Network Working Group                                         R. Housley
Request for Comments: 4853                                Vigil Security
Updates: 3852                                                 April 2007
Category: Standards Track


                  Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
                    Multiple Signer Clarification

Status of This Memo

  This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
  Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
  improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
  Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
  and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

  Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

  This document updates the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS), which
  is published in RFC 3852.  This document clarifies the proper
  handling of the SignedData protected content type when more than one
  digital signature is present.
























Housley                     Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 4853           CMS Multiple Signer Clarification          April 2007


1.  Introduction

  This document updates the Cryptographic Message Syntax [CMS].  The
  CMS SignedData protected content type allows multiple digital
  signatures, but the specification is unclear about the appropriate
  processing by a recipient of such a signed content.  This document
  provides replacement text for a few paragraphs, making it clear that
  the protected content is validly signed by a given signer, if any of
  the digital signatures from that signer are valid.

  This property is especially important in two cases.  First, when the
  recipients do not all implement the same digital signature algorithm,
  a signer can sign the content with several different digital
  signature algorithms so that each of the recipients can find an
  acceptable signature.  For example, if some recipients support RSA
  and some recipients support ECDSA, then the signer can generate two
  signatures, one with RSA and one with ECDSA, so that each recipient
  will be able to validate one of the signatures.  Second, when a
  community is transitioning one-way hash functions or digital
  signature algorithms, a signer can sign the content with the older
  and the newer signature algorithms so that each recipient can find an
  acceptable signature, regardless of their state in the transition.
  For example, consider a transition from RSA with SHA-1 to RSA with
  SHA-256.  The signer can generate two signatures, one with SHA-1 and
  one with SHA-256, so that each recipient will be able to validate at
  least one of the RSA signatures.

2.  Terminology

  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
  document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [STDWORDS].

3.  Update to RFC 3852, Section 5: Signed-data Content Type

  RFC 3852, section 5, the next to the last paragraph says:

|  A recipient independently computes the message digest.  This message
|  digest and the signer's public key are used to verify the signature
|  value.  The signer's public key is referenced either by an issuer
|  distinguished name along with an issuer-specific serial number or by
|  a subject key identifier that uniquely identifies the certificate
|  containing the public key.  The signer's certificate can be included
|  in the SignedData certificates field.







Housley                     Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 4853           CMS Multiple Signer Clarification          April 2007


  This block of text is replaced with:

|  A recipient independently computes the message digest.  This message
|  digest and the signer's public key are used to verify the signature
|  value.  The signer's public key is referenced either by an issuer
|  distinguished name along with an issuer-specific serial number or by
|  a subject key identifier that uniquely identifies the certificate
|  containing the public key.  The signer's certificate can be included
|  in the SignedData certificates field.
|
|  When more than one signature is present, the successful validation
|  of one signature associated with a given signer is usually treated
|  as a successful signature by that signer.  However, there are some
|  application environments where other rules are needed.  An
|  application that employs a rule other than one valid signature for
|  each signer must specify those rules.  Also, where simple matching of
|  the signer identifier is not sufficient to determine whether the
|  signatures were generated by the same signer, the application
|  specification must describe how to determine which signatures were
|  generated by the same signer.  Support of different communities of
|  recipients is the primary reason that signers choose to include more
|  than one signature.  For example, the signed-data content type might
|  include signatures generated with the RSA signature algorithm and
|  with the ECDSA signature algorithm.  This allows recipients to
|  verify the signature associated with one algorithm or the other.

4.  Update to RFC 3852, Section 5.1: SignedData Type

  RFC 3852, section 5.1, the next to the last paragraph says:

|     signerInfos is a collection of per-signer information.  There MAY
|     be any number of elements in the collection, including zero.  The
|     details of the SignerInfo type are discussed in section 5.3.
|     Since each signer can employ a digital signature technique and
|     future specifications could update the syntax, all implementations
|     MUST gracefully handle unimplemented versions of SignerInfo.
|     Further, since all implementations will not support every possible
|     signature algorithm, all implementations MUST gracefully handle
|     unimplemented signature algorithms when they are encountered.

  This block of text is replaced with:

|     signerInfos is a collection of per-signer information.  There MAY
|     be any number of elements in the collection, including zero.  When
|     the collection represents more than one signature, the successful
|     validation of one of signature from a given signer ought to be
|     treated as a successful signature by that signer.  However,
|     there are some application environments where other rules are



Housley                     Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 4853           CMS Multiple Signer Clarification          April 2007


|     needed.  The details of the SignerInfo type are discussed in
|     section 5.3.  Since each signer can employ a different digital
|     signature technique, and future specifications could update the
|     syntax, all implementations MUST gracefully handle unimplemented
|     versions of SignerInfo.  Further, since all implementations will
|     not support every possible signature algorithm, all
|     implementations MUST gracefully handle unimplemented signature
|     algorithms when they are encountered.

6.  Security Considerations

  The replacement text will reduce the likelihood of interoperability
  errors during the transition from MD5 and SHA-1 to stronger one-way
  hash functions, or to better signature algorithms.

7.  Normative References

  [CMS]       Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC
              3852, July 2004.

  [STDWORDS]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

Author's Address

  Russell Housley
  Vigil Security, LLC
  918 Spring Knoll Drive
  Herndon, VA 20170
  USA

  EMail: [email protected]



















Housley                     Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 4853           CMS Multiple Signer Clarification          April 2007


Full Copyright Statement

  Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

  This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
  contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
  retain all their rights.

  This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
  "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
  OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
  THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
  OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
  THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
  WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

  The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
  Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
  pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
  this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
  might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
  made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
  on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
  found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

  Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
  assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
  attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
  such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
  specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
  http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

  The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
  copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
  rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
  this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
  [email protected].

Acknowledgement

  Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
  Internet Society.







Housley                     Standards Track                     [Page 5]


You are viewing proxied material from gopher.fnord.one. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.