| // Copyright 2015 The Chromium Authors |
| // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be |
| // found in the LICENSE file. |
| |
| #include "verify_certificate_chain.h" |
| |
| #include <algorithm> |
| #include <cassert> |
| |
| #include "cert_error_params.h" |
| #include "cert_errors.h" |
| #include "common_cert_errors.h" |
| #include "extended_key_usage.h" |
| #include "name_constraints.h" |
| #include "parse_certificate.h" |
| #include "signature_algorithm.h" |
| #include "trust_store.h" |
| #include "verify_signed_data.h" |
| #include "input.h" |
| |
| namespace bssl { |
| |
| namespace { |
| |
| bool IsHandledCriticalExtension(const ParsedExtension& extension, |
| const ParsedCertificate& cert) { |
| if (extension.oid == der::Input(kBasicConstraintsOid)) |
| return true; |
| // Key Usage is NOT processed for end-entity certificates (this is the |
| // responsibility of callers), however it is considered "handled" here in |
| // order to allow being marked as critical. |
| if (extension.oid == der::Input(kKeyUsageOid)) |
| return true; |
| if (extension.oid == der::Input(kExtKeyUsageOid)) |
| return true; |
| if (extension.oid == der::Input(kNameConstraintsOid)) |
| return true; |
| if (extension.oid == der::Input(kSubjectAltNameOid)) |
| return true; |
| if (extension.oid == der::Input(kCertificatePoliciesOid)) { |
| // Policy qualifiers are skipped during processing, so if the |
| // extension is marked critical need to ensure there weren't any |
| // qualifiers other than User Notice / CPS. |
| // |
| // This follows from RFC 5280 section 4.2.1.4: |
| // |
| // If this extension is critical, the path validation software MUST |
| // be able to interpret this extension (including the optional |
| // qualifier), or MUST reject the certificate. |
| std::vector<der::Input> unused_policies; |
| CertErrors unused_errors; |
| return ParseCertificatePoliciesExtensionOids( |
| extension.value, true /*fail_parsing_unknown_qualifier_oids*/, |
| &unused_policies, &unused_errors); |
| |
| // TODO(eroman): Give a better error message. |
| } |
| if (extension.oid == der::Input(kPolicyMappingsOid)) |
| return true; |
| if (extension.oid == der::Input(kPolicyConstraintsOid)) |
| return true; |
| if (extension.oid == der::Input(kInhibitAnyPolicyOid)) |
| return true; |
| if (extension.oid == der::Input(kMSApplicationPoliciesOid)) { |
| // Per https://crbug.com/1439638 and |
| // https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/seccertenroll/supported-extensions#msapplicationpolicies |
| // The MSApplicationPolicies extension may be ignored if the |
| // extendedKeyUsage extension is also present. |
| return cert.has_extended_key_usage(); |
| } |
| |
| return false; |
| } |
| |
| // Adds errors to |errors| if the certificate contains unconsumed _critical_ |
| // extensions. |
| void VerifyNoUnconsumedCriticalExtensions(const ParsedCertificate& cert, |
| CertErrors* errors) { |
| for (const auto& it : cert.extensions()) { |
| const ParsedExtension& extension = it.second; |
| if (extension.critical && !IsHandledCriticalExtension(extension, cert)) { |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kUnconsumedCriticalExtension, |
| CreateCertErrorParams2Der("oid", extension.oid, "value", |
| extension.value)); |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| |
| // Returns true if |cert| was self-issued. The definition of self-issuance |
| // comes from RFC 5280 section 6.1: |
| // |
| // A certificate is self-issued if the same DN appears in the subject |
| // and issuer fields (the two DNs are the same if they match according |
| // to the rules specified in Section 7.1). In general, the issuer and |
| // subject of the certificates that make up a path are different for |
| // each certificate. However, a CA may issue a certificate to itself to |
| // support key rollover or changes in certificate policies. These |
| // self-issued certificates are not counted when evaluating path length |
| // or name constraints. |
| [[nodiscard]] bool IsSelfIssued(const ParsedCertificate& cert) { |
| return cert.normalized_subject() == cert.normalized_issuer(); |
| } |
| |
| // Adds errors to |errors| if |cert| is not valid at time |time|. |
| // |
| // The certificate's validity requirements are described by RFC 5280 section |
| // 4.1.2.5: |
| // |
| // The validity period for a certificate is the period of time from |
| // notBefore through notAfter, inclusive. |
| void VerifyTimeValidity(const ParsedCertificate& cert, |
| const der::GeneralizedTime& time, |
| CertErrors* errors) { |
| if (time < cert.tbs().validity_not_before) |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kValidityFailedNotBefore); |
| |
| if (cert.tbs().validity_not_after < time) |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kValidityFailedNotAfter); |
| } |
| |
| // Adds errors to |errors| if |cert| has internally inconsistent signature |
| // algorithms. |
| // |
| // X.509 certificates contain two different signature algorithms: |
| // (1) The signatureAlgorithm field of Certificate |
| // (2) The signature field of TBSCertificate |
| // |
| // According to RFC 5280 section 4.1.1.2 and 4.1.2.3 these two fields must be |
| // equal: |
| // |
| // This field MUST contain the same algorithm identifier as the |
| // signature field in the sequence tbsCertificate (Section 4.1.2.3). |
| // |
| // The spec is not explicit about what "the same algorithm identifier" means. |
| // Our interpretation is that the two DER-encoded fields must be byte-for-byte |
| // identical. |
| // |
| // In practice however there are certificates which use different encodings for |
| // specifying RSA with SHA1 (different OIDs). This is special-cased for |
| // compatibility sake. |
| bool VerifySignatureAlgorithmsMatch(const ParsedCertificate& cert, |
| CertErrors* errors) { |
| const der::Input& alg1_tlv = cert.signature_algorithm_tlv(); |
| const der::Input& alg2_tlv = cert.tbs().signature_algorithm_tlv; |
| |
| // Ensure that the two DER-encoded signature algorithms are byte-for-byte |
| // equal. |
| if (alg1_tlv == alg2_tlv) |
| return true; |
| |
| // But make a compatibility concession if alternate encodings are used |
| // TODO(eroman): Turn this warning into an error. |
| // TODO(eroman): Add a unit-test that exercises this case. |
| std::optional<SignatureAlgorithm> alg1 = ParseSignatureAlgorithm(alg1_tlv); |
| if (!alg1) { |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kUnacceptableSignatureAlgorithm); |
| return false; |
| } |
| std::optional<SignatureAlgorithm> alg2 = ParseSignatureAlgorithm(alg2_tlv); |
| if (!alg2) { |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kUnacceptableSignatureAlgorithm); |
| return false; |
| } |
| |
| if (*alg1 == *alg2) { |
| errors->AddWarning( |
| cert_errors::kSignatureAlgorithmsDifferentEncoding, |
| CreateCertErrorParams2Der("Certificate.algorithm", alg1_tlv, |
| "TBSCertificate.signature", alg2_tlv)); |
| return true; |
| } |
| |
| errors->AddError( |
| cert_errors::kSignatureAlgorithmMismatch, |
| CreateCertErrorParams2Der("Certificate.algorithm", alg1_tlv, |
| "TBSCertificate.signature", alg2_tlv)); |
| return false; |
| } |
| |
| // Verify that |cert| can be used for |required_key_purpose|. |
| void VerifyExtendedKeyUsage(const ParsedCertificate& cert, |
| KeyPurpose required_key_purpose, |
| CertErrors* errors, |
| bool is_target_cert, |
| bool is_target_cert_issuer) { |
| // We treat a required KeyPurpose of ANY_EKU to mean "Do not check EKU" |
| if (required_key_purpose == KeyPurpose::ANY_EKU) { |
| return; |
| } |
| bool has_any_eku = false; |
| bool has_server_auth_eku = false; |
| bool has_client_auth_eku = false; |
| bool has_code_signing_eku = false; |
| bool has_time_stamping_eku = false; |
| bool has_ocsp_signing_eku = false; |
| bool has_nsgc = false; |
| if (cert.has_extended_key_usage()) { |
| for (const auto& key_purpose_oid : cert.extended_key_usage()) { |
| if (key_purpose_oid == der::Input(kAnyEKU)) { |
| has_any_eku = true; |
| } |
| if (key_purpose_oid == der::Input(kServerAuth)) { |
| has_server_auth_eku = true; |
| } |
| if (key_purpose_oid == der::Input(kClientAuth)) { |
| has_client_auth_eku = true; |
| } |
| if (key_purpose_oid == der::Input(kCodeSigning)) { |
| has_code_signing_eku = true; |
| } |
| if (key_purpose_oid == der::Input(kTimeStamping)) { |
| has_time_stamping_eku = true; |
| } |
| if (key_purpose_oid == der::Input(kOCSPSigning)) { |
| has_ocsp_signing_eku = true; |
| } |
| if (key_purpose_oid == der::Input(kNetscapeServerGatedCrypto)) { |
| has_nsgc = true; |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| |
| auto add_error_if_strict = [&](CertErrorId id) { |
| if (required_key_purpose == KeyPurpose::SERVER_AUTH_STRICT || |
| required_key_purpose == KeyPurpose::CLIENT_AUTH_STRICT) { |
| errors->AddError(id); |
| } else { |
| errors->AddWarning(id); |
| } |
| }; |
| if (is_target_cert) { |
| // Loosely based upon CABF BR version 1.8.4, 7.1.2.3(f). We are more |
| // permissive in that we still allow EKU any to be present in a leaf |
| // certificate, but we ignore it for purposes of server or client auth. We |
| // are less permissive in that we prohibit Code Signing, OCSP Signing, and |
| // Time Stamping which are currently only a SHOULD NOT. The BR does |
| // explicitly allow Email authentication to be present, as this still exists |
| // in the wild (2022), so we do not prohibit Email authentication here (and |
| // by extension must allow it to be present in the signer, below). |
| if (!cert.has_extended_key_usage()) { |
| // This is added as a warning, an error will be added in STRICT modes |
| // if we then lack client or server auth due to this not being present. |
| errors->AddWarning(cert_errors::kEkuNotPresent); |
| } else { |
| if (has_code_signing_eku) { |
| add_error_if_strict(cert_errors::kEkuHasProhibitedCodeSigning); |
| } |
| if (has_ocsp_signing_eku) { |
| add_error_if_strict(cert_errors::kEkuHasProhibitedOCSPSigning); |
| } |
| if (has_time_stamping_eku) { |
| add_error_if_strict(cert_errors::kEkuHasProhibitedTimeStamping); |
| } |
| } |
| } else if (is_target_cert_issuer) { |
| // Handle the decision to overload EKU as a constraint on issuers. |
| // |
| // CABF BR version 1.8.4, 7.1.2.2(g) pertains to the case of "Certs used to |
| // issue TLS certificates", While the BR refers to the entire chain of |
| // intermediates, there are a number of exceptions regarding CA ownership |
| // and cross signing which are impossible for us to know or enforce here. |
| // Therefore, we can only enforce at the level of the intermediate that |
| // issued our target certificate. This means we we differ in the following |
| // ways: |
| // - We only enforce at the issuer of the TLS certificate. |
| // - We allow email protection to exist in the issuer, since without |
| // this it can not be allowed in the client (other than via EKU any)) |
| // - As in the leaf certificate case, we allow EKU any to be present, but |
| // we ignore it for the purposes of server or client auth. |
| // |
| // At this time (until at least 2023) some intermediates are lacking EKU in |
| // the world at large from common CA's, so we allow the noEKU case to permit |
| // everything. |
| // TODO(bbe): enforce requiring EKU in the issuer when we can manage it. |
| if (cert.has_extended_key_usage()) { |
| if (has_code_signing_eku) { |
| add_error_if_strict(cert_errors::kEkuHasProhibitedCodeSigning); |
| } |
| if (has_time_stamping_eku) { |
| add_error_if_strict(cert_errors::kEkuHasProhibitedTimeStamping); |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| // Otherwise, we are a parent of an issuer of a TLS certificate. The CABF |
| // BR version 1.8.4, 7.1.2.2(g) goes as far as permitting EKU any in certain |
| // cases of Cross Signing and CA Ownership, having permitted cases where EKU |
| // is permitted to not be present at all. These cases are not practical to |
| // differentiate here and therefore we don't attempt to enforce any further |
| // EKU "constraints" on such certificates. Unlike the above cases we also |
| // allow the use of EKU any for client or server auth constraint purposes. |
| |
| switch (required_key_purpose) { |
| case KeyPurpose::ANY_EKU: |
| assert(0); // NOTREACHED |
| return; |
| case KeyPurpose::SERVER_AUTH: |
| case KeyPurpose::SERVER_AUTH_STRICT: { |
| bool nsgc_hack = false; |
| if (has_any_eku && !has_server_auth_eku) { |
| if (is_target_cert || is_target_cert_issuer) { |
| errors->AddWarning(cert_errors::kEkuLacksServerAuthButHasAnyEKU); |
| } else { |
| // Accept anyEKU for server auth below target issuer. |
| has_server_auth_eku = true; |
| } |
| } |
| if (is_target_cert_issuer && !cert.has_extended_key_usage()) { |
| // Accept noEKU for server auth in target issuer. |
| // TODO(bbe): remove this once BR requirements catch up with CA's. |
| has_server_auth_eku = true; |
| } |
| if (has_nsgc && !has_server_auth_eku) { |
| errors->AddWarning(cert_errors::kEkuLacksServerAuthButHasGatedCrypto); |
| |
| // Allow NSGC for legacy RSA SHA1 intermediates, for compatibility |
| // with platform verifiers. |
| // |
| // In practice the chain will be rejected with or without this |
| // compatibility hack. The difference is whether the final error will |
| // be ERR_CERT_WEAK_SIGNATURE_ALGORITHM (with compatibility hack) vs |
| // ERR_CERT_INVALID (without hack). |
| // |
| // TODO(https://crbug.com/843735): Remove this once error-for-error |
| // equivalence between builtin verifier and platform verifier is less |
| // important. |
| if ((cert.has_basic_constraints() && cert.basic_constraints().is_ca) && |
| cert.signature_algorithm() == SignatureAlgorithm::kRsaPkcs1Sha1) { |
| nsgc_hack = true; |
| } |
| } |
| if (required_key_purpose == KeyPurpose::SERVER_AUTH) { |
| // Legacy compatible. |
| if (cert.has_extended_key_usage() && !has_server_auth_eku && |
| !has_any_eku && !nsgc_hack) { |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kEkuLacksServerAuth); |
| } |
| } else { |
| if (!has_server_auth_eku) { |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kEkuLacksServerAuth); |
| } |
| } |
| break; |
| } |
| case KeyPurpose::CLIENT_AUTH: |
| case KeyPurpose::CLIENT_AUTH_STRICT: { |
| if (has_any_eku && !has_client_auth_eku) { |
| if (is_target_cert || is_target_cert_issuer) { |
| errors->AddWarning(cert_errors::kEkuLacksClientAuthButHasAnyEKU); |
| } else { |
| // accept anyEKU for client auth. |
| has_client_auth_eku = true; |
| } |
| } |
| if (required_key_purpose == KeyPurpose::CLIENT_AUTH) { |
| // Legacy-compatible. |
| if (cert.has_extended_key_usage() && !has_client_auth_eku && |
| !has_any_eku) { |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kEkuLacksClientAuth); |
| } |
| } else { |
| if (!has_client_auth_eku) { |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kEkuLacksClientAuth); |
| } |
| } |
| break; |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| |
| // Representation of RFC 5280's "valid_policy_tree", used to keep track of the |
| // valid policies and policy re-mappings. This structure is defined in |
| // section 6.1.2. |
| // |
| // ValidPolicyGraph differs from RFC 5280's description in that: |
| // |
| // (1) It does not track "qualifier_set". This is not needed as it is not |
| // output by this implementation. |
| // |
| // (2) It builds a directed acyclic graph, rather than a tree. When a given |
| // policy matches multiple parents, RFC 5280 makes a separate node for |
| // each parent. This representation condenses them into one node with |
| // multiple parents. |
| // |
| // (3) It does not track "expected_policy_set" or anyPolicy nodes directly. |
| // Rather it maintains, only for the most recent level, whether there is an |
| // anyPolicy node and an inverted map of all "expected_policy_set" values. |
| // |
| // (4) Some pruning steps are deferred to when policies are evaluated, as a |
| // reachability pass. |
| class ValidPolicyGraph { |
| public: |
| ValidPolicyGraph() = default; |
| |
| ValidPolicyGraph(const ValidPolicyGraph&) = delete; |
| ValidPolicyGraph& operator=(const ValidPolicyGraph&) = delete; |
| |
| // A Node is an entry in the policy graph. It contains information about some |
| // policy asserted by a certificate in the chain. The policy OID itself is |
| // omitted because it is the key in the Level map. |
| struct Node { |
| // The list of "valid_policy" values for all nodes which are a parent of |
| // this node, other than anyPolicy. If empty, this node has a single parent, |
| // anyPolicy. |
| // |
| // Nodes whose parent is anyPolicy are root policies, and may be returned |
| // in the authorities-constrained-policy-set. Nodes with a concrete policy |
| // as a parent are derived from that policy in the issuer certificate, |
| // possibly with a policy mapping applied. |
| // |
| // Note it is not possible for a policy to have both anyPolicy and a |
| // concrete policy as a parent. Section 6.1.3, step d.1.ii only runs if |
| // there was no match in step d.1.i. |
| std::vector<der::Input> parent_policies; |
| |
| // Whether this node matches a policy mapping in the certificate. If true, |
| // its "expected_policy_set" comes from the policy mappings extension. If |
| // false, its "expected_policy_set" is itself. |
| bool mapped = false; |
| |
| // Whether this node is reachable from some valid policy in the end-entity |
| // certificate. Computed during GetValidRootPolicySet(). |
| bool reachable = false; |
| }; |
| |
| // The policy graph is organized into "levels", each corresponding to a |
| // certificate in the chain. We maintain a map from "valid_policy" to the |
| // corresponding Node. This is the set of policies asserted by this |
| // certificate. The special anyPolicy OID is handled separately below. |
| using Level = std::map<der::Input, Node>; |
| |
| // Additional per-level information that only needs to be maintained for the |
| // bottom-most level. |
| struct LevelDetails { |
| // Maintains the "expected_policy_set" values for nodes in a level of the |
| // graph, but the map is inverted from RFC 5280's formulation. For a given |
| // policy OID P, other than anyPolicy, this map gives the set of nodes where |
| // P appears in the node's "expected_policy_set". anyPolicy is handled |
| // separately below. |
| std::map<der::Input, std::vector<der::Input>> expected_policy_map; |
| |
| // Whether there is a node at this level whose "valid_policy" is anyPolicy. |
| // |
| // Note anyPolicy's "expected_policy_set" always {anyPolicy}, and anyPolicy |
| // will never appear in the "expected_policy_set" of any other policy. That |
| // means this field also captures how anyPolicy appears in |
| // "expected_policy_set". |
| bool has_any_policy = false; |
| }; |
| |
| // Initializes the ValidPolicyGraph. |
| void Init() { |
| SetNull(); |
| StartLevel(); |
| AddAnyPolicyNode(); |
| } |
| |
| // In RFC 5280 valid_policy_tree may be set to null. That is represented here |
| // by emptiness. |
| bool IsNull() const { |
| return !current_level_.has_any_policy && |
| (levels_.empty() || levels_.back().empty()); |
| } |
| void SetNull() { |
| levels_.clear(); |
| current_level_ = LevelDetails{}; |
| } |
| |
| // Completes the previous level, returning a corresponding LevelDetails |
| // structure, and starts a new level. |
| LevelDetails StartLevel() { |
| // Finish building expected_policy_map for the previous level. |
| if (!levels_.empty()) { |
| for (const auto& [policy, node] : levels_.back()) { |
| if (!node.mapped) { |
| current_level_.expected_policy_map[policy].push_back(policy); |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| |
| LevelDetails prev_level = std::move(current_level_); |
| levels_.emplace_back(); |
| current_level_ = LevelDetails{}; |
| return prev_level; |
| } |
| |
| // Gets the set of policies (in terms of root authority's policy domain) that |
| // are valid at the bottom level of the policy graph, intersected with |
| // |user_initial_policy_set|. This is what X.509 calls |
| // "user-constrained-policy-set". |
| // |
| // This method may only be called once, after the policy graph is constructed. |
| std::set<der::Input> GetUserConstrainedPolicySet( |
| const std::set<der::Input>& user_initial_policy_set) { |
| if (levels_.empty()) { |
| return {}; |
| } |
| |
| bool user_has_any_policy = |
| user_initial_policy_set.count(der::Input(kAnyPolicyOid)) != 0; |
| if (current_level_.has_any_policy) { |
| if (user_has_any_policy) { |
| return {der::Input(kAnyPolicyOid)}; |
| } |
| return user_initial_policy_set; |
| } |
| |
| // The root's policy domain is determined by nodes with anyPolicy as a |
| // parent. However, we must limit to those which are reachable from the |
| // end-entity certificate because we defer some pruning steps. |
| for (auto& [policy, node] : levels_.back()) { |
| // GCC before 8.1 tracks individual unused bindings and does not support |
| // marking them [[maybe_unused]]. |
| (void)policy; |
| node.reachable = true; |
| } |
| std::set<der::Input> policy_set; |
| for (size_t i = levels_.size() - 1; i < levels_.size(); i--) { |
| for (auto& [policy, node] : levels_[i]) { |
| if (!node.reachable) { |
| continue; |
| } |
| if (node.parent_policies.empty()) { |
| // |node|'s parent is anyPolicy, so this is in the root policy domain. |
| // Add it to the set if it is also in user's list. |
| if (user_has_any_policy || |
| user_initial_policy_set.count(policy) > 0) { |
| policy_set.insert(policy); |
| } |
| } else if (i > 0) { |
| // Otherwise, continue searching the previous level. |
| for (der::Input parent : node.parent_policies) { |
| auto iter = levels_[i - 1].find(parent); |
| if (iter != levels_[i - 1].end()) { |
| iter->second.reachable = true; |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| return policy_set; |
| } |
| |
| // Adds a node with policy anyPolicy to the current level. |
| void AddAnyPolicyNode() { |
| assert(!levels_.empty()); |
| current_level_.has_any_policy = true; |
| } |
| |
| // Adds a node to the current level which is a child of |parent_policies| with |
| // the specified policy. |
| void AddNode(der::Input policy, std::vector<der::Input> parent_policies) { |
| assert(policy != der::Input(kAnyPolicyOid)); |
| AddNodeReturningIterator(policy, std::move(parent_policies)); |
| } |
| |
| // Adds a node to the current level which is a child of anyPolicy with the |
| // specified policy. |
| void AddNodeWithParentAnyPolicy(der::Input policy) { |
| // An empty parent set represents a node parented by anyPolicy. |
| AddNode(policy, {}); |
| } |
| |
| // Maps |issuer_policy| to |subject_policy|, as in RFC 5280, section 6.1.4, |
| // step b.1. |
| void AddPolicyMapping(der::Input issuer_policy, der::Input subject_policy) { |
| assert(issuer_policy != der::Input(kAnyPolicyOid)); |
| assert(subject_policy != der::Input(kAnyPolicyOid)); |
| if (levels_.empty()) { |
| return; |
| } |
| |
| // The mapping only applies if |issuer_policy| exists in the current level. |
| auto issuer_policy_iter = levels_.back().find(issuer_policy); |
| if (issuer_policy_iter == levels_.back().end()) { |
| // If there is no match, it can instead match anyPolicy. |
| if (!current_level_.has_any_policy) { |
| return; |
| } |
| |
| // From RFC 5280, section 6.1.4, step b.1: |
| // |
| // If no node of depth i in the valid_policy_tree has a |
| // valid_policy of ID-P but there is a node of depth i with a |
| // valid_policy of anyPolicy, then generate a child node of |
| // the node of depth i-1 that has a valid_policy of anyPolicy |
| // as follows: [...] |
| // |
| // The anyPolicy node of depth i-1 is referring to the parent of the |
| // anyPolicy node of depth i. The parent of anyPolicy is always anyPolicy. |
| issuer_policy_iter = AddNodeReturningIterator(issuer_policy, {}); |
| } |
| |
| // Unmapped nodes have a singleton "expected_policy_set" containing their |
| // valid_policy. Track whether nodes have been mapped so this can be filled |
| // in at StartLevel(). |
| issuer_policy_iter->second.mapped = true; |
| |
| // Add |subject_policy| to |issuer_policy|'s "expected_policy_set". |
| current_level_.expected_policy_map[subject_policy].push_back(issuer_policy); |
| } |
| |
| // Removes the node with the specified policy from the current level. |
| void DeleteNode(der::Input policy) { |
| if (!levels_.empty()) { |
| levels_.back().erase(policy); |
| } |
| } |
| |
| private: |
| Level::iterator AddNodeReturningIterator( |
| der::Input policy, |
| std::vector<der::Input> parent_policies) { |
| assert(policy != der::Input(kAnyPolicyOid)); |
| auto [iter, inserted] = levels_.back().insert( |
| std::pair{policy, Node{std::move(parent_policies)}}); |
| // GCC before 8.1 tracks individual unused bindings and does not support |
| // marking them [[maybe_unused]]. |
| (void)inserted; |
| assert(inserted); |
| return iter; |
| } |
| |
| // The list of levels, starting from the root. |
| std::vector<Level> levels_; |
| // Additional information about the current level. |
| LevelDetails current_level_; |
| }; |
| |
| // Class that encapsulates the state variables used by certificate path |
| // validation. |
| class PathVerifier { |
| public: |
| // Same parameters and meaning as VerifyCertificateChain(). |
| void Run(const ParsedCertificateList& certs, |
| const CertificateTrust& last_cert_trust, |
| VerifyCertificateChainDelegate* delegate, |
| const der::GeneralizedTime& time, |
| KeyPurpose required_key_purpose, |
| InitialExplicitPolicy initial_explicit_policy, |
| const std::set<der::Input>& user_initial_policy_set, |
| InitialPolicyMappingInhibit initial_policy_mapping_inhibit, |
| InitialAnyPolicyInhibit initial_any_policy_inhibit, |
| std::set<der::Input>* user_constrained_policy_set, |
| CertPathErrors* errors); |
| |
| private: |
| // Verifies and updates the valid policies. This corresponds with RFC 5280 |
| // section 6.1.3 steps d-f. |
| void VerifyPolicies(const ParsedCertificate& cert, |
| bool is_target_cert, |
| CertErrors* errors); |
| |
| // Applies the policy mappings. This corresponds with RFC 5280 section 6.1.4 |
| // steps a-b. |
| void VerifyPolicyMappings(const ParsedCertificate& cert, CertErrors* errors); |
| |
| // Applies policyConstraints and inhibitAnyPolicy. This corresponds with RFC |
| // 5280 section 6.1.4 steps i-j. |
| void ApplyPolicyConstraints(const ParsedCertificate& cert); |
| |
| // This function corresponds to RFC 5280 section 6.1.3's "Basic Certificate |
| // Processing" procedure. |
| void BasicCertificateProcessing(const ParsedCertificate& cert, |
| bool is_target_cert, |
| bool is_target_cert_issuer, |
| const der::GeneralizedTime& time, |
| KeyPurpose required_key_purpose, |
| CertErrors* errors, |
| bool* shortcircuit_chain_validation); |
| |
| // This function corresponds to RFC 5280 section 6.1.4's "Preparation for |
| // Certificate i+1" procedure. |cert| is expected to be an intermediate. |
| void PrepareForNextCertificate(const ParsedCertificate& cert, |
| CertErrors* errors); |
| |
| // This function corresponds with RFC 5280 section 6.1.5's "Wrap-Up |
| // Procedure". It does processing for the final certificate (the target cert). |
| void WrapUp(const ParsedCertificate& cert, |
| KeyPurpose required_key_purpose, |
| const std::set<der::Input>& user_initial_policy_set, |
| CertErrors* errors); |
| |
| // Enforces trust anchor constraints compatibile with RFC 5937. |
| // |
| // Note that the anchor constraints are encoded via the attached certificate |
| // itself. |
| void ApplyTrustAnchorConstraints(const ParsedCertificate& cert, |
| KeyPurpose required_key_purpose, |
| CertErrors* errors); |
| |
| // Initializes the path validation algorithm given anchor constraints. This |
| // follows the description in RFC 5937 |
| void ProcessRootCertificate(const ParsedCertificate& cert, |
| const CertificateTrust& trust, |
| const der::GeneralizedTime& time, |
| KeyPurpose required_key_purpose, |
| CertErrors* errors, |
| bool* shortcircuit_chain_validation); |
| |
| // Processes verification when the input is a single certificate. This is not |
| // defined by any standard. We attempt to match the de-facto behaviour of |
| // Operating System verifiers. |
| void ProcessSingleCertChain(const ParsedCertificate& cert, |
| const CertificateTrust& trust, |
| const der::GeneralizedTime& time, |
| KeyPurpose required_key_purpose, |
| CertErrors* errors); |
| |
| // Parses |spki| to an EVP_PKEY and checks whether the public key is accepted |
| // by |delegate_|. On failure parsing returns nullptr. If either parsing the |
| // key or key policy failed, adds a high-severity error to |errors|. |
| bssl::UniquePtr<EVP_PKEY> ParseAndCheckPublicKey(const der::Input& spki, |
| CertErrors* errors); |
| |
| ValidPolicyGraph valid_policy_graph_; |
| |
| std::set<der::Input> user_constrained_policy_set_; |
| |
| // Will contain a NameConstraints for each previous cert in the chain which |
| // had nameConstraints. This corresponds to the permitted_subtrees and |
| // excluded_subtrees state variables from RFC 5280. |
| std::vector<const NameConstraints*> name_constraints_list_; |
| |
| // |explicit_policy_| corresponds with the same named variable from RFC 5280 |
| // section 6.1.2: |
| // |
| // explicit_policy: an integer that indicates if a non-NULL |
| // valid_policy_tree is required. The integer indicates the |
| // number of non-self-issued certificates to be processed before |
| // this requirement is imposed. Once set, this variable may be |
| // decreased, but may not be increased. That is, if a certificate in the |
| // path requires a non-NULL valid_policy_tree, a later certificate cannot |
| // remove this requirement. If initial-explicit-policy is set, then the |
| // initial value is 0, otherwise the initial value is n+1. |
| size_t explicit_policy_; |
| |
| // |inhibit_any_policy_| corresponds with the same named variable from RFC |
| // 5280 section 6.1.2: |
| // |
| // inhibit_anyPolicy: an integer that indicates whether the |
| // anyPolicy policy identifier is considered a match. The |
| // integer indicates the number of non-self-issued certificates |
| // to be processed before the anyPolicy OID, if asserted in a |
| // certificate other than an intermediate self-issued |
| // certificate, is ignored. Once set, this variable may be |
| // decreased, but may not be increased. That is, if a |
| // certificate in the path inhibits processing of anyPolicy, a |
| // later certificate cannot permit it. If initial-any-policy- |
| // inhibit is set, then the initial value is 0, otherwise the |
| // initial value is n+1. |
| size_t inhibit_any_policy_; |
| |
| // |policy_mapping_| corresponds with the same named variable from RFC 5280 |
| // section 6.1.2: |
| // |
| // policy_mapping: an integer that indicates if policy mapping |
| // is permitted. The integer indicates the number of non-self- |
| // issued certificates to be processed before policy mapping is |
| // inhibited. Once set, this variable may be decreased, but may |
| // not be increased. That is, if a certificate in the path |
| // specifies that policy mapping is not permitted, it cannot be |
| // overridden by a later certificate. If initial-policy- |
| // mapping-inhibit is set, then the initial value is 0, |
| // otherwise the initial value is n+1. |
| size_t policy_mapping_; |
| |
| // |working_public_key_| is an amalgamation of 3 separate variables from RFC |
| // 5280: |
| // * working_public_key |
| // * working_public_key_algorithm |
| // * working_public_key_parameters |
| // |
| // They are combined for simplicity since the signature verification takes an |
| // EVP_PKEY, and the parameter inheritence is not applicable for the supported |
| // key types. |working_public_key_| may be null if parsing failed. |
| // |
| // An approximate explanation of |working_public_key_| is this description |
| // from RFC 5280 section 6.1.2: |
| // |
| // working_public_key: the public key used to verify the |
| // signature of a certificate. |
| bssl::UniquePtr<EVP_PKEY> working_public_key_; |
| |
| // |working_normalized_issuer_name_| is the normalized value of the |
| // working_issuer_name variable in RFC 5280 section 6.1.2: |
| // |
| // working_issuer_name: the issuer distinguished name expected |
| // in the next certificate in the chain. |
| der::Input working_normalized_issuer_name_; |
| |
| // |max_path_length_| corresponds with the same named variable in RFC 5280 |
| // section 6.1.2. |
| // |
| // max_path_length: this integer is initialized to n, is |
| // decremented for each non-self-issued certificate in the path, |
| // and may be reduced to the value in the path length constraint |
| // field within the basic constraints extension of a CA |
| // certificate. |
| size_t max_path_length_; |
| |
| VerifyCertificateChainDelegate* delegate_; |
| }; |
| |
| void PathVerifier::VerifyPolicies(const ParsedCertificate& cert, |
| bool is_target_cert, |
| CertErrors* errors) { |
| // From RFC 5280 section 6.1.3: |
| // |
| // (d) If the certificate policies extension is present in the |
| // certificate and the valid_policy_tree is not NULL, process |
| // the policy information by performing the following steps in |
| // order: |
| if (cert.has_policy_oids() && !valid_policy_graph_.IsNull()) { |
| ValidPolicyGraph::LevelDetails previous_level = |
| valid_policy_graph_.StartLevel(); |
| |
| // (1) For each policy P not equal to anyPolicy in the |
| // certificate policies extension, let P-OID denote the OID |
| // for policy P and P-Q denote the qualifier set for policy |
| // P. Perform the following steps in order: |
| bool cert_has_any_policy = false; |
| for (const der::Input& p_oid : cert.policy_oids()) { |
| if (p_oid == der::Input(kAnyPolicyOid)) { |
| cert_has_any_policy = true; |
| continue; |
| } |
| |
| // (i) For each node of depth i-1 in the valid_policy_tree |
| // where P-OID is in the expected_policy_set, create a |
| // child node as follows: set the valid_policy to P-OID, |
| // set the qualifier_set to P-Q, and set the |
| // expected_policy_set to {P-OID}. |
| auto iter = previous_level.expected_policy_map.find(p_oid); |
| if (iter != previous_level.expected_policy_map.end()) { |
| valid_policy_graph_.AddNode( |
| p_oid, /*parent_policies=*/std::move(iter->second)); |
| previous_level.expected_policy_map.erase(iter); |
| } else if (previous_level.has_any_policy) { |
| // (ii) If there was no match in step (i) and the |
| // valid_policy_tree includes a node of depth i-1 with |
| // the valid_policy anyPolicy, generate a child node with |
| // the following values: set the valid_policy to P-OID, |
| // set the qualifier_set to P-Q, and set the |
| // expected_policy_set to {P-OID}. |
| valid_policy_graph_.AddNodeWithParentAnyPolicy(p_oid); |
| } |
| } |
| |
| // (2) If the certificate policies extension includes the policy |
| // anyPolicy with the qualifier set AP-Q and either (a) |
| // inhibit_anyPolicy is greater than 0 or (b) i<n and the |
| // certificate is self-issued, then: |
| // |
| // For each node in the valid_policy_tree of depth i-1, for |
| // each value in the expected_policy_set (including |
| // anyPolicy) that does not appear in a child node, create a |
| // child node with the following values: set the valid_policy |
| // to the value from the expected_policy_set in the parent |
| // node, set the qualifier_set to AP-Q, and set the |
| // expected_policy_set to the value in the valid_policy from |
| // this node. |
| if (cert_has_any_policy && ((inhibit_any_policy_ > 0) || |
| (!is_target_cert && IsSelfIssued(cert)))) { |
| for (auto& [p_oid, parent_policies] : |
| previous_level.expected_policy_map) { |
| valid_policy_graph_.AddNode(p_oid, std::move(parent_policies)); |
| } |
| if (previous_level.has_any_policy) { |
| valid_policy_graph_.AddAnyPolicyNode(); |
| } |
| } |
| |
| // (3) If there is a node in the valid_policy_tree of depth i-1 |
| // or less without any child nodes, delete that node. Repeat |
| // this step until there are no nodes of depth i-1 or less |
| // without children. |
| // |
| // This implementation does this as part of GetUserConstrainedPolicySet(). |
| // Only the current level needs to be pruned to compute the policy graph. |
| } |
| |
| // (e) If the certificate policies extension is not present, set the |
| // valid_policy_tree to NULL. |
| if (!cert.has_policy_oids()) |
| valid_policy_graph_.SetNull(); |
| |
| // (f) Verify that either explicit_policy is greater than 0 or the |
| // valid_policy_tree is not equal to NULL; |
| if (!((explicit_policy_ > 0) || !valid_policy_graph_.IsNull())) |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kNoValidPolicy); |
| } |
| |
| void PathVerifier::VerifyPolicyMappings(const ParsedCertificate& cert, |
| CertErrors* errors) { |
| if (!cert.has_policy_mappings()) |
| return; |
| |
| // From RFC 5280 section 6.1.4: |
| // |
| // (a) If a policy mappings extension is present, verify that the |
| // special value anyPolicy does not appear as an |
| // issuerDomainPolicy or a subjectDomainPolicy. |
| for (const ParsedPolicyMapping& mapping : cert.policy_mappings()) { |
| if (mapping.issuer_domain_policy == der::Input(kAnyPolicyOid) || |
| mapping.subject_domain_policy == der::Input(kAnyPolicyOid)) { |
| // Because this implementation continues processing certificates after |
| // this error, clear the valid policy graph to ensure the |
| // "user_constrained_policy_set" output upon failure is empty. |
| valid_policy_graph_.SetNull(); |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kPolicyMappingAnyPolicy); |
| return; |
| } |
| } |
| |
| // (b) If a policy mappings extension is present, then for each |
| // issuerDomainPolicy ID-P in the policy mappings extension: |
| // |
| // (1) If the policy_mapping variable is greater than 0, for each |
| // node in the valid_policy_tree of depth i where ID-P is the |
| // valid_policy, set expected_policy_set to the set of |
| // subjectDomainPolicy values that are specified as |
| // equivalent to ID-P by the policy mappings extension. |
| // |
| // If no node of depth i in the valid_policy_tree has a |
| // valid_policy of ID-P but there is a node of depth i with a |
| // valid_policy of anyPolicy, then generate a child node of |
| // the node of depth i-1 that has a valid_policy of anyPolicy |
| // as follows: |
| // |
| // (i) set the valid_policy to ID-P; |
| // |
| // (ii) set the qualifier_set to the qualifier set of the |
| // policy anyPolicy in the certificate policies |
| // extension of certificate i; and |
| // |
| // (iii) set the expected_policy_set to the set of |
| // subjectDomainPolicy values that are specified as |
| // equivalent to ID-P by the policy mappings extension. |
| // |
| if (policy_mapping_ > 0) { |
| for (const ParsedPolicyMapping& mapping : cert.policy_mappings()) { |
| valid_policy_graph_.AddPolicyMapping(mapping.issuer_domain_policy, |
| mapping.subject_domain_policy); |
| } |
| } |
| |
| // (b) If a policy mappings extension is present, then for each |
| // issuerDomainPolicy ID-P in the policy mappings extension: |
| // |
| // ... |
| // |
| // (2) If the policy_mapping variable is equal to 0: |
| // |
| // (i) delete each node of depth i in the valid_policy_tree |
| // where ID-P is the valid_policy. |
| // |
| // (ii) If there is a node in the valid_policy_tree of depth |
| // i-1 or less without any child nodes, delete that |
| // node. Repeat this step until there are no nodes of |
| // depth i-1 or less without children. |
| // |
| // Step (ii) is deferred to part of GetUserConstrainedPolicySet(). |
| if (policy_mapping_ == 0) { |
| for (const ParsedPolicyMapping& mapping : cert.policy_mappings()) { |
| valid_policy_graph_.DeleteNode(mapping.issuer_domain_policy); |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| |
| void PathVerifier::ApplyPolicyConstraints(const ParsedCertificate& cert) { |
| // RFC 5280 section 6.1.4 step i-j: |
| // (i) If a policy constraints extension is included in the |
| // certificate, modify the explicit_policy and policy_mapping |
| // state variables as follows: |
| if (cert.has_policy_constraints()) { |
| // (1) If requireExplicitPolicy is present and is less than |
| // explicit_policy, set explicit_policy to the value of |
| // requireExplicitPolicy. |
| if (cert.policy_constraints().require_explicit_policy && |
| cert.policy_constraints().require_explicit_policy.value() < |
| explicit_policy_) { |
| explicit_policy_ = |
| cert.policy_constraints().require_explicit_policy.value(); |
| } |
| |
| // (2) If inhibitPolicyMapping is present and is less than |
| // policy_mapping, set policy_mapping to the value of |
| // inhibitPolicyMapping. |
| if (cert.policy_constraints().inhibit_policy_mapping && |
| cert.policy_constraints().inhibit_policy_mapping.value() < |
| policy_mapping_) { |
| policy_mapping_ = |
| cert.policy_constraints().inhibit_policy_mapping.value(); |
| } |
| } |
| |
| // (j) If the inhibitAnyPolicy extension is included in the |
| // certificate and is less than inhibit_anyPolicy, set |
| // inhibit_anyPolicy to the value of inhibitAnyPolicy. |
| if (cert.has_inhibit_any_policy() && |
| cert.inhibit_any_policy() < inhibit_any_policy_) { |
| inhibit_any_policy_ = cert.inhibit_any_policy(); |
| } |
| } |
| |
| void PathVerifier::BasicCertificateProcessing( |
| const ParsedCertificate& cert, |
| bool is_target_cert, |
| bool is_target_cert_issuer, |
| const der::GeneralizedTime& time, |
| KeyPurpose required_key_purpose, |
| CertErrors* errors, |
| bool* shortcircuit_chain_validation) { |
| *shortcircuit_chain_validation = false; |
| // Check that the signature algorithms in Certificate vs TBSCertificate |
| // match. This isn't part of RFC 5280 section 6.1.3, but is mandated by |
| // sections 4.1.1.2 and 4.1.2.3. |
| if (!VerifySignatureAlgorithmsMatch(cert, errors)) { |
| CHECK(errors->ContainsAnyErrorWithSeverity(CertError::SEVERITY_HIGH)); |
| *shortcircuit_chain_validation = true; |
| } |
| |
| // Check whether this signature algorithm is allowed. |
| if (!cert.signature_algorithm().has_value() || |
| !delegate_->IsSignatureAlgorithmAcceptable(*cert.signature_algorithm(), |
| errors)) { |
| *shortcircuit_chain_validation = true; |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kUnacceptableSignatureAlgorithm); |
| return; |
| } |
| |
| if (working_public_key_) { |
| // Verify the digital signature using the previous certificate's key (RFC |
| // 5280 section 6.1.3 step a.1). |
| if (!VerifySignedData(*cert.signature_algorithm(), |
| cert.tbs_certificate_tlv(), cert.signature_value(), |
| working_public_key_.get(), |
| delegate_->GetVerifyCache())) { |
| *shortcircuit_chain_validation = true; |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kVerifySignedDataFailed); |
| } |
| } |
| if (*shortcircuit_chain_validation) |
| return; |
| |
| // Check the time range for the certificate's validity, ensuring it is valid |
| // at |time|. |
| // (RFC 5280 section 6.1.3 step a.2) |
| VerifyTimeValidity(cert, time, errors); |
| |
| // RFC 5280 section 6.1.3 step a.3 calls for checking the certificate's |
| // revocation status here. In this implementation revocation checking is |
| // implemented separately from path validation. |
| |
| // Verify the certificate's issuer name matches the issuing certificate's |
| // subject name. (RFC 5280 section 6.1.3 step a.4) |
| if (cert.normalized_issuer() != working_normalized_issuer_name_) |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kSubjectDoesNotMatchIssuer); |
| |
| // Name constraints (RFC 5280 section 6.1.3 step b & c) |
| // If certificate i is self-issued and it is not the final certificate in the |
| // path, skip this step for certificate i. |
| if (!name_constraints_list_.empty() && |
| (!IsSelfIssued(cert) || is_target_cert)) { |
| for (const NameConstraints* nc : name_constraints_list_) { |
| nc->IsPermittedCert(cert.normalized_subject(), cert.subject_alt_names(), |
| errors); |
| } |
| } |
| |
| // RFC 5280 section 6.1.3 step d - f. |
| VerifyPolicies(cert, is_target_cert, errors); |
| |
| // The key purpose is checked not just for the end-entity certificate, but |
| // also interpreted as a constraint when it appears in intermediates. This |
| // goes beyond what RFC 5280 describes, but is the de-facto standard. See |
| // https://wiki.mozilla.org/CA:CertificatePolicyV2.1#Frequently_Asked_Questions |
| VerifyExtendedKeyUsage(cert, required_key_purpose, errors, is_target_cert, |
| is_target_cert_issuer); |
| } |
| |
| void PathVerifier::PrepareForNextCertificate(const ParsedCertificate& cert, |
| CertErrors* errors) { |
| // RFC 5280 section 6.1.4 step a-b |
| VerifyPolicyMappings(cert, errors); |
| |
| // From RFC 5280 section 6.1.4 step c: |
| // |
| // Assign the certificate subject name to working_normalized_issuer_name. |
| working_normalized_issuer_name_ = cert.normalized_subject(); |
| |
| // From RFC 5280 section 6.1.4 step d: |
| // |
| // Assign the certificate subjectPublicKey to working_public_key. |
| working_public_key_ = ParseAndCheckPublicKey(cert.tbs().spki_tlv, errors); |
| |
| // Note that steps e and f are omitted as they are handled by |
| // the assignment to |working_spki| above. See the definition |
| // of |working_spki|. |
| |
| // From RFC 5280 section 6.1.4 step g: |
| if (cert.has_name_constraints()) |
| name_constraints_list_.push_back(&cert.name_constraints()); |
| |
| // (h) If certificate i is not self-issued: |
| if (!IsSelfIssued(cert)) { |
| // (1) If explicit_policy is not 0, decrement explicit_policy by |
| // 1. |
| if (explicit_policy_ > 0) |
| explicit_policy_ -= 1; |
| |
| // (2) If policy_mapping is not 0, decrement policy_mapping by 1. |
| if (policy_mapping_ > 0) |
| policy_mapping_ -= 1; |
| |
| // (3) If inhibit_anyPolicy is not 0, decrement inhibit_anyPolicy |
| // by 1. |
| if (inhibit_any_policy_ > 0) |
| inhibit_any_policy_ -= 1; |
| } |
| |
| // RFC 5280 section 6.1.4 step i-j: |
| ApplyPolicyConstraints(cert); |
| |
| // From RFC 5280 section 6.1.4 step k: |
| // |
| // If certificate i is a version 3 certificate, verify that the |
| // basicConstraints extension is present and that cA is set to |
| // TRUE. (If certificate i is a version 1 or version 2 |
| // certificate, then the application MUST either verify that |
| // certificate i is a CA certificate through out-of-band means |
| // or reject the certificate. Conforming implementations may |
| // choose to reject all version 1 and version 2 intermediate |
| // certificates.) |
| // |
| // This code implicitly rejects non version 3 intermediates, since they |
| // can't contain a BasicConstraints extension. |
| if (!cert.has_basic_constraints()) { |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kMissingBasicConstraints); |
| } else if (!cert.basic_constraints().is_ca) { |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kBasicConstraintsIndicatesNotCa); |
| } |
| |
| // From RFC 5280 section 6.1.4 step l: |
| // |
| // If the certificate was not self-issued, verify that |
| // max_path_length is greater than zero and decrement |
| // max_path_length by 1. |
| if (!IsSelfIssued(cert)) { |
| if (max_path_length_ == 0) { |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kMaxPathLengthViolated); |
| } else { |
| --max_path_length_; |
| } |
| } |
| |
| // From RFC 5280 section 6.1.4 step m: |
| // |
| // If pathLenConstraint is present in the certificate and is |
| // less than max_path_length, set max_path_length to the value |
| // of pathLenConstraint. |
| if (cert.has_basic_constraints() && cert.basic_constraints().has_path_len && |
| cert.basic_constraints().path_len < max_path_length_) { |
| max_path_length_ = cert.basic_constraints().path_len; |
| } |
| |
| // From RFC 5280 section 6.1.4 step n: |
| // |
| // If a key usage extension is present, verify that the |
| // keyCertSign bit is set. |
| if (cert.has_key_usage() && |
| !cert.key_usage().AssertsBit(KEY_USAGE_BIT_KEY_CERT_SIGN)) { |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kKeyCertSignBitNotSet); |
| } |
| |
| // From RFC 5280 section 6.1.4 step o: |
| // |
| // Recognize and process any other critical extension present in |
| // the certificate. Process any other recognized non-critical |
| // extension present in the certificate that is relevant to path |
| // processing. |
| VerifyNoUnconsumedCriticalExtensions(cert, errors); |
| } |
| |
| // Checks if the target certificate has the CA bit set. If it does, add |
| // the appropriate error or warning to |errors|. |
| void VerifyTargetCertIsNotCA(const ParsedCertificate& cert, |
| KeyPurpose required_key_purpose, |
| CertErrors* errors) { |
| if (cert.has_basic_constraints() && cert.basic_constraints().is_ca) { |
| // In spite of RFC 5280 4.2.1.9 which says the CA properties MAY exist in |
| // an end entity certificate, the CABF Baseline Requirements version |
| // 1.8.4, 7.1.2.3(d) prohibit the CA bit being set in an end entity |
| // certificate. |
| switch (required_key_purpose) { |
| case KeyPurpose::ANY_EKU: |
| break; |
| case KeyPurpose::SERVER_AUTH: |
| case KeyPurpose::CLIENT_AUTH: |
| errors->AddWarning(cert_errors::kTargetCertShouldNotBeCa); |
| break; |
| case KeyPurpose::SERVER_AUTH_STRICT: |
| case KeyPurpose::CLIENT_AUTH_STRICT: |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kTargetCertShouldNotBeCa); |
| break; |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| |
| void PathVerifier::WrapUp(const ParsedCertificate& cert, |
| KeyPurpose required_key_purpose, |
| const std::set<der::Input>& user_initial_policy_set, |
| CertErrors* errors) { |
| // From RFC 5280 section 6.1.5: |
| // (a) If explicit_policy is not 0, decrement explicit_policy by 1. |
| if (explicit_policy_ > 0) |
| explicit_policy_ -= 1; |
| |
| // (b) If a policy constraints extension is included in the |
| // certificate and requireExplicitPolicy is present and has a |
| // value of 0, set the explicit_policy state variable to 0. |
| if (cert.has_policy_constraints() && |
| cert.policy_constraints().require_explicit_policy.has_value() && |
| cert.policy_constraints().require_explicit_policy == 0) { |
| explicit_policy_ = 0; |
| } |
| |
| // Note step c-e are omitted as the verification function does |
| // not output the working public key. |
| |
| // From RFC 5280 section 6.1.5 step f: |
| // |
| // Recognize and process any other critical extension present in |
| // the certificate n. Process any other recognized non-critical |
| // extension present in certificate n that is relevant to path |
| // processing. |
| // |
| // Note that this is duplicated by PrepareForNextCertificate() so as to |
| // directly match the procedures in RFC 5280's section 6.1. |
| VerifyNoUnconsumedCriticalExtensions(cert, errors); |
| |
| // This calculates the intersection from RFC 5280 section 6.1.5 step g, as |
| // well as applying the deferred recursive node that were skipped earlier in |
| // the process. |
| user_constrained_policy_set_ = |
| valid_policy_graph_.GetUserConstrainedPolicySet(user_initial_policy_set); |
| |
| // From RFC 5280 section 6.1.5 step g: |
| // |
| // If either (1) the value of explicit_policy variable is greater than |
| // zero or (2) the valid_policy_tree is not NULL, then path processing |
| // has succeeded. |
| if (explicit_policy_ == 0 && user_constrained_policy_set_.empty()) { |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kNoValidPolicy); |
| } |
| |
| // The following check is NOT part of RFC 5280 6.1.5's "Wrap-Up Procedure", |
| // however is implied by RFC 5280 section 4.2.1.9, as well as CABF Base |
| // Requirements. |
| VerifyTargetCertIsNotCA(cert, required_key_purpose, errors); |
| |
| // Check the public key for the target certificate. The public key for the |
| // other certificates is already checked by PrepareForNextCertificate(). |
| // Note that this step is not part of RFC 5280 6.1.5. |
| ParseAndCheckPublicKey(cert.tbs().spki_tlv, errors); |
| } |
| |
| void PathVerifier::ApplyTrustAnchorConstraints(const ParsedCertificate& cert, |
| KeyPurpose required_key_purpose, |
| CertErrors* errors) { |
| // If certificatePolicies is present, process the policies. This matches the |
| // handling for intermediates from RFC 5280 section 6.1.3.d (except that for |
| // intermediates it is non-optional). It intentionally deviates from RFC 5937 |
| // section 3.2 which says to intersect with user-initial-policy-set, since |
| // processing as part of user-initial-policy-set has subtly different |
| // semantics from being handled as part of the chain processing (see |
| // https://crbug.com/1403258). |
| if (cert.has_policy_oids()) { |
| VerifyPolicies(cert, /*is_target_cert=*/false, errors); |
| } |
| |
| // Process policyMappings, if present. This matches the handling for |
| // intermediates from RFC 5280 section 6.1.4 step a-b. |
| VerifyPolicyMappings(cert, errors); |
| |
| // Process policyConstraints and inhibitAnyPolicy. This matches the |
| // handling for intermediates from RFC 5280 section 6.1.4 step i-j. |
| // This intentionally deviates from RFC 5937 section 3.2 which says to |
| // initialize the initial-any-policy-inhibit, initial-explicit-policy, and/or |
| // initial-policy-mapping-inhibit inputs to verification. Those are all |
| // bools, so they cannot properly represent the constraints encoded in the |
| // policyConstraints and inhibitAnyPolicy extensions. |
| ApplyPolicyConstraints(cert); |
| |
| // If keyUsage is present, verify that |cert| has correct keyUsage bits for a |
| // CA. This matches the handling for intermediates from RFC 5280 section |
| // 6.1.4 step n. |
| if (cert.has_key_usage() && |
| !cert.key_usage().AssertsBit(KEY_USAGE_BIT_KEY_CERT_SIGN)) { |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kKeyCertSignBitNotSet); |
| } |
| |
| // This is not part of RFC 5937 nor RFC 5280, but matches the EKU handling |
| // done for intermediates (described in Web PKI's Baseline Requirements). |
| VerifyExtendedKeyUsage(cert, required_key_purpose, errors, |
| /*is_target_cert=*/false, |
| /*is_target_cert_issuer=*/false); |
| |
| // The following enforcements follow from RFC 5937 (primarily section 3.2): |
| |
| // Initialize name constraints initial-permitted/excluded-subtrees. |
| if (cert.has_name_constraints()) |
| name_constraints_list_.push_back(&cert.name_constraints()); |
| |
| if (cert.has_basic_constraints()) { |
| // Enforce CA=true if basicConstraints is present. This matches behavior of |
| // other verifiers, and seems like a good thing to do to avoid a |
| // certificate being used in the wrong context if it was specifically |
| // marked as not being a CA. |
| if (!cert.basic_constraints().is_ca) { |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kBasicConstraintsIndicatesNotCa); |
| } |
| // From RFC 5937 section 3.2: |
| // |
| // If a basic constraints extension is associated with the trust |
| // anchor and contains a pathLenConstraint value, set the |
| // max_path_length state variable equal to the pathLenConstraint |
| // value from the basic constraints extension. |
| // |
| if (cert.basic_constraints().has_path_len) { |
| max_path_length_ = cert.basic_constraints().path_len; |
| } |
| } |
| |
| // From RFC 5937 section 2: |
| // |
| // Extensions may be marked critical or not critical. When trust anchor |
| // constraints are enforced, clients MUST reject certification paths |
| // containing a trust anchor with unrecognized critical extensions. |
| VerifyNoUnconsumedCriticalExtensions(cert, errors); |
| } |
| |
| void PathVerifier::ProcessRootCertificate(const ParsedCertificate& cert, |
| const CertificateTrust& trust, |
| const der::GeneralizedTime& time, |
| KeyPurpose required_key_purpose, |
| CertErrors* errors, |
| bool* shortcircuit_chain_validation) { |
| *shortcircuit_chain_validation = false; |
| switch (trust.type) { |
| case CertificateTrustType::UNSPECIFIED: |
| case CertificateTrustType::TRUSTED_LEAF: |
| // Doesn't chain to a trust anchor - implicitly distrusted |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kCertIsNotTrustAnchor); |
| *shortcircuit_chain_validation = true; |
| break; |
| case CertificateTrustType::DISTRUSTED: |
| // Chains to an actively distrusted certificate. |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kDistrustedByTrustStore); |
| *shortcircuit_chain_validation = true; |
| break; |
| case CertificateTrustType::TRUSTED_ANCHOR: |
| case CertificateTrustType::TRUSTED_ANCHOR_OR_LEAF: |
| break; |
| } |
| if (*shortcircuit_chain_validation) |
| return; |
| |
| if (trust.enforce_anchor_expiry) { |
| VerifyTimeValidity(cert, time, errors); |
| } |
| if (trust.enforce_anchor_constraints) { |
| if (trust.require_anchor_basic_constraints && |
| !cert.has_basic_constraints()) { |
| switch (cert.tbs().version) { |
| case CertificateVersion::V1: |
| case CertificateVersion::V2: |
| break; |
| case CertificateVersion::V3: |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kMissingBasicConstraints); |
| break; |
| } |
| } |
| ApplyTrustAnchorConstraints(cert, required_key_purpose, errors); |
| } |
| |
| // Use the certificate's SPKI and subject when verifying the next certificate. |
| working_public_key_ = ParseAndCheckPublicKey(cert.tbs().spki_tlv, errors); |
| working_normalized_issuer_name_ = cert.normalized_subject(); |
| } |
| |
| void PathVerifier::ProcessSingleCertChain(const ParsedCertificate& cert, |
| const CertificateTrust& trust, |
| const der::GeneralizedTime& time, |
| KeyPurpose required_key_purpose, |
| CertErrors* errors) { |
| switch (trust.type) { |
| case CertificateTrustType::UNSPECIFIED: |
| case CertificateTrustType::TRUSTED_ANCHOR: |
| // Target doesn't have a chain and isn't a directly trusted leaf - |
| // implicitly distrusted. |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kCertIsNotTrustAnchor); |
| return; |
| case CertificateTrustType::DISTRUSTED: |
| // Target is directly distrusted. |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kDistrustedByTrustStore); |
| return; |
| case CertificateTrustType::TRUSTED_LEAF: |
| case CertificateTrustType::TRUSTED_ANCHOR_OR_LEAF: |
| break; |
| } |
| |
| // Check the public key for the target certificate regardless of whether |
| // `require_leaf_selfsigned` is true. This matches the check in WrapUp and |
| // fulfills the documented behavior of the IsPublicKeyAcceptable delegate. |
| ParseAndCheckPublicKey(cert.tbs().spki_tlv, errors); |
| |
| if (trust.require_leaf_selfsigned) { |
| if (!VerifyCertificateIsSelfSigned(cert, delegate_->GetVerifyCache(), |
| errors)) { |
| // VerifyCertificateIsSelfSigned should have added an error, but just |
| // double check to be safe. |
| if (!errors->ContainsAnyErrorWithSeverity(CertError::SEVERITY_HIGH)) { |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kInternalError); |
| } |
| return; |
| } |
| } |
| |
| // There is no standard for what it means to verify a directly trusted leaf |
| // certificate, so this is basically just checking common sense things that |
| // also mirror what we observed to be enforced with the Operating System |
| // native verifiers. |
| VerifyTimeValidity(cert, time, errors); |
| VerifyExtendedKeyUsage(cert, required_key_purpose, errors, |
| /*is_target_cert=*/true, |
| /*is_target_cert_issuer=*/false); |
| |
| // Checking for unknown critical extensions matches Windows, but is stricter |
| // than the Mac verifier. |
| VerifyNoUnconsumedCriticalExtensions(cert, errors); |
| } |
| |
| bssl::UniquePtr<EVP_PKEY> PathVerifier::ParseAndCheckPublicKey( |
| const der::Input& spki, |
| CertErrors* errors) { |
| // Parse the public key. |
| bssl::UniquePtr<EVP_PKEY> pkey; |
| if (!ParsePublicKey(spki, &pkey)) { |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kFailedParsingSpki); |
| return nullptr; |
| } |
| |
| // Check if the key is acceptable by the delegate. |
| if (!delegate_->IsPublicKeyAcceptable(pkey.get(), errors)) |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kUnacceptablePublicKey); |
| |
| return pkey; |
| } |
| |
| void PathVerifier::Run( |
| const ParsedCertificateList& certs, |
| const CertificateTrust& last_cert_trust, |
| VerifyCertificateChainDelegate* delegate, |
| const der::GeneralizedTime& time, |
| KeyPurpose required_key_purpose, |
| InitialExplicitPolicy initial_explicit_policy, |
| const std::set<der::Input>& user_initial_policy_set, |
| InitialPolicyMappingInhibit initial_policy_mapping_inhibit, |
| InitialAnyPolicyInhibit initial_any_policy_inhibit, |
| std::set<der::Input>* user_constrained_policy_set, |
| CertPathErrors* errors) { |
| // This implementation is structured to mimic the description of certificate |
| // path verification given by RFC 5280 section 6.1. |
| DCHECK(delegate); |
| DCHECK(errors); |
| |
| delegate_ = delegate; |
| |
| // An empty chain is necessarily invalid. |
| if (certs.empty()) { |
| errors->GetOtherErrors()->AddError(cert_errors::kChainIsEmpty); |
| return; |
| } |
| |
| // Verifying a trusted leaf certificate isn't a well-specified operation, so |
| // it's handled separately from the RFC 5280 defined verification process. |
| if (certs.size() == 1) { |
| ProcessSingleCertChain(*certs.front(), last_cert_trust, time, |
| required_key_purpose, errors->GetErrorsForCert(0)); |
| return; |
| } |
| |
| // RFC 5280's "n" variable is the length of the path, which does not count |
| // the trust anchor. (Although in practice it doesn't really change behaviors |
| // if n is used in place of n+1). |
| const size_t n = certs.size() - 1; |
| |
| valid_policy_graph_.Init(); |
| |
| // RFC 5280 section section 6.1.2: |
| // |
| // If initial-explicit-policy is set, then the initial value |
| // [of explicit_policy] is 0, otherwise the initial value is n+1. |
| explicit_policy_ = |
| initial_explicit_policy == InitialExplicitPolicy::kTrue ? 0 : n + 1; |
| |
| // RFC 5280 section section 6.1.2: |
| // |
| // If initial-any-policy-inhibit is set, then the initial value |
| // [of inhibit_anyPolicy] is 0, otherwise the initial value is n+1. |
| inhibit_any_policy_ = |
| initial_any_policy_inhibit == InitialAnyPolicyInhibit::kTrue ? 0 : n + 1; |
| |
| // RFC 5280 section section 6.1.2: |
| // |
| // If initial-policy-mapping-inhibit is set, then the initial value |
| // [of policy_mapping] is 0, otherwise the initial value is n+1. |
| policy_mapping_ = |
| initial_policy_mapping_inhibit == InitialPolicyMappingInhibit::kTrue |
| ? 0 |
| : n + 1; |
| |
| // RFC 5280 section section 6.1.2: |
| // |
| // max_path_length: this integer is initialized to n, ... |
| max_path_length_ = n; |
| |
| // Iterate over all the certificates in the reverse direction: starting from |
| // the root certificate and progressing towards the target certificate. |
| // |
| // * i=0 : Root certificate (i.e. trust anchor) |
| // * i=1 : Certificate issued by root |
| // * i=x : Certificate i=x is issued by certificate i=x-1 |
| // * i=n : Target certificate. |
| for (size_t i = 0; i < certs.size(); ++i) { |
| const size_t index_into_certs = certs.size() - i - 1; |
| |
| // |is_target_cert| is true if the current certificate is the target |
| // certificate being verified. The target certificate isn't necessarily an |
| // end-entity certificate. |
| const bool is_target_cert = index_into_certs == 0; |
| const bool is_target_cert_issuer = index_into_certs == 1; |
| const bool is_root_cert = i == 0; |
| |
| const ParsedCertificate& cert = *certs[index_into_certs]; |
| |
| // Output errors for the current certificate into an error bucket that is |
| // associated with that certificate. |
| CertErrors* cert_errors = errors->GetErrorsForCert(index_into_certs); |
| |
| if (is_root_cert) { |
| bool shortcircuit_chain_validation = false; |
| ProcessRootCertificate(cert, last_cert_trust, time, required_key_purpose, |
| cert_errors, &shortcircuit_chain_validation); |
| if (shortcircuit_chain_validation) { |
| // Chains that don't start from a trusted root should short-circuit the |
| // rest of the verification, as accumulating more errors from untrusted |
| // certificates would not be meaningful. |
| CHECK(cert_errors->ContainsAnyErrorWithSeverity( |
| CertError::SEVERITY_HIGH)); |
| return; |
| } |
| |
| // Don't do any other checks for root certificates. |
| continue; |
| } |
| |
| bool shortcircuit_chain_validation = false; |
| // Per RFC 5280 section 6.1: |
| // * Do basic processing for each certificate |
| // * If it is the last certificate in the path (target certificate) |
| // - Then run "Wrap up" |
| // - Otherwise run "Prepare for Next cert" |
| BasicCertificateProcessing(cert, is_target_cert, is_target_cert_issuer, |
| time, required_key_purpose, cert_errors, |
| &shortcircuit_chain_validation); |
| if (shortcircuit_chain_validation) { |
| // Signature errors should short-circuit the rest of the verification, as |
| // accumulating more errors from untrusted certificates would not be |
| // meaningful. |
| CHECK( |
| cert_errors->ContainsAnyErrorWithSeverity(CertError::SEVERITY_HIGH)); |
| return; |
| } |
| if (!is_target_cert) { |
| PrepareForNextCertificate(cert, cert_errors); |
| } else { |
| WrapUp(cert, required_key_purpose, user_initial_policy_set, cert_errors); |
| } |
| } |
| |
| if (user_constrained_policy_set) { |
| *user_constrained_policy_set = user_constrained_policy_set_; |
| } |
| |
| // TODO(eroman): RFC 5280 forbids duplicate certificates per section 6.1: |
| // |
| // A certificate MUST NOT appear more than once in a prospective |
| // certification path. |
| } |
| |
| } // namespace |
| |
| VerifyCertificateChainDelegate::~VerifyCertificateChainDelegate() = default; |
| |
| void VerifyCertificateChain( |
| const ParsedCertificateList& certs, |
| const CertificateTrust& last_cert_trust, |
| VerifyCertificateChainDelegate* delegate, |
| const der::GeneralizedTime& time, |
| KeyPurpose required_key_purpose, |
| InitialExplicitPolicy initial_explicit_policy, |
| const std::set<der::Input>& user_initial_policy_set, |
| InitialPolicyMappingInhibit initial_policy_mapping_inhibit, |
| InitialAnyPolicyInhibit initial_any_policy_inhibit, |
| std::set<der::Input>* user_constrained_policy_set, |
| CertPathErrors* errors) { |
| PathVerifier verifier; |
| verifier.Run(certs, last_cert_trust, delegate, time, required_key_purpose, |
| initial_explicit_policy, user_initial_policy_set, |
| initial_policy_mapping_inhibit, initial_any_policy_inhibit, |
| user_constrained_policy_set, errors); |
| } |
| |
| bool VerifyCertificateIsSelfSigned(const ParsedCertificate& cert, |
| SignatureVerifyCache* cache, |
| CertErrors* errors) { |
| if (cert.normalized_subject() != cert.normalized_issuer()) { |
| if (errors) { |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kSubjectDoesNotMatchIssuer); |
| } |
| return false; |
| } |
| |
| // Note that we do not restrict the available algorithms when determining if |
| // something is a self-signed cert. The signature isn't very important on a |
| // self-signed cert so just allow any supported algorithm here, to avoid |
| // breakage. |
| if (!cert.signature_algorithm().has_value()) { |
| if (errors) { |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kUnacceptableSignatureAlgorithm); |
| } |
| return false; |
| } |
| |
| if (!VerifySignedData(*cert.signature_algorithm(), cert.tbs_certificate_tlv(), |
| cert.signature_value(), cert.tbs().spki_tlv, cache)) { |
| if (errors) { |
| errors->AddError(cert_errors::kVerifySignedDataFailed); |
| } |
| return false; |
| } |
| |
| return true; |
| } |
| |
| } // namespace net |
