Basics: Restricting Extended Key Usage (EKU) in Certification Authority Certificates

A useful hardening measure for Certification Authorities is to restrict the Certification Authority certificates so that they are only used for the actually issued extended key usage (Extended Key Usage) becomes familiar.

In the event of a compromise of the certification authority, the damage is then (at least) limited to the defined extended key usages.

The Smart Card Logon Extended Key Usage, which is of interest for many attacks (in conjunction with the certification authority's membership in NTAuthCertificates) would then only be present in the certification authority certificate of the certification authority that actually issues such certificates.

Functionality and backgrounds

End entity certificates have an "Enhanced Key Usage" extension that defines the purposes for which the certificate may be used (e.g., Transport Layer Security (TLS)).

Microsoft uses the term "Enhanced Key Usage", the correct name according to RFC 5280 is "Extended Key Usage"..

The Extended Key Usage defines for which purposes the certificate may be used. In the Microsoft Windows certificate dialog, this is indicated in the example by "Ensures the Identity of a Remote Computer" is displayed and corresponds to the Extended Key Usage for "Server Authentication", which is typical for a web server certificate.

The "General" tab in the Windows certificate dialog shows the result of the certificate's policy check, not the actual content of the certificate. This can be viewed in the "Details" tab and may well differ.

In the default configuration, a certificate authority certificate is not restricted in terms of certificate types. The certificate lacks an "Enhanced Key Usage" extension, so the certificate can be used for all purposes. In the Microsoft Windows certificate dialog this is indicated by "All Application Policies" displayed.

A certification authority can be restricted in its usability by adding an "Extended Key Usage" extension. It can then only issue certificates for the defined EKUs.

Types of restrictions

This basic approach to technical constraint by the Certification Authority is known as qualified subordination or applying constraints.

ComponentDescription
Path length restriction
(Path Length Constraint)
This can be used to define how many hierarchy levels (i.e. subordinate Certification Authorities) may follow the Certification Authority in question.
Restrictions on extended key usage (Extended Key Usage Constraints)This can be used to specify which extended key usages may be accepted in certificates issued by the certification authority.
Restrictions of the Issuance PoliciesThis allows you to specify for which certificate policies the Certification Authority may confirm their conformity in issued certificates.
Name restrictions (Name Constraints)This can be used to define for which namespaces the certification authority may issue certificates.

Restricting Extended Key Usages

The method of restricting extended key usages was first used by Microsoft under the name "nested EKU enforcement".

In addition Microsoft introduced another mechanism to restrict the scope in which a CA is trusted for, they did this by treating the Extended Key Usage (see section 4.2.1.13) extension as a means to delegate only certain issuance capabilities to a Certificate Authority

Least Privilege and Subordinate Certificate Authorities (Ryan Hurst)

It is therefore not part of RFC 5280. This simply indicates that the Extended Key Usage extension is only expected in end-entity certificates.

In general, this extension will appear only in end entity certificates.

RFC 5280

However, the feature goes beyond the requirements of RFC 5280 and (if the corresponding certificate extension is marked as non-critical) is also compatible with implementations that do not support it.

A popular security incident whose consequences could at least be reduced by this implementation was the "Flame" Incident. Here it came by one with a Hash Collision generated forged code signing certificate meant that malware could be signed with valid certificates. After all, the damage was limited to "only" this purpose (code signing).

The practice

Meanwhile, popular applications such as Mozilla Firefox and OpenSSL have adopted the behavior of the Microsoft implementation. Browsers which are used on Windows and which implement the CryptoAPI (Google Chrome, Microsot Edge and Internet Explorer) use the corresponding Windows system library and behave accordingly.

In practice, adaptation by third parties now goes even further: in the area of Internet PKI around browser and certification authority providers, use is now sometimes even demanded or at least recommended:

We encourage CAs to technically constrain all intermediate certificates. For a certificate to be considered technically constrained, the certificate MUST include an Extended Key Usage (EKU) extension specifying all extended key usages that the subordinate CA is authorized to issue certificates for.

Mozilla Root Store Policy

Generally Extended Key Usage will only appear within end entity certificates (as highlighted in RFC 5280 (4.2.1.12)), however, Subordinate CAs MAY include the extension to further protect relying parties until the use of the extension is consistent between Application Software Suppliers whose software is used by a substantial portion of Relying Parties worldwide.

CA/Browser (CAB) Forum V1.1.8

If present, this extension SHOULD be marked non-critical.

CA/Browser (CAB) Forum V1.1.8

For a Subordinate CA Certificate to be considered Technically Constrained, the certificate MUST include an Extended Key Usage (EKU) extension specifying all extended key usages that the Subordinate CA Certificate is authorized to issue certificates for. The anyExtendedKeyUsage KeyPurposeId MUST NOT appear within this extension.
If the Subordinate CA Certificate includes the id-kp-serverAuth extended key usage, then the Subordinate CA Certificate MUST include the Name Constraints X.509v3 extension with constraints on dNSName, iPAddress and DirectoryName as follows:

CA/Browser (CAB) Forum V1.7.3

A curiosity here is that Let's Encrypt does not adhere to its own Certificate Policy (which is based on the CAB Forum): Extended Key Usage restrictions are defined, but not the required associated Name restrictions (Note: how could it, after all, Let's Encrsypt basically wants to be able to serve all DNS namespaces).

If the Subordinate CA Certificate includes the id-kp-serverAuth extended key usage, then the Subordinate CA Certificate MUST include the Name Constraints X.509v3 extension with constraints on dNSName, iPAddress and DirectoryName [...]

Internet Security Research Group (ISRG) Certificate Policy, Version 2.2

Assessment for usability in practice

The use is possible without danger and also makes sense, but requires thorough planning, which should also include possible use cases for the coming years.

Such a construct can drastically reduce the damage caused by compromising a Certification Authority (in conjunction with further hardening measures), but on the other hand it also increases the complexity to be handled. Complexity, in turn, is the enemy of security, so the decision wants to be well-considered.

Implementation

Before a certification authority is put into operation, it is usually already defined which certificate types it will issue. This means that the corresponding extended key usages can be worked out from these.

By default, the Microsoft Certificate Authority will refuse to issue certificates with a different policy. Signatures that directly violate the Key Storage Provider be made, but would still be executed. Such a certificate should then be considered invalid.

However, this check is the responsibility of the respective application that processes the certificate, so that no generally valid statement can be made here. The restrictions are written to the certification authority certificate by the higher-level certification authority. They should therefore also be defined by the certificate authority.

In practice, however, for reasons of simplification, the extended key usages will be requested by the certification authority concerned and signed by the higher-level certification authority. To prepare the certificate request of a certification authority for the request of extended key usages, the file capolicy.inf in the system directory (usually C:\Windows) is extended by a corresponding passage.

[EnhancedKeyUsageExtension.]
OID=1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.2 ; Client Authentication
OID=1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.1 ; Server Authentication
OID=1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.9 ; OCSP Signing
OID=1.3.6.1.4.1.311.21.5 ; Private Key Archival
Critical=FALSE

For compatibility reasons, the "Enhanced Key Usage" extension should be configured as non-critical. Applications that do not interpret this extension would otherwise not understand the certificate authority certificate and abort certificate processing.

Below is a list of the most commonly used Extended Key Usages:

OIDDescription
1.3.6.1.4.1.311.20.2.1Certificate Request Agent
1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.2Client Authentication
1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.3Code Signing
1.3.6.1.4.1.311.10.3.13Lifetime Signing
1.3.6.1.4.1.311.10.3.12Document Signing
1.3.6.1.4.1.311.80.1Document Encryption
1.3.6.1.4.1.311.10.3.4Encrypting file system
1.3.6.1.4.1.311.10.3.4.1File Recovery
1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.5IP Security End System
1.3.6.1.5.5.8.2.2IP Security IKE Intermediate
1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.6IP Security Tunnel Endpoint
1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.7IP Security User
1.3.6.1.4.1.311.10.3.11Key Recovery
1.3.6.1.5.2.3.5KDC Authentication
1.3.6.1.4.1.311.10.3.1Microsoft Trust List Signing
1.3.6.1.4.1.311.10.3.10Qualified Subordination
1.3.6.1.4.1.311.10.3.9Root List Signer
1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.4Secure E-mail
1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.1Server Authentication
1.3.6.1.4.1.311.20.2.2Smartcard Logon
1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.8Time Stamping according to RFC 3161
1.3.6.1.5.5.7.3.9OCSP Signing
1.3.6.1.4.1.311.54.1.2Remote Desktop Authentication
1.3.6.1.4.1.311.21.5Private Key Archival
2.16.840.1.113741.1.2.3Intel Advanced Management Technology (AMT) Provisioning

It may be advisable to include the following Extended Key Usages in the list:

The resulting certificate authority certificate will then have a corresponding "Enhanced Key Usage" extension.

The usable certificate types are then applied accordingly in the "General" tab of the certificate dialog.

A (potentially maliciously generated) certificate that does not comply with the configured policies can be detected by the application accordingly. In the case of a Windows application, a corresponding warning is displayed.

Once again, it must be pointed out that certificate checking is the responsibility of the application using it, and the results can vary greatly depending on the implementation. For example, all common browsers are very strict in this respect, whereas a domain controller does not care about the extended key usages in the certificate by default..

Related links:

External sources

14 thoughts on “Grundlagen: Einschränken der erweiterten Schlüsselverwendung (Extended Key Usage, EKU) in Zertifizierungsstellen-Zertifikaten”

Comments are closed.

en_USEnglish