Span  Span Interoperability: Specialized Thought Santosh Chokhani (chokhani@orionsec).


151 views
Uploaded on:
Description
Span  Span Interoperability: Specialized Thought Santosh Chokhani (chokhani@orionsec.com) Blueprint of Presentation Performing Cross Accreditation Safely Reciprocal Extension Span  Span Way Disclosure and Way Approval Challenges OCSP Contemplations
Transcripts
Slide 1

Span  Bridge Interoperability: Technical Consideration Santosh Chokhani (chokhani@orionsec.com)

Slide 2

Outline of Presentation Performing Cross Certification Securely Bilateral Bridge  Bridge Path Discovery and Path Validation Challenges OCSP Considerations SCVP Considerations Practical Considerations Impact on Certificate Policies Summary

Slide 3

Scope of this presentation restricted to specialized points e.g., arrangement equivalency mapping not tended to Use nameConstraints augmentation to guarantee that the depending gatherings in your area just trust authentications issued to the names fitting for the cross ensured space Set inhibitPolicyMapping, skipCerts = 0 so you don\'t trust different areas cross affirmed by the “cross-confirmed domain” If you need to believe those different areas, you will cross confirm with them. As it were, trust is two-sided, as different business connections. Applies to Enterprise, Bridge and B B Environments likewise Need a procedure for arrangement affirmation. Samples: PKI declares every single lower policie additionally Cross endorsement maps a low arrangement to every single higher policie likewise Applications incorporate every higher policie in worthy strategy set Cross Certification: Bilateral

Slide 4

Bridge utilizes permittedSubtrees field as a part of nameConstraints augmentation to apportion name spaces to PCA areas properly PCA sets inhibitPolicyMapping, skipCerts = 1 so Bridge can guide to different spaces, however different spaces can not What if Bridge  Bridge connection is taken? Imagine a scenario in which the old thought of Bridge film gets to be reality. Scaffold sets inhibitPolicyMapping, skipCerts = 0 in PCA testaments Cross Certification: Bridge

Slide 5

PCA PKI Trust Model: Bridge PCA Bridge CA PCA

Slide 6

Bridges will be unable to utilize nameConstraints expansion to designate name spaces to different Bridges Too numerous disjoint name spaces Bridges can guarantee two-sided Bridge  Bridge interoperability by: Using excludedSubtrees that declares names of every single other Bridge in a Bridge declaration By stating inhibitPolicyMapping, skipCerts = 1 in Bridge endorsements PCA sets inhibitPolicyMapping, skipCerts = 2 so Bridge can guide to different Bridges May not be as valuable since Bridges can be trusted to do this effectively Bridge sets inhibitPolicyMapping, skipCerts = 0 in PCA endorsements Bridge sets inhibitPolicyMapping, skipCerts = 1 in Bridge declarations Cross Certification: Bridge  Bridge

Slide 7

PCA EBCA FBCA SBCA PCA PKI Trust Model: Bridge  Bridge PCA CBCA

Slide 8

Inhibit Policy Mapping Examples skipCerts = 0 PCA m PCA n skipCerts = 1 Bridge CA PCA n PCA m Bridge CA 2 Bridge CA 1 PCA n PCA m skipCerts = 2 Rely on the Bridges to set skipCerts = 0 on active circular segments to the PCAs

Slide 9

See the Internet Informational RFC 4158 Using DNS sidetrack, distribute the accompanying in your space “Bridge CA testaments issued by you only” in the Bridge p7c record and/or in the Bridge CA index passage Bridge CA Certificate contingent upon which Bridge you are cross affirmed with (in p7c and/or in the Bridge CA catalog section) If your area is cross confirmed by a Bridge, just distribute endorsement issued by you and no different Bridges or PCAs Else, just distribute the declaration issued by the Bridge you are cross affirmed with at the end of the day For I = 1 to n, Bridge I p7c/cACertificate = Your PCA  Bridge I or Bridge I p7c/cACertificate = Bridge X such that Bridge X  Your PCA is not invalid These measures will encourage select the way to your PCA just and that is the thing that you need Certification Path Discovery Challenges

Slide 10

No more than different situations Same principles apply More on business item confinements under “Practical Considerations” Certification Path Validation Challenges

Slide 11

Local arrangement model (e.g., trust stay) methodology does not scale well for Bridge environment Need to utilize Delegated or CA model Or utilization CRL and not OCSP SAFE requires OCSP Considerations

Slide 12

No more than different situations SCVP Server must have the capacity to fabricate and check ways for different trust models SCVP Considerations

Slide 13

Limitations of business items as far as confirmation way improvement Some oblige the utilization of AIA caIssuers field Some Browsers unduly assemble ways to roots sent by a Server Implies you can not construct ways and thus verify yourself over a Bridge Limitations of business items as far as accreditation way approval Some of the most usually utilized items don\'t finish a significant number of the PKITS tests, extraordinarily in the region of name imperatives and approach handling Need to push the sellers to conform to RFC 3280 and breeze through PKITS or PD-VAL tests CAPI conduct if two or more trust grapples from Bridge environment are in the trust store MSFT mindful and extremely responsive Practical Considerations

Slide 14

Shared Service suppliers rundown of enumerable name spaces for affirmation in nameConstraints augmentation may be too long Alternative One: Use name subordination utilizing Shared Service Provider CA name Alternative Two: Do the accompanying\'s majority PCA issues CA authentications with pathLengthConstraint = 0 CA names are followed or doled out utilizing some system for the advantage of all Bridges to procedurally guarantee that CA names don\'t impact Use CA programming controls to characterize name spaces for which the CA issues endorsements CA guarantees that names alloted to an association are fitting for the association Practical Considerations

Slide 15

Bridge CP ought to address PCA Domain (otherwise called Entity) PKI necessities This is tended to unevenly by the present Bridge CPs Address the mutual administration supplier CA name space and way length prerequisites Impact on Certificate Policy

Slide 16

Rely on the Bridge to attest inhibitPolicyMapping, skipCerts =0 for PCA testaments Rely on nameConstraints at whatever point conceivable Assert names of different Bridges in excludedSubtrees field of Bridge  Bridge endorsement Press PK enablement toolboxs and item merchants to consent to RFC 3280 and PD-VAL Beef up Bridge CP necessities to address Entity PKI necessities Name uniqueness is vital Have a technique for PCA name space coordination Have a methodology for shared administration supplier CA name space coordination if name limitations are not forced on shared administration supplier CAs Have a stretagy for approach attestations Have a system for OCSP interoperability DNS divert for AIA or LDAP passages assists massively with computational intricacy of confirmation wa

Recommended
View more...