Internet-Draft | PKIX Evidence for Remote Attestation | March 2025 |
Ounsworth, et al. | Expires 28 September 2025 | [Page] |
This document specifies a vendor-agnostic format for evidence produced and verified within a PKIX context. The evidence produced this way includes claims collected in a cryptographic module about itself and elements found within it such as cryptographic keys.¶
One scenario envisaged is that the evidence produced in that manner can be appraised in the context of a Certificate Authority to help determining whether the issuance of a certificate is warranted.¶
This specification also offers a format for requesting a cryptographic module to produce evidence tailored for expected use.¶
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.¶
Discussion of this document takes place on the Remote ATtestation ProcedureS Working Group mailing list (rats@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rats/.¶
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/hannestschofenig/key-attestation.¶
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 28 September 2025.¶
Copyright (c) 2025 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.¶
This specification defines a format to transmit Evidence from an Attester to a Verifer within a PKIX environment. This environment refers to the components generally used to support a PKI applications such as Certification Authorities and their clients.¶
Within this specification, the concepts found in the Remote Attestation Procedures (RATS [RFC9334]) are mapped to the PKIX environment. There are many other specifications that are based on the RATS architecture which offer formats to carry evidence. This specification deals with peculiar aspects of the PKIX environment which discourage the use of other specifications:¶
ASN.1 is the preferred encoding format in this environment. X.509 certificates ([RFC5280]) are used widely within this environment and the majority of tools are designed to support ASN.1. There are many specialized devices (Hardware Security Modules) that are inflexible in adopting other formats because of internal constraints or validation difficulties. This specification defines the format in ASN.1 to ease the adoption within the community.¶
The claims within the Evidence are more about entities such as "platforms" and "keys". Although the concept of "measurement" is present within the PKIX environment, it is not as prevalent as in the environments targeted by other specifications based on RATS. Therefore, the emphasis of this specifications is adjusted accordingly.¶
The devices found in the PKIX environment are developed by different vendors and are heterogeneous in features and capabilities. Therefore, this specification assumes that the Attesting Environment and the Target Environment, as outlined in [RFC9334], are the same. This might not be the case for all devices encountered, but is sufficient for the proposed specification.¶
This specification also aims at providing an extensible framework to encode within Evidence claims other than the one proposed in this document. This allows implementations to introduce new claims and their associated semantics to the Evidence produced.¶
This section covers use cases that motivated the development of this specification.¶
Prior to a Certification Authority (CA) issuing a certificate on behalf of a subject, a number of procedures are required to verify that the subject of the certificate is associated with the key that is certified. In some cases, such as issuing a code signing certificate (need reference to CNSA 2.0), a CA must ensure that the subject key is located in a Hardware Security Module (HSM).¶
The Evidence format offered by this specification is designed to carry the information necessary for a CA to assess the location of the subject key along a number of required attributes. More specifically, a CA could determine which HSM was used to generate the subject key, whether this device adheres to certain jurisdiction policies (like FIPS mode) and the constraints applied to the key (is it extractable).¶
There are situations where it is necessary to verify the current running state of a HSM as part of auditing procedures. For example, there are devices that are certified to work in an environment only if certain versions of the firmware are loaded.¶
The Evidence format offered by this specification allows a platform to report its firmware level along with other collected claims necessary in critical deployments.¶
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the vocabulary and concepts defined in the RATS architecture ([RFC9334]).¶
The following terms are used in this document:¶
An application key consists of a key hosted by a HSM (the platform) and intended to be used by a client of the HSM. The access and operations on an application key is controlled by the HSM.¶
Cryptographic key controlled solely by the Attester and used only for the purpose of producing Evidence. In other words, it is used to digitally sign the claims collected by the Attester.¶
A logical module within the HSM that is responsible for generating Evidence compatible with the format outlined in this specification. It collects claims from the platform and uses the Attestation Key to digitally sign the collection.¶
The term Attester respects the definition offered in [RFC9334]. In this specification, it is also interchangeable with "platform" or "HSM".¶
The term Evidence respects the definition offered in [RFC9334]. In this specification, it refers to claims, encoded according to the format defined within this document, and signed using the Attestation Key.¶
A physical computing device that safeguards and manages secrets (most importantly cryptographic keys), and performs cryptographic operations based on those secrets. This specification takes a broad definition of what counts as an HSM to include smartcards, USB tokens, TPMs, cryptographic co-processors (PCI cards) and "enterprise-grade" or "cloud-service grade" HSMs (possibly rack mounted). In this specification, it is interchangeable with "platform" or "Attester".¶
Process of producing Evidence containing claims pertaining to application keys found within a HSM. In general, the claims includes enough information about an application key and its hosting platform to allow a Relying Party to make judicial decisions about the key, such as issuing a certificate.¶
The module or device that embodies the Attester. In this specification, it is interchangeable with "Attester" or "HSM".¶
Evidence containing claims pertaining to an attesting platform. In general, the claims includes enough information about the platform to allow a Relying Party to make judicial decisions about the platform, such as audit reviews.¶
As defined in [RFC6024] and [RFC9019], a Trust Anchor "represents an authoritative entity via a public key and associated data. The public key is used to verify digital signatures, and the associated data is used to constrain the types of information for which the trust anchor is authoritative." The Trust Anchor may be a certificate, a raw public key, or other structure, as appropriate. It can be a non-root certificate when it is a certificate.¶
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.¶
JPF: Note sure what in this section needs to be saved.¶
Key attestation is an extension to the attestation functionality described in [RFC9334]. In the general RATS Architecture, an attesting device consists of a hardware Root of Trust (RoT) which provides the basis for trust in the device, and then one or more layers of attestations where an attesting environment collects and signs measurements (evidence) about a target environment. Trust is established by chaining the cryptographic signatures on each layer of evidence up to the next layer of attester until the RoT is reached, and trust is established in the RoT via 3rd party endorsements. The target devices for this specification tend to operate on a different architecture and trust model: the devices consist of one single logical environment (combining the RATS roles of RoT, attesting environment, and target environment together into a single entity), and trust is established via product validations conducted by third-party testing labs against standardized security and functional requirements such as FIPS 140-3 or a given Common Criteria protection profile. A FIPS or CC certification provided by a testing lab would conceptually count as an endorsement of the hardware platform in the RATS architecture, but they are often not digitally-signed artifacts, and are often conveyed out of band, sometimes via a website or even via a paper certificate and so they are out of scope for the wire format specified in this document.¶
As such, the attestation data format defined in this document does not capture the full functionality of the RATS architecture. If a device producing evidence in the specified format requires to also carry nested attestation statements or endorsements, then it must be achieved by placing the attestation from this draft within another wrapper layer such as RATS Conceptual Message Wrapper (CMW) [I-D.ietf-rats-msg-wrap].¶
MikeO: While I understand that this image matches exactly the RATS architecture, I feel that we have lost something in that we no longer have the Attesting Environment collecting Claims about both the HSM itself and about application keys. I would like to go back to the original diagram.¶
Figure 1 depicts a typical workflow where an external tool queries the HSM for the status of one or more cryptographic keys that it is protecting ("Application Keys"). The "Presenter" may be, for example, a command-line or graphical user interface which will display the evidence to an operator or auditor; a cryptographic library which will include the evidence in a CSR for transmission to a Certification Authority; a TLS library which will include the evidence in at attested TLS session [I-D.fossati-tls-attestation]; or similar applications, refered to as the "Usage Protocol".¶
This model does not assume any internal structure or logical separation within the HSM except for the existence of some kind of attestation service which may or may not be logically separate from the overall HSM Root of Trust, and that this attestation service measures the required evidence about both the hardware environment and the application keys that are being attested. In addition to emitting key attestation evidence, an HSM may also need to parse it, for example when running in an operational mode that only allows importing keys from other HSMs at a comparable security level (requires checking for specific claims) or within the same operational network (requires checking the trust anchor of the attestation key certificate chain). This implies that the attestation service needs to be part of the core HSM "kernel" and therefore would be subject to validations such as FIPS 140-3 or Common Criteria, which motivates a design requirement to keep the evidence data format as simple as possible and as close as possible to existing functionality and data models of existing HSM and TPM products. As such, the information model presented in Section 6 will feel familiar to implementers with experience with PKI and PKCS#11.¶
The data format in this specification represents attestation evidence and requires third-party endorsement in order to establish trust. Part of this endorsement is a trust anchor that chains to the HSM's attestation key (AK) which signs the evidence. In practice the trust anchor will usually be a manufacturing CA belonging to the device vendor which proves that the device is genuine and not counterfeit. The trust anchor can also belong to the device operator as would be the case when the AK certificate is replaced as part of onboarding the device into a new operational network.¶
The AK certificate that signs the evidence MUST have the Extended Key Usage
id-kp-attest
defined in [TODO-submit-2-pager-to-lamps].¶
Note that the data format specified in Section 6 allows for zero, one, or multiple 'SignatureBlock's, so a single evidence statement could be un-protected, or could be endorsed by multiple AK chains leading to different trust anchors. See Section 8 for a discussion of handling multiple SignatureBlocks.¶
The PKIX Evidence format is composed of two main sections:¶
A claim description section which describes the information transmitted as Evidence.¶
A signature section where digital signature are offered to prove the origin of the claims and maintain their integrity.¶
The details of the signature section is left to the data model. The remainder of this section deals with the way the information is organized to form the claims.¶
The claims are organized into a set of entities to help with the organization and comprehension of the information. Entities are elements observed in the Target Environment by the Attester. Each entity, in turn, is associated with a set of attributes.¶
Therefore, the claim description section is a set of entities and each entity is composed of a set of attributes.¶
An entity is composed of a type, the entity type, and a set of attributes. The entity type describes the class of the entity while its attributes defines its state.¶
An entity SHOULD be reported only once in a claim description. The claim description can have multiple entities of the same type (for example reporting multiple keys), but each entity MUST be relating to different elements. This restriction is to ease the implementation of Verifiers for the provided Evidence.¶
The number of entities reported in a claim description, and their respective type, is left to the implementer. For a simple device where there is only one key, the list of reported entities could be fixed. For larger and more complex devices, the list of reported entities should be tailored to the demands of the requesting party.¶
An entity is defined by its type. This specification defines three entity types:¶
Platform : This entity holds attributes relating to the state of the platform, or device, where the Attester is located. Entities of this type holds attributes that are global in nature within the Target Environment.¶
Key : The entities of this type represent a cryptographic key protected within the Target Environment and hold attributes relating to that key.¶
Transaction : This is an entity logical in nature since it is associated with attributes that are not found in the Target Environment. The attributes found in this entity relate to the current request for Evidence such as a nonce to support freshness.¶
Although this document defines a short list of entity types, this list should be extensible to allow implementers to report on entities found in their implementation and not covered by this specification.¶
Each attribute found in an entity is composed of a type, the attribute type, and a value. Each attribute describes a portion of the state of the associated entity. For example, a platform entity could have an attribute with the firmware version current running. Another example is a key entity with an attribute that reports whether the key is extractable or not.¶
The interpretation of a value provided by an attribute must be considered within the context of its entity and in relation to the attribute type.¶
It is RECOMMENDED that an attribute type be defined for a specific entity type, to reduce confusion when it comes to interpretation of the value.¶
The nature of the value (boolean, integer, string, bytes) is dependent on the attribute type.¶
This specification defines a limited number of attribute types. However, this list should be extensible to allow implementers to report attributes not covered by this specification.¶
The number of attributes reported within an entity, and their respective type, is left to the implementer. For a simple device, the reported list of attributes for an entity might be fixed. However, larger and more complex devices, the list of reported attributes should be tailored to the demands of the requesting party.¶
This section describes the semantics of the key claims as part of the information model.¶
The envelop structure is:¶
PkixAttestation ::= SEQUENCE { tbs TbsPkixAttestation, signatures SEQUENCE SIZE (0..MAX) of SignatureBlock } TbsPkixAttestation ::= SEQUENCE { version INTEGER, reportedEntities SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF ReportedEntity } SignatureBlock ::= SEQUENCE { certChain SEQUENCE of Certificate, signatureAlgorithm AlgorithmIdentifier, signatureValue OCTET STRING }¶
A PkixAttestation message is composed of a protected section known as the To-Be-Signed or TBS. The integrity of the To-Be-Signed section is ensured with one or multiple cryptographic signatures over the content of the section. There is a provision to carry the X.509 certificates supporting the signature(s).¶
The TBS section is composed of a version number, to ensure future extensibility, and a sequence of reported entities.¶
For compliance with this specification, TbsPkixAttestation.version
MUST be 1
.
This envelope format is not extensible; future specifications which make compatibility-breaking changes MUST increment the version number.¶
EDNOTE: do we want extension marks on the TbsAttestation object? I can see pros and cons to doing that.¶
SignatureBlock.certChain
MUST contain at least one X.509 certificate as per [RFC5280].
While there might exist attesting environments which use out-of-band or non-X.509 mechanisms for communicating
the AK public key to the Verifier, these SHALL be considered non-compliant with this specification.¶
The attribute format is intended to be generic, flexible, and extensible with a default set of attributes defined in this document. Attributes are grouped into entities; an entity can be either a key, a platform, or a request containing a set of claims that are requested to be filled by the attesting environment.¶
ReportedEntity ::= SEQUENCE { entityType OBJECT IDENTIFIER, reportedAttributes SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF ReportedAttribute }¶
A reported entity is a unit of observation measured by the Attester (the HSM). In this specification, there are three types of entities defined: - Platform Entity : An entity that reports attributes about the platform, itself. A PKIX Attestation MAY contain only one Platform Entity. - Key Entity : An entity that represents a single cryptographic key found in a HSM ad its associated attributes. A PKIX Attestation MAY contain one or more Key Entities. - Transaction Entity : An entity reporting attributes observed from the request itself. A PKIX Attestation MAY contain only one Transaction Entity.¶
A reported entity is composed of an Object Identifier (OID), specifying the entity type, and a sequence of reported attributes associated with the entity.¶
Although this specification defines only three types of entities, implementations MAY define additional entity types by registering additional OIDs.¶
An Attester (HSM) which is requested to provide information about unrecognized entity types MUST fail the operation.¶
A Verifier which encounters an unrecognized entity type MAY ignore it.¶
id-pkix-attest OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { 1 2 3 999 } id-pkix-attest-entity-type OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-attest 0 } id-pkix-attest-entity-transaction OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-attest-entity-type 0 } id-pkix-attest-entity-platform OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-attest-entity-type 1 } id-pkix-attest-entity-key OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-attest-entity-type 2 } id-pkix-attest-entity-request OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-attest-entity-type 3 }¶
TODO: do we need entity types for "platform policy" and "key policy" ?¶
A PKIX Attestation MUST NOT contain more than one platform entity since duplicate and conflicting platform claims across multiple platform entities can easily lead to security bugs. A parser MUST fail with an error if it encouters multiple platform entities.¶
A PKIX Attestation MUST NOT contain more than one transaction entity. A transaction entity contains attributes that are related to the request such as a "nonce". A parser MUST fail with an error if it encouters multiple transaction entities.¶
A PKIX Attestation MAY contain one or more application key entities. Each key entity SHOULD describe a unique application key. Multiple ReportedEntity objects of type entity-key
that describe the same application key SHOULD be avoided since different or conflicting claims could lead to security issues on the part of the Verifier or Relying Party.¶
TODO: note that we need to be careful about whether it is allowed to include the AK(s) and other "platform-owned" keys in the set of keys you can attest, or only attesting application keys.¶
Each reported attribute is composed of an Object Identifier (OID), identifying the type of the attribute, and a value which must be one of the prescribed data types.¶
ReportedAttribute ::= SEQUENCE { attributeType OBJECT IDENTIFIER, value OPTIONAL AttributeValue } AttributeValue :== CHOICE { bytes [0] IMPLICIT OCTET STRING utf8String [1] IMPLICIT UTF8String, bool [2] IMPLICIT BOOLEAN, time [3] IMPLICIT GeneralizedTime, int [4] IMPLICIT INTEGER, oid [5] IMPLICIT OBJECT IDENTIFIER }¶
An attribute type is generally associated with a single entity type. In the following sub-sections, defined attributes are grouped according to their related entity types.¶
There are circumstances where an attribute type can be repeated for a given entity while other attribute types are unique.
For example, the hwmodel
, uptime
, and fipsboot
attributes are not allowed to have multiple instances since these are global measurements of the platform. However, other attribute types such as usermods
allow multiple instances as an HSM can have more than one user module loaded. The tables below list for each attribute type whether multiples are allowed.
For attribute types that do not allow multiples, a parser MUST fail with an error if it encouters multiple instances.
For attribute types that allow multiples, a parser MUST treat each one as an independent attribute and MUST NOT, for example, consider later ones to overwrite the previous one. Appraisal policies and profiles SHOULD be clear about how to handle multiples when requiring attribute types that allow multiples.¶
PKIX Attestation Requests are discussed in Section 9. In the tables in the sections that follow, the column "Request Contains a Value" specifies whether, when the given attribute appears in a request, whether it is to be a valued or un-valued request attribute as described in Section 9.¶
A default and vendor-agnostic set of transaction attributes is defined in this section.¶
These attribute types MAY be contained within a transaction entity; i.e. an entity identified by id-pkix-attest-entity-transaction
.¶
Attribute | AttributeValue | Reference | Multiple Allowed | Request Contains a Value | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
nonce | bytes | RFCthis | No | MUST | Repeats a "nonce" provided during the atttestation request. |
timestamp | time | [I-D.ietf-rats-eat] | No | MUST NOT | The time at which this attestation was generated. Corresponds to EAT IAT claim. |
The nonce attribute is used to provide "freshness" quality as to the information provided by the Attester (HSM) in the PkixAttestation message. A client requesting a PkixAttestation message MAY provide a nonce value as part of the request. This nonce value, if provided, SHOULD be repeated as an attribute to the transaction entity.¶
The time at which this attestation was generated, according to the internal system clock of the HSM.¶
Note that it is common for HSMs to not have an accurate system clock; consider an HSM for a root CA kept offline and booted up infrequently in an local network segregated from all other network, or a smart card which boots up only when held against an NFC reader. Implementers of emitters SHOULD include this attribute only if the device reliably knows its own time (for example has had recent contact with an NTP server). Implementers of parsers SHOULD be wary of trusting the contents of this attribute. A challenge-response protocol that makes use of the nonce attribute is a far more reliable way of establishing freshness.¶
A default and vendor-agnostic set of platform attributes is defined in this section.¶
These attribute types MAY be contained within a platform entity; i.e. an entity identified by id-pkix-attest-entity-platform
.¶
Attribute | AttributeValue | Reference | Multiple Allowed | Request Contains a Value | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
vendor | utf8String | RFCthis | No | MUST NOT | A human-readable string by which the vendor identifies themself. |
oemid | bytes | [I-D.ietf-rats-eat] | No | MUST NOT | The EAT OEM ID as defined in [I-D.ietf-rats-eat]. |
hwmodel | utf8String | [I-D.ietf-rats-eat] | No | MUST NOT | Model or product line of the hardware module. |
hwserial | utf8String | RFCthis | No | MUST NOT | Serial number of the hardware module, often matches the number engraved or stickered on the case. |
swversion | utf8String | [I-D.ietf-rats-eat] | No | MUST NOT | A text string identifying the firmware or software running on the HSM. |
dbgstat | int | [I-D.ietf-rats-eat] | No | MUST NOT | Indicates whether the HSM is currently in a debug state, or is capable in the future of being turned to a debug state. Semantics and integer codes are defined in [I-D.ietf-rats-eat]. |
uptime | int | [I-D.ietf-rats-eat] | No | MUST NOT | Contains the number of seconds that have elapsed since the entity was last booted. |
bootcount | int | [I-D.ietf-rats-eat] | No | MUST NOT | Contains a count of the number of times the entity has been booted. |
usermods | utf8String | RFCthis | Yes | MUST NOT | This attribute lists user modules currently loaded onto the HSM in a human readable format, preferabbly JSON. |
fipsboot | bool | [FIPS.140-3] | No | MUST NOT | Indicates whether the devices is currently running in FIPS mode. |
fipsver | utf8String | [FIPS.140-3] | No | MUST NOT | Indicates the version of the FIPS CMVP standard that is being enforced. At time of writing this is typically "FIPS 140-2" or "FIPS 140-3". |
fipslevel | int | [FIPS.140-3] | No | MUST NOT | Indicates the FIPS Level to which the device is currently operating in compliance with. |
envid | utf8String | RFCthis | Yes | MAY | An environment ID, which will typically be a URI, UUID, or similar. |
envdesc | utf8String | RFCthis | Yes | MUST NOT | Further description of the environment. |
TODO: find the actual reference for "FIPS Mode" -- FIPS 140-3 does not define it (at least not the 11 page useless version of 140-3 that I found).¶
Each attribute has an assigned OID, see Section 11.¶
Some of the attributes defined in this specification have further details below.¶
Most HSMs have some concept of trusted execution environment where user software modules can be loaded inside the HSM to run with some level of privileged access to the application keys. This attribute lists user modules currently loaded onto the HSM in a human readable format, preferably JSON.¶
FIPS 140-3 CMVP validation places stringent requirements on the mode of operation of the device and the cryptography offered by the module, including only enabling FIPS-approved algorithms, certain requirements on entropy sources, and extensive start-up self-tests. FIPS 140-3 offers compliance levels 1 through 4 with increasingly strict requirements. Many HSMs include a configuration setting that allows the device to be taken out of FIPS mode and thus enable additional functionality or performance, and some offer configuration settings to change between compliance levels.¶
The boolean attribute fipsboot
indicates whether the device is currently operating in FIPS mode. For most HSMs, changing this configuration setting from fipsboot=true
to fips-boos=false
is destructive and will result in zeroization of all cryptographic keys held within the module.¶
The UTF8String attribet fipsver
indicates the version of the FIPS CMVP specification with which the device's operational mode is compliant. At the time of writing, the strings "FIPS 140-2" or "FIPS 140-3" SHOULD be used.¶
The integer attribute fipslevel
indicates the compliance level to which the device is currently operating and MUST only be 1, 2, 3, or 4. The fipslevel
attribute has no meaning if fipsboot
is absent or false
.¶
The FIPS status information in a PKIX Attestation indicates only the mode of operation of the device and is not authoritative of its validation status. This information is available on the NIST CMVP website or by contacting the device vendor. As an example, some devices may have the option to enable FIPS mode in configuration even if the vendor has not sumbitted this model for validation. As another example, a device may be running in a mode consistent with FIPS Level 3 but the device was only validated and certified to Level 2. A Relying Party wishing to know the validation status of the device MUST couple the device state information contained in the attestation with a valid FIPS CMVP certificate for the device.¶
An identifier for an environment to which the attested keys belong. These will be an a vendor-chosen format, but are constrained to ASCII as URIs, UUID, and similar types of identifiers are envisioned.¶
There MAY be multiple envid attributes if the attested keys simultaneously belong to multiple environments.¶
Note that by including envid as a Platform Attribute, this implies that it applies to all attested key entities. If the HSM needs to attest multiple keys across multiple disjoint environments, then multiple PKIXAttestations are required. This naturally enforces privacy constraints of only attesting a single environment at a time.¶
If an envdid request attribute contains a value, this means that the Presenter is requesting that only keys belogning to the given environment be included in the returned attestation.¶
A default and vendor-agnostic set of key attributes is defined in this section.¶
These attribute types MAY be contained within a key entity; i.e. an entity identified by id-pkix-attest-entity-key
.¶
Attribute | AttributeValue | Reference | Multiple Allowed | Request Contains a Value | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
identifier | utf8String | RFCthis | Yes | MAY | Identifies the subject key, with a vendor-specific format which could be numeric, UUID, or other textual identifier. |
spki | bytes | RFCthis | No | MAY | A complete DER-encoded SubjectPublicKeyInfo representing the public key associated with the asymetric key pair being attested. |
purpose | bytes | [PKCS11] | No | MAY | Defines the intended usage for the key. |
extractable | bool | [PKCS11] | No | MAY | Indicates if the key is able to be exported from the module. Corresponds directly to PKCS#11 CKA_EXTRACTABLE. |
sensitive | bool | [PKCS11] | No | MAY | Indicates that the key cannot leave the module in plaintext. Corresponds directly to PKCS#11 CKA_SENSITIVE. |
never-extractable | bool | [PKCS11] | No | MAY | Indicates if the key was able to be exported from the module. Corresponds directly to PKCS#11 CKA_NEVER_EXTRACTABLE. |
local | bool | RFCthis | No | MAY | Indicates whether the key was generated locally or imported. |
expiry | time | RFCthis | No | MAY | Defines the expiry date or "not after" time for the key. |
protection | bytes | RFCthis | No | MAY | Indicates any additional key protection properties. |
PKCS#11 private key attributes can be somewhat complex to parse, especially as their exact meanings can vary by the key type and the exact details of key export mechanisms supported by the HSM.¶
In most cases, the Verifier of a PKIX Attestation will want to know simply that the key is in hardware and cannot be extracted to be used with a software cryptographic module. A setting of extractable=false
satisfies this requirement. Generally extractable=true && sensitive=true
also satisfies this requirement as the key cannot be extracted in plaintext, but only under key wrap. This is common in HSM clustering scenarios, and is also common in scenarios where keys are exported under wrap so that they can be stored in an off-board database for re-import later, thus allowing the HSM to protect and manage a much larger set of keys than it has internal memory for. The never-extractable
and local
attributes give additional assurance that the key has always been in hardware and was not imported from software.¶
TODO: probably need to define a mapping from PKCS#11 CKA enums to a bit-indexed byte array.¶
Indicates any additional key protection properties around use or modification of this key. These are generalized properties and will not apply the same way to all HSM vendors. Consult vendor documentation for the in-context meaning of these flags.¶
TODO: define a bit-indexed byte array¶
BIT MASK / Boolean Array {DualControl (0), CardControl (1), PasswordControl (2), ...}¶
We may need to say that the first X are reserved for use by future RFCs that update this specification, and beyond that is private use.¶
It is expected that HSM vendors will register additional Entity and Attribute types by assigning OIDs from their own proprietary OID arcs to hold data describing additional proprietary key properties.¶
An Attester (HSM) which is requested to provide information about unrecognized Entity or Attribute types MUST fail the operation.¶
A Verifier which encounters an unrecognized Entity or Attribute type MAY ignore it.¶
The SignatureBlock.signatureValue
signs over the DER-encoded to-be-signed attestation data
PkixAttestation.tbs
and MUST be validated with the subject public key of the leaf
X.509 certificate contained in the SignatureBlock.certChain
.¶
The SignatureBlock.signatureValue
signs over the DER-encoded to-be-signed attestation data
PkixAttestation.tbs
and MUST be validated with the subject public key of the leaf
X.509 certificate contained in the SignatureBlock.certChain
.¶
Note that a PkixAttestation MAY contain zero or more SignatureBlocks. A PkixAttestation with zero SignatureBlocks is unsigned, MUST be treated as un-protected and un-trusted, and any signature validation procedure MUST fail.¶
More than one SignatureBlocks MAY be used to convey a number of different semantics. For example, the HSM's Attesting Service might hold multiple Attestation Keys on different cryptographic algorithms in order to provide algorithm redundancy in the case that one algorithm becomes cryptographically broken. In this case a Verifier would be expected to validate all SignatureBlocks. Alternatively, the HSM's Attesting Service may hold multiple Attestion Keys (or multiple X.509 certificates for the same key) from multiple operational environments to which it belongs. In this case a Verifier would be expected to only validate the SignatureBlock corresponding to its own environment. Alternatively, multiple SignatureBlocks could be used to convey counter-signatures from external parties, in which case the Verifier will need to be equipped with environment-specific verification logic. Multiple of these cases, and potentially others, could be present in a single PkixAttestation object.¶
Note that each SignatureBlock is a fully detached signature over the tbs content with no binding between the signed content and the SignatureBlocks, or between SignatureBlocks, meaning that a third party can add a counter-signature of the evidence after the fact, or an attacker can remove a SignatureBlock without leaving any artifact. See {#sec-detached-sigs} for further discussion.¶
EDNOTE: MikeO: this is complex, but I'm not really sure how to define a request format in any simpler way. Ideas are welcome!¶
This section specifies a standardized format that a Presenter can use to request a PKIX Attestation about a specific key or set of keys, a specific environment, or containing specific attributes.¶
Hardware Security Modules range greatly in size and complexity from personal cryptographic tokens containing a single application key such as a smartcard acting as a personal ID card, up to clusters of enterprise-grade HSMs serving an entire cloud service.¶
The manufacturer of a HSM device with limited capabilities may implement a response to the attestation request which includes a fixed set of reported entities, each with a fixed set of reported attributes and parses an Attestion Request object only for the purposes of extracting the nonce.¶
On the other hand, an enterprise grade HSM with the capability to hold a large number of private keys is expected to be capable of parsing attestation requests such that a Presenter can request attestation of specific key(s) by their identifier, or request attestation of all keys with given key attributes within a given sub-environment of the HSM. A full implementation will also create a PKIX Attestation containing exactly the set of requested attributes so that the Presenter can fine-tune the information that it wishes to disclose to the Recipient.¶
A PKIX Attestation Request consists of a un-signed TbsPkixAttestation object containing a single ReportedEntity
identified with id-pkix-attest-entity-request
, called a request entity. A TbsPkixAttestation containing a request entity MUST NOT contain any other type of entities. Request entities MAY contain Attributes of any type; transaction, platform, key, or any additional attribute type. Any attribute contained in a request entity is called a request attribute. Request entities MUST NOT appear in PKIX Attestation response objects. The TbsPkixAttestation object of an attestation request MAY appear inside a signed PKIXAttestation for the purposes of authenticating and authorizing the requester, but the semantics of doing so are left to the implementer.¶
An Attester that supports Attestation Requests MUST, at the minimum, support extracting the value from a nonce
attribute and echoing it into a nonce
attribute within a TransactionEntity.¶
Some request attributes contain a value that the HSM uses as a filter or search parameter in constructing the PKIX Attestation; these are called valued requests attributes.
Other requests attributes omit the optional value
field so that they consist of only the attribute type OID and indicate that the HSM SHOULD collect and return the appropriate measurement; these are called un-valued request attributes.
An Attester SHOULD return a PKIX Attestation containing exactly the set of attributes listed in the request, including both valued and un-valued request attributes but MAY omit requested attributes if it cannot be measured in the current device configuration.
Note that an Attestation Request will contain all request attributes inside a single request entity, but the HSM MUST sort the attributes in the response PKIX Attestation into the appropriate entity types.
For example, if the request contains the key purpose
attribute (either valued or un-valued), then all returned key entities will contain the purpose
attribute when this data is available for the given key.
The tables in the following sections indicate whether an attribute of the given type MUST, MAY, or MUST NOT contain a value when included in a request entity.¶
Generally errors should be handled gracefully by simply omitting an unfulfillable request attribute from the response.
An example would be if the hwserial
attribute was requested but the devices does not have a serial number.
However in some cases a fatal error MAY be returned, for example if attestation of a specific key is requested by key identifier or SubjectPublicKeyInfo but the HSM does not contain a matching key.
HSMs SHOULD ignore request attributes with unrecognized type OIDs.¶
Generally, the Attester SHOULD NOT include additional attributes beyond those that were requested. This is to allow the Presenter to fine-tune the information that will be disclosed to the Recipient.
Further privacy concerns are discussed in Section 13.3.
However, in some contexts this MAY be appropriate, for example, a request containing only a key identifier
attribute could be responded to with the full set of platform and key attributes that apply to that key.
Discretion is left to implementers.¶
For both error handling and privacy reasons, the Presenter SHOULD check that the returned PKIX Attestation contains the expected attributes prior to forwarding it to the Recipient.¶
This section provides some sample profiles of appraisal policies that verifiers MAY apply when evaluating evidence. These appraisal profiles represent environment-specific requirements on the contents of the evidence and / or endorsement certificate chain.¶
An HSM which is compliant with this draft SHOULD validate any PKIX Key Attestations that are provided along with the key being imported.¶
The SignatureBlocks MUST be validated and MUST chain to a trust anchor known to the HSM. In most cases this will be the same trust anchor that endorsed the HSMs own AK, but the HSM MAY be configured with set of third party trust anchors from which it will accept key attestations.¶
If the HSM is operating in FIPS Mode, then it MUST only import keys from HSMs also operating in FIPS Mode.¶
The claims key-purpose
, key-extractable
, key-never-extractable
, key-local
MUST be checked and honoured during key import, which typically means that after import, the key MUST NOT claim a stronger protection property than it had on the previous hardware. In other words, Key Attestation allows and requires that key protection properties be preserved over export / import operations between different HSMs, and this format provides a vendor-agnostic
way to acheive this.¶
How to handle errors is outside the scope of this specification and is left to implementors; for example the key import MAY be aborted, or a prompt MAY be given to the user administrator, or any similar reasonable error handling logic.¶
TODO: ... intro text¶
The subscriber MUST:¶
Provide the CA with a CSR containing the subscriber key.¶
Provide an attestation token as per this specification describing the private key protection properties of the subscriber's private key. This token MAY be transported inside the CSR as per draft-ietf-lamps-csr-attest, or it MAY be transported adjacent to the CSR over any other certificate enrollment mechanism.¶
The CA / RA / RP / Verifier MUST:¶
Ensure that the subscriber key which is the subject of the CSR is also described by a KAT by matching either the key fingerprint or full SubjectPublicKeyInfo.¶
The hardware root-of-trust described by a PAT has a valid and active FIPS certificate according to the NIST CMVP database.¶
The attestation signing key (AK) which has signed the attestation token chains to a root certificate that A) belongs to the hardware vendor described in the PAT token, and B) is trusted by the CA / RA / RP / Verifier to endorse hardware from this vendor, for example through a CA's partner program or through a network operator's device on-boarding process.¶
The key is protected by a module running in FIPS mode. The parsing logic is to start at the leaf KAT token that matches the key in the CSR and parsing towards the root PAT ensuring that there is at least one fipsboot=true
and no fipsboot=false
on that path.¶
<CODE STARTS> PKIX-Evidence-2025 { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0) id-mod-pkix-evidence-2025(TBDMOD) } PkixEvidence ::= SEQUENCE { tbs TbsPkixAttestation, signatures SEQUENCE SIZE (0..MAX) of SignatureBlock } TbsPkixEvidence ::= SEQUENCE { version INTEGER, reportedEntities SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF ReportedEntity } ReportedEntity ::= SEQUENCE { entityType OBJECT IDENTIFIER, reportedAttributes SEQUENCE SIZE (1..MAX) OF ReportedAttribute } ReportedAttribute ::= SEQUENCE { attributeType OBJECT IDENTIFIER, value AttributeValue } AttributeValue :== CHOICE { bytes [0] IMPLICIT OCTET STRING utf8String [1] IMPLICIT UTF8String, bool [2] IMPLICIT BOOLEAN, time [3] IMPLICIT GeneralizedTime, int [4] IMPLICIT INTEGER, oid [5] IMPLICIT OBJECT IDENTIFIER } SignatureBlock ::= SEQUENCE { certChain SEQUENCE of Certificate, signatureAlgorithm AlgorithmIdentifier, signatureValue OCTET STRING } id-pkix-evidence OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { 1 2 3 999 } id-pkix-evidence-entity-type OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence- 0 } id-pkix-evidence-entity-transaction OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-entity-type 0 } id-pkix-evidence-entity-platform OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-entity-type 1 } id-pkix-evidence-entity-key OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-entity-type 2 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-type OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence- 1 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-transaction OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-type 0 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-transaction-nonce OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-transaction 0 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-type 1 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform-vendor OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform 0 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform-hwserial OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform 1 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform-fipsboot OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform 2 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform-desc OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform 3 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform-time OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform 4 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform-swversion OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform 5 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform-oemid OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform 6 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform-debugstat OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform 7 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform-uptime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform 8 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform-bootcount OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform 9 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform-usermods OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform 8 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform-envid OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform 9 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform-envdesc OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform 10 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform-fipsver OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform 11 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform-fipslevel OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-platform 12 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-key OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-type 2 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-key-identifier OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-key 0 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-key-spki OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-key 1 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-key-purpose OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-key 2 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-key-extractable OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-key 3 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-key-never-extractable OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-key 4 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-key-local OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-key 5 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-key-expiry OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-key 6 } id-pkix-evidence-attribute-key-protection OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix-evidence-attribute-key 7 } <CODE ENDS>¶
Please replace "RFCthis" with the RFC number assigned to this document.¶
TODO: list out all the OIDs that need IANA registration.¶
A Verifier MAY reject a PKIX Attestation if it lacks required attributes per their appraisal policy. For example, if a Relying Party mandates a FIPS-certified device, it SHOULD reject evidence lacking sufficient information to verify the device's FIPS certification status.¶
The nature of attestation requires the attestation service to be implemented in an extremely privileged position within the HSM so that it can collect measurements of both the hardware environment and the application keys being attested. For many HSM and TPM architectures, this will place the Attestation Service inside the "HSM kernel" and potentially subject to FIPS 140-3 or Common Criteria validation and change control. For both security and compliance reasons there is incentive for the emitting and parsing logic to be simple and easy to implement correctly. Additionally, when the data formats contained in this specification are parsed within an HSM boundary -- that would be parsing a request entity, or parsing an attestation produced by a different HSM -- implementers SHOULD opt for simple logic that rejects any data that does not match the expected format instead of attempting to be flexible.¶
In particular, Attesting Services SHOULD generate the attestation object from scratch and avoid copying any content from the request. Attesting Services MUST NOT allow unrecognized attributes or any attribute value other than the nonce to be echoed from the request into the attestation object.¶
TODO beef this up¶
No indication within the tbs content about what or how many signatures to expect.¶
A SignatureBlock can be trivially stripped off without leaving any evidence.¶
When multiple SignatureBlocks are used for providing third party counter-signatures, note that the counter signature only covers the tbs content and not existing SignatureBlocks.¶
Often, a TPM will host cryptographic keys for both the kernel and userspace of a local operating system but a Presenter may only represents a single user or application. Similarly, a single enterprise-grade Hardware Security Module will often host cryptographic keys for an entire multi-tenant cloud service and the Presenter or Reciever or Recipient belongs only to a single tenant. For example the HSM backing a TLS-terminating loadbalancer fronting thousands of un-related web domains. In these cases, disclosing that two different keys reside on the same hardware, or in some cases even disclosing the existance of a given key, let alone its attributes, to an unauthorized party would constitute an egregious privacy violation.¶
Implementions SHOULD be careful to avoid over-disclosure of information, for example by authenticating the Presenter as described in Section 13.4 and only returning results for keys and envirnments for which it is authorized. In absence of an existing mechanism for authenticating and authorizing administrative connections to the HSM, the attestation request MAY be authenticated by embedding the TbsPkixAttestation of the request inside a PKIXAttestation signed with a certificate belogning to the Presenter.¶
Furthermore, enterprise and cloud-services grade HSMs SHOULD support the full set of attestation request functionality described in Section 9 so that Presenters can fine-tune the content of a PKIX Attestation such that it is appropriate for the intended Recipient.¶
The Presenter represents a priviledged role within the architecture of this specification as it gets to learn about the existence of application keys and their protection properties, as well as details of the platform. The Presenter is in the position of deciding how much information to disclose to the Recipient, and to request a suitably redacted attestation from the HSM.¶
For personal cryptographic tokens it might be appropriate for the attestation request interface to be un-authenticated. However, for enterprise and cloud-services grade HSMs the Presenter SHOULD be authenticated using the HSM's native authentication mechanism. The details will be HSM-specific and are thus left up to the implementer, however it is RECOMMENDED to implement an authorization framework similar to the following.¶
A Presenter SHOULD be allowed to request attestation for any application keys which it is allowed to use. For example, a TLS application that is correctly authenticated to the HSM in order to use its TLS keys SHOULD be able to request attestation of those same keys without needing to perform any additional authentication or requiring any additional roles or permissions. HSMs that wish to allow a Presenter to request attestation of keys which is not allowed to use, for example for the purposes of displaying HSM status information on an administrative console or UI, SHOULD have a "Attestation Requester" role or permission and SHOULD enforce the HSM's native access controls such that the Presenter can only retrieve attestations for keys for which it has read access.¶
With asymmetric keys within a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) it is common to require a key holder to prove that they are in control of the private key by using it. This is called "proof-of-possession (PoP)". This specification intentionally does not provide a mechnaism for PoP of application keys and relies on the Presenter, Recipient, Verifier, and Relying Party trusting the Attester to correctly report the cryptographic keys that it is holding.¶
It would be easy to add a PoP Key Attribute that uses the attested application key to sign over, for example, the Transaction Entity, however this is a bad idea and MUST NOT be added as a custom attribute for several reasons.¶
First, an application key intended, for example, for TLS SHOULD only be used with the TLS protocol and introducing a signature oracle whereby the TLS application key is used to sign attestation content could lead to cross-protocol attacks whereby the attacker submits a nonce value which is in fact not random but is crafted in such a way as to appear as a valid message in some other protocol context or exploit some other weakness in the signature algorithm.¶
Second, the Presenter who has connected to the HSM to request an attestation may have permissions to view the requested application keys but not permission to use them, as in the case where the Presenter is an administrative UI displaying HSM status information to an systems administrator or auditor. Requiring the Attestation Service to use the attested application keys could, in some architectures, require the Attestation Service to resolve complex access control logic and handle complex error conditions for each requested key, which violates the "simple to implement" design principle outlined in Section 13.1. More discussion of authenticating the Presenter can be found in Section 13.4.¶
In cases where explicit PoP is required for a given attested application key, it MUST be done as part of the regular usage protocol for which that key is intended and performed through the HSM's regular application interface, not its attestation interface. For example, PoP could be performed by signing a Certificate Signing Request (CSR), through a PKI enrollment protocol such as Certificate Management Protocol (CMP) which includes a challenge-response PoP, by using the key within a TLS handshake, or some other protocol which is part of the key's intended usage.¶
A reference implementation of this specification can be found at https://github.com/hannestschofenig/keyattestation¶
It produces the following sample attestation:¶
PkixAttestation: tbs=TbsPkixAttestation: version=2 reportedEntities=SequenceOf: ReportedEntity: entityType=1.2.3.999.0.0 reportedAttributes=SequenceOf: ReportedAttribute: attributeType=1.2.3.999.1.0.0 value=AttributeValue: bytes=0102030405 ReportedEntity: entityType=1.2.3.999.0.1 reportedAttributes=SequenceOf: ReportedAttribute: attributeType=1.2.3.999.1.1.0 value=AttributeValue: utf8String=HSM-123 ReportedAttribute: attributeType=1.2.3.999.1.1.1 value=AttributeValue: bool=True ReportedAttribute: attributeType=1.2.3.999.1.1.2 value=AttributeValue: utf8String=Model ABC ReportedAttribute: attributeType=1.2.3.999.1.1.4 value=AttributeValue: utf8String=3.1.9 ReportedAttribute: attributeType=1.2.3.999.1.1.3 value=AttributeValue: time=202502032234Z ReportedEntity: entityType=1.2.3.999.0.2 reportedAttributes=SequenceOf: ReportedAttribute: attributeType=1.2.3.999.1.2.0 value=AttributeValue: utf8String=26d765d8-1afd-4dfb-a290-cf867ddecfa1 ReportedAttribute: attributeType=1.2.3.999.1.2.3 value=AttributeValue: bool=False ReportedAttribute: attributeType=1.2.3.999.1.2.1 value=AttributeValue: bytes=0x3059301306072a8648ce3d020106082a8648ce3d03010703420004422548f88fb782ffb5eca3744452c72a1e558fbd6f73be5e48e93232cc45c5b16c4cd10c4cb8d5b8a17139e94882c8992572993425f41419ab7e90a42a494272 ReportedEntity: entityType=1.2.3.999.0.2 reportedAttributes=SequenceOf: ReportedAttribute: attributeType=1.2.3.999.1.2.0 value=AttributeValue: utf8String=49a96ace-e39a-4fd2-bec1-13165a99621c ReportedAttribute: attributeType=1.2.3.999.1.2.3 value=AttributeValue: bool=True ReportedAttribute: attributeType=1.2.3.999.1.2.1 value=AttributeValue: bytes=0x3059301306072a8648ce3d020106082a8648ce3d03010703420004422548f88fb782ffb5eca3744452c72a1e558fbd6f73be5e48e93232cc45c5b16c4cd10c4cb8d5b8a17139e94882c8992572993425f41419ab7e90a42a494272 ReportedEntity: entityType=1.2.3.888.0 reportedAttributes=SequenceOf: ReportedAttribute: attributeType=1.2.3.888.1 value=AttributeValue: utf8String=partition 1 signatures=SequenceOf: SignatureBlock: certChain=SequenceOf: Certificate: tbsCertificate=TBSCertificate: version=v3 serialNumber=510501933685942792810365453374472870755160518925 signature=AlgorithmIdentifier: algorithm=1.2.840.113549.1.1.11 parameters=0x0500 issuer=Name: rdnSequence=RDNSequence: RelativeDistinguishedName: AttributeTypeAndValue: type=2.5.4.10 value=0x0c0449455446 RelativeDistinguishedName: AttributeTypeAndValue: type=2.5.4.11 value=0x0c0452415453 RelativeDistinguishedName: AttributeTypeAndValue: type=2.5.4.3 value=0x0c06414b20525341 validity=Validity: notBefore=Time: utcTime=250117171303Z notAfter=Time: generalTime=20520604171303Z subject=Name: rdnSequence=RDNSequence: RelativeDistinguishedName: AttributeTypeAndValue: type=2.5.4.10 value=0x0c0449455446 RelativeDistinguishedName: AttributeTypeAndValue: type=2.5.4.11 value=0x0c0452415453 RelativeDistinguishedName: AttributeTypeAndValue: type=2.5.4.3 value=0x0c06414b20525341 subjectPublicKeyInfo=SubjectPublicKeyInfo: algorithm=AlgorithmIdentifier: algorithm=1.2.840.113549.1.1.1 parameters=0x0500 subjectPublicKey=31795268810366627125468059984427145931784542919710733587190808152893606542214208096328883077225607136393362795609997601968312039001251339428349101203532726047646450301142882318337709398316574407647199690000689245113739552615279534528145776090813314822312012607567736073057936820713733090928849092672110937300300755561797808000438134839458043673852453722969649609202093945235393494912138691342219564365300965387743701570507112064401758218314760153081271981340812350365663466513620853326534252424706992841033652817461354632316129312597825542820569667842318342646457447037125609399476844336456206583416539426479221164971369788464727307915820767918489601 extensions=Extensions: Extension: extnID=2.5.29.14 critical=False extnValue=0x04148919595e0ef169f5cbbd47e134fce298cc693091 Extension: extnID=2.5.29.35 critical=False extnValue=0x301680148919595e0ef169f5cbbd47e134fce298cc693091 Extension: extnID=2.5.29.19 critical=True extnValue=0x30030101ff signatureAlgorithm=AlgorithmIdentifier: algorithm=1.2.840.113549.1.1.11 parameters=0x0500 signature=12977775424631768289542539102653382982431795551146145281750189553757940982572813264428982985997740595878077027853994515775116752030963858469651548765808775269857271167748512795017916284867051302884465315751010913658016640170608413935780119349866986170148033301955753116984041271273907756544780231564646860424999020990745523383622980115200446260103173103500647838758197610238552349053064525420240826193553395378873725256584269666918504793674497748455574822238022085054752185687440807655337724821853332688158460379554906105417720665175648371832825939577039874730442790337726004105878168375998123110331993348833629325492 signatureAlgorithm=AlgorithmIdentifier: algorithm=1.2.840.113549.1.1.10 parameters=RSASSA_PSS_params: hashAlgorithm=AlgorithmIdentifier: algorithm=2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.1 maskGenAlgorithm=AlgorithmIdentifier: algorithm=1.2.840.113549.1.1.8 saltLength=20 trailerField=1 signatureValue=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 SignatureBlock: certChain=SequenceOf: Certificate: tbsCertificate=TBSCertificate: version=v3 serialNumber=43752118382009037811618748949928339462896457144 signature=AlgorithmIdentifier: algorithm=1.2.840.10045.4.3.2 issuer=Name: rdnSequence=RDNSequence: RelativeDistinguishedName: AttributeTypeAndValue: type=2.5.4.10 value=0x0c0449455446 RelativeDistinguishedName: AttributeTypeAndValue: type=2.5.4.11 value=0x0c0452415453 RelativeDistinguishedName: AttributeTypeAndValue: type=2.5.4.3 value=0x0c07414b2050323536 validity=Validity: notBefore=Time: utcTime=250117171428Z notAfter=Time: generalTime=20520604171428Z subject=Name: rdnSequence=RDNSequence: RelativeDistinguishedName: AttributeTypeAndValue: type=2.5.4.10 value=0x0c0449455446 RelativeDistinguishedName: AttributeTypeAndValue: type=2.5.4.11 value=0x0c0452415453 RelativeDistinguishedName: AttributeTypeAndValue: type=2.5.4.3 value=0x0c07414b2050323536 subjectPublicKeyInfo=SubjectPublicKeyInfo: algorithm=AlgorithmIdentifier: algorithm=1.2.840.10045.2.1 parameters=0x06082a8648ce3d030107 subjectPublicKey=57095560233504924588952816185508037812996307929249104847846164660564888397123390877585670462836285725041261897550020311481127562655774333675293173915140722 extensions=Extensions: Extension: extnID=2.5.29.14 critical=False extnValue=0x04145b70a79817f79ff637d2f7e3dc446c2109d7bbd4 Extension: extnID=2.5.29.35 critical=False extnValue=0x301680145b70a79817f79ff637d2f7e3dc446c2109d7bbd4 Extension: extnID=2.5.29.19 critical=True extnValue=0x30030101ff signatureAlgorithm=AlgorithmIdentifier: algorithm=1.2.840.10045.4.3.2 signature=182167519797146035745575043154801415115532979136731128676399180692664821804883990401552040789643013103202424486088058364982966709324496782518079519267269438816178719668437 signatureAlgorithm=AlgorithmIdentifier: algorithm=1.2.840.10045.2.1 parameters=0x06082a8648ce3d030107 signatureValue=0x304402201e7703f63bff951917714e5fa813de5265f151a6802165ef0be5f1fe6c91225b02200ad06b41a5062b07ff3ad37c7d112e19575f0e14a9750fe95e615550b88b5fed DER Base64: 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¶
This specification is the work of a design team created by the chairs of the RATS working group. This specification has been developed based on discussions in that design team and also with great amounts of input taken from discussions on the RATS mailing list.¶