mischief/openbsd-src
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/openbsd/src.git synced 2024-12-21 23:18:00 -08:00
Code

Schedule future rejection of ultra long-lived TA certificates

Browse Source 
The RPKI ecosystem suffers from a partially unmitigated risk related to
long-lived Trust Anchor certificate issuances.

Issues could arise when a on-path attackers (or, operational errors such
as restoring a super old backup of a webserver) bring back into
circulation old (but still valid) TA certificate. Older certificates
remain valid for the duration of their validity period, because TA
certificates - being top of the chain - cannot be revoked.

Real world examples of old potential replayable certificates that today
still would pass validation are here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/NxzvSFH0sPXEmyfOS99cLApFKqM/

The trouble with these replayable TA certificates is that when an
on-path entity ends up presenting such an outdated-but-still-valid
certificate to the RP, accepting such a cert will damage the RP's local
validated cache. Parts of the validated output will disappear, in an
unpredictably manner.

Periodic reissuance of TA certs is important because TA certificates are
not entirely static, which of course is why replay might even be an issue
in the first place!. There are 3 'dynamic' fields in TA certificates:

  - the validity period (notBefore, notAfter)
  - the SubjectInfoAccess (where can the RP find the first repository?)
  - the extensions for IP addresses & AS identifiers (RFC 3779 INRs)
    (the RFC 3779 extensions are of critical importance to the
    RPKI's chain validation algorithm)

RIRs will want RPs to validate using the 'latest' issuance of the TA
certificate, because a TA cert from 10 years ago obviously will be 10
years behind on operational decisions, potential SIA migrations,
resource transfers, new IANA assignments, or any other updates to the
RIR's current holdings.

How to repair this situation?

The plan to overcome this risk has three steps:

step 1) RPs to prefer shorter-lived Trust Anchor certificates over
        longer-lived ones. (rpki-client already implemented this)
        https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-ta-tiebreaker

step 2) RPs ship with scheduled future refusal of ultra long-lived Trust
        Anchor certificates (that's the below diff).

step 3) Consequently, RIRs have to reissue shorter-lived TA certificates
        to avoid being rejected by RPs.

The end result is that after anno 2026 / 2027, if 100 year or 10 year
certs somehow be brought back into circulation, RPs will simply refuse
such long-lived certs, despite them technically being 'valid'.

Why this works:

The ta-tiebreaker mechanism provides an incentive for TA operators to
reissue with reasonable (1 or 2 year) validity periods, as those certs
will be preferred. In turn, RPs scheduling refusal of long-lived certs
at a predetermined future point in time, relieves TA operators from
worrying about previously issued certs with ultra long lifetimes. It is
a win win for everyone in the ecosystem.

Scheduling details:

- February 2nd 2026 for phase 1, because 02-02-2026 is an unambiguous
  date both in the US and elsewhere.
- March 3rd 2027 for phase 2, because 03-03-2027 also is unambiguous and
  visually is very distinct from the phase 1 date.

The hope is that with this schedule global coordination less will be less
error-prone, and everyone should get adequate preparation time.

Discussed with various RIRs

with & OK tb@
This commit is contained in:
job 2024-12-18 16:38:40 +00:00
parent 4cf1cdd067
commit e489b84834
1 changed files with 71 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

72
usr.sbin/rpki-client/cert.c
View File

@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
/* $OpenBSD: cert.c,v 1.153 2024/11/12 09:23:07 tb Exp $ */
/* $OpenBSD: cert.c,v 1.154 2024/12/18 16:38:40 job Exp $ */
/*
* Copyright (c) 2022 Theo Buehler <tb@openbsd.org>
* Copyright (c) 2021 Job Snijders <job@openbsd.org>
@ -1061,6 +1061,72 @@ badcert:
return NULL;
}
/*
* Reject TA certificates with an overly long validity period.
*
* The schedule is as follows:
* Before February 2nd, 2026, warn on TA certs valid for longer than 15 years.
* After February 2nd, 2026, reject TA certs valid for longer than 15 years.
* Before March 3rd, 2027, warn on TA certs valid for longer than 3 years.
* After March 3rd, 2027, reject TA certs valid for longer than 3 years.
*
* Return 1 if the validity period is acceptable and 0 otherwise.
*/
static int
ta_check_validity(const char *fn, const struct cert *p, time_t now)
{
time_t validity = p->notafter - p->notbefore;
time_t cutoff_15y = 1769990400; /* 2026-02-02T00:00:00Z */
time_t cutoff_3y = 1804032000; /* 2027-03-03T00:00:00Z */
time_t cutoff = cutoff_3y;
int warn_years = 3;
int exceeds_15y = 0, exceeds_3y = 0;
int complain = 0, acceptable = 1;
if (validity >= 15 * 365 * 86400)
exceeds_15y = 1;
if (validity >= 3 * 365 * 86400)
exceeds_3y = 1;
if (now < cutoff_15y) {
warn_years = 15;
cutoff = cutoff_15y;
if (exceeds_15y)
complain = 1;
} else if (now < cutoff_3y) {
if (exceeds_15y)
acceptable = 0;
if (exceeds_3y)
complain = 1;
} else if (exceeds_3y) {
acceptable = 0;
complain = 1;
}
/*
* Suppress warnings for previously fetched TAs certs.
*/
if (!verbose && strncmp(fn, "ta/", strlen("ta/")) == 0)
goto out;
if (!acceptable) {
warnx("%s: TA cert rejected: validity period exceeds %d years. "
"Ask the TA operator to reissue their TA cert with a "
"shorter validity period.", fn, warn_years);
goto out;
}
if (complain) {
warnx("%s: TA validity period exceeds %d years. After %s this "
"certificate will be rejected.", fn, warn_years,
time2str(cutoff));
goto out;
}
out:
return acceptable;
}
struct cert *
ta_parse(const char *fn, struct cert *p, const unsigned char *pkey,
size_t pkeysz)
@ -1086,6 +1152,7 @@ ta_parse(const char *fn, struct cert *p, const unsigned char *pkey,
"pubkey does not match TAL pubkey", fn);
goto badcert;
}
if (p->notbefore > now) {
warnx("%s: certificate not yet valid", fn);
goto badcert;
@ -1094,6 +1161,9 @@ ta_parse(const char *fn, struct cert *p, const unsigned char *pkey,
warnx("%s: certificate has expired", fn);
goto badcert;
}
if (!ta_check_validity(fn, p, now))
goto badcert;
if (p->aki != NULL && strcmp(p->aki, p->ski)) {
warnx("%s: RFC 6487 section 4.8.3: "
"trust anchor AKI, if specified, must match SKI", fn);