path: root/doc/rfc/rfc9345.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         R. Barnes
Request for Comments: 9345                                         Cisco
Category: Standards Track                                     S. Iyengar
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                 Facebook
                                                             N. Sullivan
                                                              Cloudflare
                                                             E. Rescorla
                                                 Windy Hill Systems, LLC
                                                               July 2023


                 Delegated Credentials for TLS and DTLS

Abstract

   The organizational separation between operators of TLS and DTLS
   endpoints and the certification authority can create limitations.
   For example, the lifetime of certificates, how they may be used, and
   the algorithms they support are ultimately determined by the
   Certification Authority (CA).  This document describes a mechanism to
   overcome some of these limitations by enabling operators to delegate
   their own credentials for use in TLS and DTLS without breaking
   compatibility with peers that do not support this specification.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9345.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 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
   2.  Conventions and Terminology
   3.  Solution Overview
     3.1.  Rationale
     3.2.  Related Work
   4.  Delegated Credentials
     4.1.  Client and Server Behavior
       4.1.1.  Server Authentication
       4.1.2.  Client Authentication
       4.1.3.  Validating a Delegated Credential
     4.2.  Certificate Requirements
   5.  Operational Considerations
     5.1.  Client Clock Skew
   6.  IANA Considerations
   7.  Security Considerations
     7.1.  Security of Delegated Credential's Private Key
     7.2.  Re-use of Delegated Credentials in Multiple Contexts
     7.3.  Revocation of Delegated Credentials
     7.4.  Interactions with Session Resumption
     7.5.  Privacy Considerations
     7.6.  The Impact of Signature Forgery Attacks
   8.  References
     8.1.  Normative References
     8.2.  Informative References
   Appendix A.  ASN.1 Module
   Appendix B.  Example Certificate
   Acknowledgements
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   Server operators often deploy (D)TLS termination to act as the server
   for inbound TLS connections.  These termination services can be in
   locations such as remote data centers or Content Delivery Networks
   (CDNs) where it may be difficult to detect compromises of private key
   material corresponding to TLS certificates.  Short-lived certificates
   may be used to limit the exposure of keys in these cases.

   However, short-lived certificates need to be renewed more frequently
   than long-lived certificates.  If an external Certification Authority
   (CA) is unable to issue a certificate in time to replace a deployed
   certificate, the server would no longer be able to present a valid
   certificate to clients.  With short-lived certificates, there is a
   smaller window of time to renew a certificate and therefore a higher
   risk that an outage at a CA will negatively affect the uptime of the
   TLS-fronted service.

   Typically, a (D)TLS server uses a certificate provided by some entity
   other than the operator of the server (a CA) [RFC8446] [RFC5280].
   This organizational separation makes the (D)TLS server operator
   dependent on the CA for some aspects of its operations.  For example:

   *  Whenever the server operator wants to deploy a new certificate, it
      has to interact with the CA.

   *  The CA might only issue credentials containing certain types of
      public keys, which can limit the set of (D)TLS signature schemes
      usable by the server operator.

   To reduce the dependency on external CAs, this document specifies a
   limited delegation mechanism that allows a (D)TLS peer to issue its
   own credentials within the scope of a certificate issued by an
   external CA.  These credentials only enable the recipient of the
   delegation to terminate connections for names that the CA has
   authorized.  Furthermore, this mechanism allows the server to use
   modern signature algorithms such as Ed25519 [RFC8032] even if their
   CA does not support them.

   This document refers to the certificate issued by the CA as a
   "certificate", or "delegation certificate", and the one issued by the
   operator as a "delegated credential" or "DC".

2.  Conventions and Terminology

   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.  Solution Overview

   A delegated credential (DC) is a digitally signed data structure with
   two semantic fields: a validity interval and a public key (along with
   its associated signature algorithm).  The signature on the delegated
   credential indicates a delegation from the certificate that is issued
   to the peer.  The private key used to sign a credential corresponds
   to the public key of the peer's X.509 end-entity certificate
   [RFC5280].  Figure 1 shows the intended deployment architecture.

Client            Front-End            Back-End
  |                   |<--DC distribution->|
  |----ClientHello--->|                    |
  |<---ServerHello----|                    |
  |<---Certificate----|                    |
  |<---CertVerify-----|                    |
  |        ...        |                    |

Legend:
Client: (D)TLS client
Front-End: (D)TLS server (could be a TLS-termination service like a CDN)
Back-End: Service with access to a private key

       Figure 1: Delegated Credentials Deployment Architecture

   A (D)TLS handshake that uses delegated credentials differs from a
   standard handshake in a few important ways:

   *  The initiating peer provides an extension in its ClientHello or
      CertificateRequest that indicates support for this mechanism.

   *  The peer sending the Certificate message provides both the
      certificate chain terminating in its certificate and the delegated
      credential.

   *  The initiator uses information from the peer's certificate to
      verify the delegated credential and that the peer is asserting an
      expected identity, determining an authentication result for the
      peer.

   *  Peers accepting the delegated credential use it as the certificate
      key for the (D)TLS handshake.

   As detailed in Section 4, the delegated credential is
   cryptographically bound to the end-entity certificate with which the
   credential may be used.  This document specifies the use of delegated
   credentials in (D)TLS 1.3 or later; their use in prior versions of
   the protocol is not allowed.

   Delegated credentials allow a peer to terminate (D)TLS connections on
   behalf of the certificate owner.  If a credential is stolen, there is
   no mechanism for revoking it without revoking the certificate itself.
   To limit exposure in case of the compromise of a delegated
   credential's private key, delegated credentials have a maximum
   validity period.  In the absence of an application profile standard
   specifying otherwise, the maximum validity period is set to 7 days.
   Peers MUST NOT issue credentials with a validity period longer than
   the maximum validity period or that extends beyond the validity
   period of the delegation certificate.  This mechanism is described in
   detail in Section 4.1.

   It was noted in [XPROT] that certificates in use by servers that
   support outdated protocols such as SSLv2 can be used to forge
   signatures for certificates that contain the keyEncipherment KeyUsage
   ([RFC5280], Section 4.2.1.3).  In order to reduce the risk of cross-
   protocol attacks on certificates that are not intended to be used
   with DC-capable TLS stacks, we define a new DelegationUsage extension
   to X.509 that permits use of delegated credentials.  (See
   Section 4.2.)

3.1.  Rationale

   Delegated credentials present a better alternative than other
   delegation mechanisms like proxy certificates [RFC3820] for several
   reasons:

   *  There is no change needed to certificate validation at the PKI
      layer.

   *  X.509 semantics are very rich.  This can cause unintended
      consequences if a service owner creates a proxy certificate where
      the properties differ from the leaf certificate.  Proxy
      certificates can be useful in controlled environments, but remain
      a risk in scenarios where the additional flexibility they provide
      is not necessary.  For this reason, delegated credentials have
      very restricted semantics that should not conflict with X.509
      semantics.

   *  Proxy certificates rely on the certificate path building process
      to establish a binding between the proxy certificate and the end-
      entity certificate.  Since the certificate path building process
      is not cryptographically protected, it is possible that a proxy
      certificate could be bound to another certificate with the same
      public key, with different X.509 parameters.  Delegated
      credentials, which rely on a cryptographic binding between the
      entire certificate and the delegated credential, cannot.

   *  Each delegated credential is bound to a specific signature
      algorithm for use in the (D)TLS handshake ([RFC8446],
      Section 4.2.3).  This prevents them from being used with other,
      perhaps unintended, signature algorithms.  The signature algorithm
      bound to the delegated credential can be chosen independently of
      the set of signature algorithms supported by the end-entity
      certificate.

3.2.  Related Work

   Many of the use cases for delegated credentials can also be addressed
   using purely server-side mechanisms that do not require changes to
   client behavior (e.g., a PKCS#11 interface or a remote signing
   mechanism, [KEYLESS] being one example).  These mechanisms, however,
   incur per-transaction latency, since the front-end server has to
   interact with a back-end server that holds a private key.  The
   mechanism proposed in this document allows the delegation to be done
   offline, with no per-transaction latency.  The figure below compares
   the message flows for these two mechanisms with (D)TLS 1.3 [RFC8446]
   [RFC9147].

Remote key signing:

Client            Front-End            Back-End
  |----ClientHello--->|                    |
  |<---ServerHello----|                    |
  |<---Certificate----|                    |
  |                   |<---remote sign---->|
  |<---CertVerify-----|                    |
  |        ...        |                    |


Delegated Credential:

Client            Front-End            Back-End
  |                   |<--DC distribution->|
  |----ClientHello--->|                    |
  |<---ServerHello----|                    |
  |<---Certificate----|                    |
  |<---CertVerify-----|                    |
  |        ...        |                    |

Legend:
Client: (D)TLS client
Front-End: (D)TLS server (could be a TLS-termination service like a CDN)
Back-End: Service with access to a private key

   These two mechanisms can be complementary.  A server could use
   delegated credentials for clients that support them, while using a
   server-side mechanism to support legacy clients.  Both mechanisms
   require a trusted relationship between the front-end and back-end --
   the delegated credential can be used in place of a certificate
   private key.

   The use of short-lived certificates with automated certificate
   issuance, e.g., with the Automated Certificate Management Environment
   (ACME) [RFC8555], reduces the risk of key compromise but has several
   limitations.  Specifically, it introduces an operationally critical
   dependency on an external party (the CA).  It also limits the types
   of algorithms supported for (D)TLS authentication to those the CA is
   willing to issue a certificate for.  Nonetheless, existing automated
   issuance APIs like ACME may be useful for provisioning delegated
   credentials.

4.  Delegated Credentials

   While X.509 forbids end-entity certificates from being used as
   issuers for other certificates, it is valid to use them to issue
   other signed objects as long as the certificate contains the
   digitalSignature KeyUsage ([RFC5280], Section 4.2.1.3).  (All
   certificates compatible with TLS 1.3 are required to contain the
   digitalSignature KeyUsage.)  This document defines a new signed
   object format that encodes only the semantics that are needed for
   this application.  The Credential has the following structure:

      struct {
        uint32 valid_time;
        SignatureScheme dc_cert_verify_algorithm;
        opaque ASN1_subjectPublicKeyInfo<1..2^24-1>;
      } Credential;

   valid_time:  Time, in seconds relative to the delegation
      certificate's notBefore value, after which the delegated
      credential is no longer valid.  By default, unless set to an
      alternative value by an application profile (see Section 3),
      endpoints will reject delegated credentials that expire more than
      7 days from the current time (as described in Section 4.1.3).

   dc_cert_verify_algorithm:  The signature algorithm of the Credential
      key pair, where the type SignatureScheme is as defined in
      [RFC8446].  This is expected to be the same as the sender's
      CertificateVerify.algorithm (as described in Section 4.1.3).
      When using RSA, the public key MUST NOT use the rsaEncryption OID.
      As a result, the following algorithms are not allowed for use with
      delegated credentials: rsa_pss_rsae_sha256, rsa_pss_rsae_sha384,
      and rsa_pss_rsae_sha512.

   ASN1_subjectPublicKeyInfo:  The Credential's public key, a DER-
      encoded [X.690] SubjectPublicKeyInfo as defined in [RFC5280].

   The DelegatedCredential has the following structure:

      struct {
        Credential cred;
        SignatureScheme algorithm;
        opaque signature<1..2^16-1>;
      } DelegatedCredential;

   cred:  The Credential structure as previously defined.

   algorithm:  The signature algorithm used to create
      DelegatedCredential.signature.

   signature:  The delegation, a signature that binds the credential to
      the end-entity certificate's public key as specified below.  The
      signature scheme is specified by DelegatedCredential.algorithm.

   The signature of the DelegatedCredential is computed over the
   concatenation of:

   1.  An octet stream that consists of octet 32 (0x20) repeated 64
       times.

   2.  The non-null terminated context string "TLS, server delegated
       credentials" for server authentication and "TLS, client delegated
       credentials" for client authentication.

   3.  A single octet 0x00, which serves as the separator.

   4.  The DER-encoded X.509 end-entity certificate used to sign the
       DelegatedCredential.

   5.  DelegatedCredential.cred.

   6.  DelegatedCredential.algorithm.

   The signature is computed by using the private key of the peer's end-
   entity certificate, with the algorithm indicated by
   DelegatedCredential.algorithm.

   The signature effectively binds the credential to the parameters of
   the handshake in which it is used.  In particular, it ensures that
   credentials are only used with the certificate and signature
   algorithm chosen by the delegator.

   The code changes required in order to create and verify delegated
   credentials, and the implementation complexity this entails, are
   localized to the (D)TLS stack.  This has the advantage of avoiding
   changes to the often-delicate security-critical PKI code.

4.1.  Client and Server Behavior

   This document defines the following (D)TLS extension code point.

      enum {
        ...
        delegated_credential(34),
        (65535)
      } ExtensionType;

4.1.1.  Server Authentication

   A client that is willing to use delegated credentials in a connection
   SHALL send a "delegated_credential" extension in its ClientHello.
   The body of the extension consists of a SignatureSchemeList (defined
   in [RFC8446]):

      struct {
        SignatureScheme supported_signature_algorithms<2..2^16-2>;
      } SignatureSchemeList;

   If the client receives a delegated credential without having
   indicated support in its ClientHello, then the client MUST abort the
   handshake with an "unexpected_message" alert.

   If the extension is present, the server MAY send a delegated
   credential; if the extension is not present, the server MUST NOT send
   a delegated credential.  When a (D)TLS version negotiated is less
   than 1.3, the server MUST ignore this extension.  An example of when
   a server could choose not to send a delegated credential is when the
   SignatureSchemes listed only contain signature schemes for which a
   corresponding delegated credential does not exist or are otherwise
   unsuitable for the connection.

   The server MUST send the delegated credential as an extension in the
   CertificateEntry of its end-entity certificate; the client MUST NOT
   use delegated credentials sent as extensions to any other
   certificate, and SHOULD ignore them, but MAY abort the handshake with
   an "illegal_parameter" alert.  If the server sends multiple delegated
   credentials extensions in a single CertificateEntry, the client MUST
   abort the handshake with an "illegal_parameter" alert.

   The algorithm field MUST be of a type advertised by the client in the
   "signature_algorithms" extension of the ClientHello message, and the
   dc_cert_verify_algorithm field MUST be of a type advertised by the
   client in the SignatureSchemeList; otherwise, the credential is
   considered not valid.  Clients that receive non-valid delegated
   credentials MUST terminate the connection with an "illegal_parameter"
   alert.

4.1.2.  Client Authentication

   A server that supports this specification SHALL send a
   "delegated_credential" extension in the CertificateRequest message
   when requesting client authentication.  The body of the extension
   consists of a SignatureSchemeList.  If the server receives a
   delegated credential without having indicated support in its
   CertificateRequest, then the server MUST abort with an
   "unexpected_message" alert.

   If the extension is present, the client MAY send a delegated
   credential; if the extension is not present, the client MUST NOT send
   a delegated credential.  When a (D)TLS version negotiated is less
   than 1.3, the client MUST ignore this extension.

   The client MUST send the delegated credential as an extension in the
   CertificateEntry of its end-entity certificate; the server MUST NOT
   use delegated credentials sent as extensions to any other
   certificate, and SHOULD ignore them, but MAY abort the handshake with
   an "illegal_parameter" alert.  If the client sends multiple delegated
   credentials extensions in a single CertificateEntry, the server MUST
   abort the handshake with an "illegal_parameter" alert.

   The algorithm field MUST be of a type advertised by the server in the
   "signature_algorithms" extension of the CertificateRequest message,
   and the dc_cert_verify_algorithm field MUST be of a type advertised
   by the server in the SignatureSchemeList; otherwise, the credential
   is considered not valid.  Servers that receive non-valid delegated
   credentials MUST terminate the connection with an "illegal_parameter"
   alert.

4.1.3.  Validating a Delegated Credential

   On receiving a delegated credential and certificate chain, the peer
   validates the certificate chain and matches the end-entity
   certificate to the peer's expected identity in the same way that it
   is done when delegated credentials are not in use.  It then performs
   the following checks with expiry time set to the delegation
   certificate's notBefore value plus
   DelegatedCredential.cred.valid_time:

   1.  Verify that the current time is within the validity interval of
       the credential.  This is done by asserting that the current time
       does not exceed the expiry time.  (The start time of the
       credential is implicitly validated as part of certificate
       validation.)

   2.  Verify that the delegated credential's remaining validity period
       is no more than the maximum validity period.  This is done by
       asserting that the expiry time does not exceed the current time
       plus the maximum validity period (7 days by default) and that the
       expiry time is less than the certificate's expiry_time.

   3.  Verify that dc_cert_verify_algorithm matches the scheme indicated
       in the peer's CertificateVerify message and that the algorithm is
       allowed for use with delegated credentials.

   4.  Verify that the end-entity certificate satisfies the conditions
       described in Section 4.2.

   5.  Use the public key in the peer's end-entity certificate to verify
       the signature of the credential using the algorithm indicated by
       DelegatedCredential.algorithm.

   If one or more of these checks fail, then the delegated credential is
   deemed not valid.  Clients and servers that receive non-valid
   delegated credentials MUST terminate the connection with an
   "illegal_parameter" alert.

   If successful, the participant receiving the Certificate message uses
   the public key in DelegatedCredential.cred to verify the signature in
   the peer's CertificateVerify message.

4.2.  Certificate Requirements

   This document defines a new X.509 extension, DelegationUsage, to be
   used in the certificate when the certificate permits the usage of
   delegated credentials.  What follows is the ASN.1 [X.680] for the
   DelegationUsage certificate extension.

       ext-delegationUsage EXTENSION  ::= {
           SYNTAX DelegationUsage IDENTIFIED BY id-pe-delegationUsage
       }

       DelegationUsage ::= NULL

       id-pe-delegationUsage OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=
           { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
             private(4) enterprise(1) id-cloudflare(44363) 44 }

   The extension MUST be marked non-critical.  (See Section 4.2 of
   [RFC5280].)  An endpoint MUST NOT accept a delegated credential
   unless the peer's end-entity certificate satisfies the following
   criteria:

   *  It has the DelegationUsage extension.

   *  It has the digitalSignature KeyUsage (see the KeyUsage extension
      defined in [RFC5280]).

   A new extension was chosen instead of adding a new Extended Key Usage
   (EKU) to be compatible with deployed (D)TLS and PKI software stacks
   without requiring CAs to issue new intermediate certificates.

5.  Operational Considerations

   The operational considerations documented in this section should be
   taken into consideration when using delegated credentials.

5.1.  Client Clock Skew

   One of the risks of deploying a short-lived credential system based
   on absolute time is client clock skew.  If a client's clock is
   sufficiently ahead of or behind the server's clock, then clients will
   reject delegated credentials that are valid from the server's
   perspective.  Clock skew also affects the validity of the original
   certificates.  The lifetime of the delegated credential should be set
   taking clock skew into account.  Clock skew may affect a delegated
   credential at the beginning and end of its validity periods, which
   should also be taken into account.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document registers the "delegated_credential" extension in the
   "TLS ExtensionType Values" registry.  The "delegated_credential"
   extension has been assigned the ExtensionType value 34.  The IANA
   registry lists this extension as "Recommended" (i.e., "Y") and
   indicates that it may appear in the ClientHello (CH),
   CertificateRequest (CR), or Certificate (CT) messages in (D)TLS 1.3
   [RFC8446] [RFC9147].  Additionally, the "DTLS-Only" column is
   assigned the value "N".

   This document also defines an ASN.1 module for the DelegationUsage
   certificate extension in Appendix A.  IANA has registered value 95
   for "id-mod-delegated-credential-extn" in the "SMI Security for PKIX
   Module Identifier" (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.0) registry.  An OID for the
   DelegationUsage certificate extension is not needed, as it is already
   assigned to the extension from Cloudflare's IANA Private Enterprise
   Number (PEN) arc.

7.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations documented in this section should be
   taken into consideration when using delegated credentials.

7.1.  Security of Delegated Credential's Private Key

   Delegated credentials limit the exposure of the private key used in a
   (D)TLS connection by limiting its validity period.  An attacker who
   compromises the private key of a delegated credential cannot create
   new delegated credentials, but they can impersonate the compromised
   party in new TLS connections until the delegated credential expires.

   Thus, delegated credentials should not be used to send a delegation
   to an untrusted party.  Rather, they are meant to be used between
   parties that have some trust relationship with each other.  The
   secrecy of the delegated credential's private key is thus important,
   and access control mechanisms SHOULD be used to protect it, including
   file system controls, physical security, or hardware security
   modules.

7.2.  Re-use of Delegated Credentials in Multiple Contexts

   It is not possible to use the same delegated credential for both
   client and server authentication because issuing parties compute the
   corresponding signature using a context string unique to the intended
   role (client or server).

7.3.  Revocation of Delegated Credentials

   Delegated credentials do not provide any additional form of early
   revocation.  Since it is short-lived, the expiry of the delegated
   credential revokes the credential.  Revocation of the long-term
   private key that signs the delegated credential (from the end-entity
   certificate) also implicitly revokes the delegated credential.

7.4.  Interactions with Session Resumption

   If a peer decides to cache the certificate chain and re-validate it
   when resuming a connection, they SHOULD also cache the associated
   delegated credential and re-validate it.  Failing to do so may result
   in resuming connections for which the delegated credential has
   expired.

7.5.  Privacy Considerations

   Delegated credentials can be valid for 7 days (by default), and it is
   much easier for a service to create delegated credentials than a
   certificate signed by a CA.  A service could determine the client
   time and clock skew by creating several delegated credentials with
   different expiry timestamps and observing which credentials the
   client accepts.  Since client time can be unique to a particular
   client, privacy-sensitive clients who do not trust the service, such
   as browsers in incognito mode, might not want to advertise support
   for delegated credentials, or might limit the number of probes that a
   server can perform.

7.6.  The Impact of Signature Forgery Attacks

   Delegated credentials are only used in (D)TLS 1.3 connections.
   However, the certificate that signs a delegated credential may be
   used in other contexts such as (D)TLS 1.2.  Using a certificate in
   multiple contexts opens up a potential cross-protocol attack against
   delegated credentials in (D)TLS 1.3.

   When (D)TLS 1.2 servers support RSA key exchange, they may be
   vulnerable to attacks that allow forging an RSA signature over an
   arbitrary message [BLEI].  The TLS 1.2 specification describes a
   strategy for preventing these attacks that requires careful
   implementation of timing-resistant countermeasures.  (See
   Section 7.4.7.1 of [RFC5246].)

   Experience shows that, in practice, server implementations may fail
   to fully stop these attacks due to the complexity of this mitigation
   [ROBOT].  For (D)TLS 1.2 servers that support RSA key exchange using
   a DC-enabled end-entity certificate, a hypothetical signature forgery
   attack would allow forging a signature over a delegated credential.
   The forged delegated credential could then be used by the attacker as
   the equivalent of an on-path attacker, valid for a maximum of 7 days
   (if the default valid_time is used).

   Server operators should therefore minimize the risk of using DC-
   enabled end-entity certificates where a signature forgery oracle may
   be present.  If possible, server operators may choose to use DC-
   enabled certificates only for signing credentials and not for serving
   non-DC (D)TLS traffic.  Furthermore, server operators may use
   elliptic curve certificates for DC-enabled traffic, while using RSA
   certificates without the DelegationUsage certificate extension for
   non-DC traffic; this completely prevents such attacks.

   Note that if a signature can be forged over an arbitrary credential,
   the attacker can choose any value for the valid_time field.  Repeated
   signature forgeries therefore allow the attacker to create multiple
   delegated credentials that can cover the entire validity period of
   the certificate.  Temporary exposure of the key or a signing oracle
   may allow the attacker to impersonate a server for the lifetime of
   the certificate.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC5280]  Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
              Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
              Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
              (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.

   [RFC9147]  Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The
              Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version
              1.3", RFC 9147, DOI 10.17487/RFC9147, April 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9147>.

   [X.680]    ITU-T, "Information technology - Abstract Syntax Notation
              One (ASN.1): Specification of basic notation", ISO/
              IEC 8824-1:2021, February 2021,
              <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.680>.

   [X.690]    ITU-T, "Information technology - ASN.1 encoding Rules:
              Specification of Basic Encoding Rules (BER), Canonical
              Encoding Rules (CER) and Distinguished Encoding Rules
              (DER)", ISO/IEC 8825-1:2021, February 2021,
              <https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.690>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [BLEI]     Bleichenbacher, D., "Chosen Ciphertext Attacks against
              Protocols Based on RSA Encryption Standard PKCS #1",
              Advances in Cryptology -- CRYPTO'98, LNCS vol. 1462,
              pages: 1-12, 1998,
              <https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/BFb0055716>.

   [KEYLESS]  Stebila, D. and N. Sullivan, "An Analysis of TLS Handshake
              Proxying", IEEE Trustcom/BigDataSE/ISPA 2015, 2015,
              <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7345293>.

   [RFC3820]  Tuecke, S., Welch, V., Engert, D., Pearlman, L., and M.
              Thompson, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)
              Proxy Certificate Profile", RFC 3820,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3820, June 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3820>.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.

   [RFC5912]  Hoffman, P. and J. Schaad, "New ASN.1 Modules for the
              Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX)", RFC 5912,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5912, June 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5912>.

   [RFC8032]  Josefsson, S. and I. Liusvaara, "Edwards-Curve Digital
              Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)", RFC 8032,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8032, January 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8032>.

   [RFC8555]  Barnes, R., Hoffman-Andrews, J., McCarney, D., and J.
              Kasten, "Automatic Certificate Management Environment
              (ACME)", RFC 8555, DOI 10.17487/RFC8555, March 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8555>.

   [ROBOT]    Boeck, H., Somorovsky, J., and C. Young, "Return Of
              Bleichenbacher's Oracle Threat (ROBOT)", 27th USENIX
              Security Symposium, 2018,
              <https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity18/
              presentation/bock>.

   [XPROT]    Jager, T., Schwenk, J., and J. Somorovsky, "On the
              Security of TLS 1.3 and QUIC Against Weaknesses in PKCS#1
              v1.5 Encryption", Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC
              Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2015,
              <https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2810103.2813657>.

Appendix A.  ASN.1 Module

   The following ASN.1 module provides the complete definition of the
   DelegationUsage certificate extension.  The ASN.1 module makes
   imports from [RFC5912].

   DelegatedCredentialExtn
     { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
       security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
       id-mod-delegated-credential-extn(95) }

   DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::=
   BEGIN

   -- EXPORT ALL

   IMPORTS

   EXTENSION
     FROM PKIX-CommonTypes-2009 -- From RFC 5912
     { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
       security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
       id-mod-pkixCommon-02(57) } ;

   -- OID

   id-cloudflare OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::=
     { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) private(4)
       enterprise(1) 44363 }

   -- EXTENSION

   ext-delegationUsage EXTENSION ::=
     { SYNTAX DelegationUsage
       IDENTIFIED BY id-pe-delegationUsage }

   id-pe-delegationUsage OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-cloudflare 44 }

   DelegationUsage ::= NULL

   END

Appendix B.  Example Certificate

   The following is an example of a delegation certificate that
   satisfies the requirements described in Section 4.2 (i.e., uses the
   DelegationUsage extension and has the digitalSignature KeyUsage).

   -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE-----
   MIIFRjCCBMugAwIBAgIQDGevB+lY0o/OecHFSJ6YnTAKBggqhkjOPQQDAzBMMQsw
   CQYDVQQGEwJVUzEVMBMGA1UEChMMRGlnaUNlcnQgSW5jMSYwJAYDVQQDEx1EaWdp
   Q2VydCBFQ0MgU2VjdXJlIFNlcnZlciBDQTAeFw0xOTAzMjYwMDAwMDBaFw0yMTAz
   MzAxMjAwMDBaMGoxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRMwEQYDVQQIEwpDYWxpZm9ybmlhMRYw
   FAYDVQQHEw1TYW4gRnJhbmNpc2NvMRkwFwYDVQQKExBDbG91ZGZsYXJlLCBJbmMu
   MRMwEQYDVQQDEwprYzJrZG0uY29tMFkwEwYHKoZIzj0CAQYIKoZIzj0DAQcDQgAE
   d4azI83Bw0fcPgfoeiZpZZnwGuxjBjv++wzE0zAj8vNiUkKxOWSQiGNLn+xlWUpL
   lw9djRN1rLmVmn2gb9GgdKOCA28wggNrMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFKOd5h/52jlPwG7o
   kcuVpdox4gqfMB0GA1UdDgQWBBSfcb7fS3fUFAyB91fRcwoDPtgtJjAjBgNVHREE
   HDAaggprYzJrZG0uY29tggwqLmtjMmtkbS5jb20wDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgeAMB0G
   A1UdJQQWMBQGCCsGAQUFBwMBBggrBgEFBQcDAjBpBgNVHR8EYjBgMC6gLKAqhiho
   dHRwOi8vY3JsMy5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20vc3NjYS1lY2MtZzEuY3JsMC6gLKAqhiho
   dHRwOi8vY3JsNC5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20vc3NjYS1lY2MtZzEuY3JsMEwGA1UdIARF
   MEMwNwYJYIZIAYb9bAEBMCowKAYIKwYBBQUHAgEWHGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmRpZ2lj
   ZXJ0LmNvbS9DUFMwCAYGZ4EMAQICMHsGCCsGAQUFBwEBBG8wbTAkBggrBgEFBQcw
   AYYYaHR0cDovL29jc3AuZGlnaWNlcnQuY29tMEUGCCsGAQUFBzAChjlodHRwOi8v
   Y2FjZXJ0cy5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20vRGlnaUNlcnRFQ0NTZWN1cmVTZXJ2ZXJDQS5j
   cnQwDAYDVR0TAQH/BAIwADAPBgkrBgEEAYLaSywEAgUAMIIBfgYKKwYBBAHWeQIE
   AgSCAW4EggFqAWgAdgC72d+8H4pxtZOUI5eqkntHOFeVCqtS6BqQlmQ2jh7RhQAA
   AWm5hYJ5AAAEAwBHMEUCICiGfq+hSThRL2m8H0awoDR8OpnEHNkF0nI6nL5yYL/j
   AiEAxwebGs/T6Es0YarPzoQJrVZqk+sHH/t+jrSrKd5TDjcAdgCHdb/nWXz4jEOZ
   X73zbv9WjUdWNv9KtWDBtOr/XqCDDwAAAWm5hYNgAAAEAwBHMEUCIQD9OWA8KGL6
   bxDKfgIleHJWB0iWieRs88VgJyfAg/aFDgIgQ/OsdSF9XOy1foqge0DTDM2FExuw
   0JR0AGZWXoNtJzMAdgBElGUusO7Or8RAB9io/ijA2uaCvtjLMbU/0zOWtbaBqAAA
   AWm5hYHgAAAEAwBHMEUCIQC4vua1n3BqthEqpA/VBTcsNwMtAwpCuac2IhJ9wx6X
   /AIgb+o00k28JQo9TMpP4vzJ3BD3HXWSNc2Zizbq7mkUQYMwCgYIKoZIzj0EAwMD
   aQAwZgIxAJsX7d0SuA8ddf/m7IWfNfs3MQfJyGkEezMJX1t6sRso5z50SS12LpXe
   muGa1FE2ZgIxAL+CDUF5pz7mhrAEIjQ1MqlpF9tH40dJGvYZZQ3W23cMzSkDfvlt
   y5S4RfWHIIPjbw==
   -----END CERTIFICATE-----

Acknowledgements

   Thanks to David Benjamin, Christopher Patton, Kyle Nekritz, Anirudh
   Ramachandran, Benjamin Kaduk, 奥 一穂 (Kazuho Oku), Daniel Kahn Gillmor,
   Watson Ladd, Robert Merget, Juraj Somorovsky, and Nimrod Aviram for
   their discussions, ideas, and bugs they have found.

Authors' Addresses

   Richard Barnes
   Cisco
   Email: rlb@ipv.sx


   Subodh Iyengar
   Facebook
   Email: subodh@fb.com


   Nick Sullivan
   Cloudflare
   Email: nick@cloudflare.com


   Eric Rescorla
   Windy Hill Systems, LLC
   Email: ekr@rtfm.com