authors' Addresses