mirror of
https://github.com/klzgrad/naiveproxy.git
synced 2024-11-24 14:26:09 +03:00
1331 lines
53 KiB
C++
1331 lines
53 KiB
C++
// Copyright 2015 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
|
|
// Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
|
|
// found in the LICENSE file.
|
|
|
|
#include "net/cert/internal/verify_certificate_chain.h"
|
|
|
|
#include <algorithm>
|
|
|
|
#include "base/logging.h"
|
|
#include "net/cert/internal/cert_error_params.h"
|
|
#include "net/cert/internal/cert_errors.h"
|
|
#include "net/cert/internal/common_cert_errors.h"
|
|
#include "net/cert/internal/extended_key_usage.h"
|
|
#include "net/cert/internal/name_constraints.h"
|
|
#include "net/cert/internal/parse_certificate.h"
|
|
#include "net/cert/internal/signature_algorithm.h"
|
|
#include "net/cert/internal/trust_store.h"
|
|
#include "net/cert/internal/verify_signed_data.h"
|
|
#include "net/der/input.h"
|
|
#include "net/der/parser.h"
|
|
|
|
namespace net {
|
|
|
|
namespace {
|
|
|
|
bool IsHandledCriticalExtension(const ParsedExtension& extension) {
|
|
if (extension.oid == BasicConstraintsOid())
|
|
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 == KeyUsageOid())
|
|
return true;
|
|
if (extension.oid == ExtKeyUsageOid())
|
|
return true;
|
|
if (extension.oid == NameConstraintsOid())
|
|
return true;
|
|
if (extension.oid == SubjectAltNameOid())
|
|
return true;
|
|
if (extension.oid == CertificatePoliciesOid()) {
|
|
// 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 ParseCertificatePoliciesExtension(
|
|
extension.value, true /*fail_parsing_unknown_qualifier_oids*/,
|
|
&unused_policies, &unused_errors);
|
|
|
|
// TODO(eroman): Give a better error message.
|
|
}
|
|
if (extension.oid == PolicyMappingsOid())
|
|
return true;
|
|
if (extension.oid == PolicyConstraintsOid())
|
|
return true;
|
|
if (extension.oid == InhibitAnyPolicyOid())
|
|
return true;
|
|
|
|
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)) {
|
|
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.
|
|
WARN_UNUSED_RESULT 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.
|
|
if (SignatureAlgorithm::IsEquivalent(alg1_tlv, alg2_tlv)) {
|
|
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) {
|
|
switch (required_key_purpose) {
|
|
case KeyPurpose::ANY_EKU:
|
|
return;
|
|
case KeyPurpose::SERVER_AUTH: {
|
|
// TODO(eroman): Is it OK for the target certificate to omit the EKU?
|
|
if (!cert.has_extended_key_usage())
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
for (const auto& key_purpose_oid : cert.extended_key_usage()) {
|
|
if (key_purpose_oid == AnyEKU())
|
|
return;
|
|
if (key_purpose_oid == ServerAuth())
|
|
return;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Check if the certificate contains Netscape Server Gated Crypto.
|
|
// nsSGC is a deprecated mechanism, and not part of RFC 5280's
|
|
// profile. Some unexpired certificate chains still rely on it though
|
|
// (there are intermediates valid until 2020 that use it).
|
|
bool has_nsgc = false;
|
|
|
|
for (const auto& key_purpose_oid : cert.extended_key_usage()) {
|
|
if (key_purpose_oid == NetscapeServerGatedCrypto()) {
|
|
has_nsgc = true;
|
|
break;
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (has_nsgc) {
|
|
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().algorithm() ==
|
|
SignatureAlgorithmId::RsaPkcs1) &&
|
|
(cert.signature_algorithm().digest() == DigestAlgorithm::Sha1)) {
|
|
return;
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
errors->AddError(cert_errors::kEkuLacksServerAuth);
|
|
break;
|
|
}
|
|
case KeyPurpose::CLIENT_AUTH: {
|
|
// TODO(eroman): Is it OK for the target certificate to omit the EKU?
|
|
if (!cert.has_extended_key_usage())
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
for (const auto& key_purpose_oid : cert.extended_key_usage()) {
|
|
if (key_purpose_oid == AnyEKU())
|
|
return;
|
|
if (key_purpose_oid == ClientAuth())
|
|
return;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
errors->AddError(cert_errors::kEkuLacksClientAuth);
|
|
break;
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Returns |true| if |policies| contains the OID |search_oid|.
|
|
bool SetContains(const std::set<der::Input>& policies,
|
|
const der::Input& search_oid) {
|
|
return policies.count(search_oid) > 0;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Representation of RFC 5280's "valid_policy_tree", used to keep track of the
|
|
// valid policies and policy re-mappings.
|
|
//
|
|
// ValidPolicyTree differs slightly 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 only stores the most recent level of the policy tree rather than
|
|
// the full tree of nodes.
|
|
class ValidPolicyTree {
|
|
public:
|
|
ValidPolicyTree() = default;
|
|
|
|
struct Node {
|
|
// |root_policy| is equivalent to |valid_policy|, but in the domain of the
|
|
// caller.
|
|
//
|
|
// The reason for this distinction is the Policy Mappings extension.
|
|
//
|
|
// So whereas |valid_policy| is in the remapped domain defined by the
|
|
// issuing certificate, |root_policy| is in the fixed domain of the caller.
|
|
//
|
|
// OIDs in "user_initial_policy_set" and "user_constrained_policy_set" are
|
|
// directly comparable to |root_policy| values, but not necessarily to
|
|
// |valid_policy|.
|
|
//
|
|
// In terms of the valid policy tree, |root_policy| can be found by
|
|
// starting at the node's root ancestor, and finding the first node with a
|
|
// valid_policy other than anyPolicy. This is effectively the same process
|
|
// as used during policy tree intersection in RFC 5280 6.1.5.g.iii.1
|
|
der::Input root_policy;
|
|
|
|
// The same as RFC 5280's "valid_policy" variable.
|
|
der::Input valid_policy;
|
|
|
|
// The same as RFC 5280s "expected_policy_set" variable.
|
|
std::set<der::Input> expected_policy_set;
|
|
|
|
// Note that RFC 5280's "qualifier_set" is omitted.
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
// Level represents all the nodes at depth "i" in the valid_policy_tree.
|
|
using Level = std::vector<Node>;
|
|
|
|
// Initializes the ValidPolicyTree for the given "user_initial_policy_set".
|
|
//
|
|
// In RFC 5280, the valid_policy_tree is initialized to a root node at depth
|
|
// 0 of "anyPolicy"; the intersection with the "user_initial_policy_set" is
|
|
// done at the end (Wrap Up) as described in section 6.1.5 step g.
|
|
//
|
|
// Whereas in this implementation, the restriction on policies is added here,
|
|
// and intersecting the valid policy tree during Wrap Up is no longer needed.
|
|
//
|
|
// The final "user_constrained_policy_set" obtained will be the same. The
|
|
// advantages of this approach is simpler code.
|
|
void Init(const std::set<der::Input>& user_initial_policy_set) {
|
|
Clear();
|
|
for (const der::Input& policy_oid : user_initial_policy_set)
|
|
AddRootNode(policy_oid);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Returns the current level (i.e. all nodes at depth i in the valid
|
|
// policy tree).
|
|
const Level& current_level() const { return current_level_; }
|
|
Level& current_level() { return current_level_; }
|
|
|
|
// In RFC 5280 valid_policy_tree may be set to null. That is represented here
|
|
// by emptiness.
|
|
bool IsNull() const { return current_level_.empty(); }
|
|
void SetNull() { Clear(); }
|
|
|
|
// This implementation keeps only the last level of the valid policy
|
|
// tree. Calling StartLevel() returns the nodes for the previous
|
|
// level, and starts a new level.
|
|
Level StartLevel() {
|
|
Level prev_level;
|
|
std::swap(prev_level, current_level_);
|
|
return prev_level;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Gets the set of policies (in terms of root authority's policy domain) that
|
|
// are valid at the curent level of the policy tree.
|
|
//
|
|
// For example:
|
|
//
|
|
// * If the valid policy tree was initialized with anyPolicy, then this
|
|
// function returns what X.509 calls "authorities-constrained-policy-set".
|
|
//
|
|
// * If the valid policy tree was instead initialized with the
|
|
// "user-initial-policy_set", then this function returns what X.509
|
|
// calls "user-constrained-policy-set"
|
|
// ("authorities-constrained-policy-set" intersected with the
|
|
// "user-initial-policy-set").
|
|
void GetValidRootPolicySet(std::set<der::Input>* policy_set) {
|
|
policy_set->clear();
|
|
for (const Node& node : current_level_)
|
|
policy_set->insert(node.root_policy);
|
|
|
|
// If the result includes anyPolicy, simplify it to a set of size 1.
|
|
if (policy_set->size() > 1 && SetContains(*policy_set, AnyPolicy()))
|
|
*policy_set = {AnyPolicy()};
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Adds a node |n| to the current level which is a child of |parent|
|
|
// such that:
|
|
// * n.valid_policy = policy_oid
|
|
// * n.expected_policy_set = {policy_oid}
|
|
void AddNode(const Node& parent, const der::Input& policy_oid) {
|
|
AddNodeWithExpectedPolicySet(parent, policy_oid, {policy_oid});
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Adds a node |n| to the current level which is a child of |parent|
|
|
// such that:
|
|
// * n.valid_policy = policy_oid
|
|
// * n.expected_policy_set = expected_policy_set
|
|
void AddNodeWithExpectedPolicySet(
|
|
const Node& parent,
|
|
const der::Input& policy_oid,
|
|
const std::set<der::Input>& expected_policy_set) {
|
|
Node new_node;
|
|
new_node.valid_policy = policy_oid;
|
|
new_node.expected_policy_set = expected_policy_set;
|
|
|
|
// Consider the root policy as the first policy other than anyPolicy (or
|
|
// anyPolicy if it hasn't been restricted yet).
|
|
new_node.root_policy =
|
|
(parent.root_policy == AnyPolicy()) ? policy_oid : parent.root_policy;
|
|
|
|
current_level_.push_back(std::move(new_node));
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Returns the first node having valid_policy == anyPolicy in |level|, or
|
|
// nullptr if there is none.
|
|
static const Node* FindAnyPolicyNode(const Level& level) {
|
|
for (const Node& node : level) {
|
|
if (node.valid_policy == AnyPolicy())
|
|
return &node;
|
|
}
|
|
return nullptr;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Deletes all nodes |n| in |level| where |n.valid_policy| matches the given
|
|
// |valid_policy|. This may re-order the nodes in |level|.
|
|
static void DeleteNodesMatchingValidPolicy(const der::Input& valid_policy,
|
|
Level* level) {
|
|
// This works by swapping nodes to the end of the vector, and then doing a
|
|
// single resize to delete them all.
|
|
auto cur = level->begin();
|
|
auto end = level->end();
|
|
while (cur != end) {
|
|
bool should_delete_node = cur->valid_policy == valid_policy;
|
|
if (should_delete_node) {
|
|
end = std::prev(end);
|
|
if (cur != end)
|
|
std::iter_swap(cur, end);
|
|
} else {
|
|
++cur;
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
level->erase(end, level->end());
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
private:
|
|
// Deletes all nodes in the valid policy tree.
|
|
void Clear() { current_level_.clear(); }
|
|
|
|
// Adds a node to the current level for OID |policy_oid|. The current level
|
|
// is assumed to be the root level.
|
|
void AddRootNode(const der::Input& policy_oid) {
|
|
Node new_node;
|
|
new_node.root_policy = policy_oid;
|
|
new_node.valid_policy = policy_oid;
|
|
new_node.expected_policy_set = {policy_oid};
|
|
current_level_.push_back(std::move(new_node));
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
Level current_level_;
|
|
|
|
DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN(ValidPolicyTree);
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
// 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);
|
|
|
|
// This function corresponds to RFC 5280 section 6.1.3's "Basic Certificate
|
|
// Processing" procedure.
|
|
void BasicCertificateProcessing(const ParsedCertificate& cert,
|
|
bool is_target_cert,
|
|
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, 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,
|
|
KeyPurpose required_key_purpose,
|
|
CertErrors* errors,
|
|
bool* shortcircuit_chain_validation);
|
|
|
|
// 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);
|
|
|
|
ValidPolicyTree valid_policy_tree_;
|
|
|
|
// 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_tree_.IsNull()) {
|
|
ValidPolicyTree::Level previous_level = valid_policy_tree_.StartLevel();
|
|
|
|
// Identify if there was a node with valid_policy == anyPolicy at depth i-1.
|
|
const ValidPolicyTree::Node* any_policy_node_prev_level =
|
|
ValidPolicyTree::FindAnyPolicyNode(previous_level);
|
|
|
|
// (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 == AnyPolicy()) {
|
|
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}.
|
|
bool found_match = false;
|
|
for (const ValidPolicyTree::Node& prev_node : previous_level) {
|
|
if (SetContains(prev_node.expected_policy_set, p_oid)) {
|
|
valid_policy_tree_.AddNode(prev_node, p_oid);
|
|
found_match = true;
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// (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}.
|
|
if (!found_match && any_policy_node_prev_level)
|
|
valid_policy_tree_.AddNode(*any_policy_node_prev_level, 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)))) {
|
|
// Keep track of the existing policies at depth i.
|
|
std::set<der::Input> child_node_policies;
|
|
for (const ValidPolicyTree::Node& node :
|
|
valid_policy_tree_.current_level())
|
|
child_node_policies.insert(node.valid_policy);
|
|
|
|
for (const ValidPolicyTree::Node& prev_node : previous_level) {
|
|
for (const der::Input& expected_policy :
|
|
prev_node.expected_policy_set) {
|
|
if (!SetContains(child_node_policies, expected_policy)) {
|
|
child_node_policies.insert(expected_policy);
|
|
valid_policy_tree_.AddNode(prev_node, expected_policy);
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// (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.
|
|
//
|
|
// Nothing needs to be done for this step, since this implementation only
|
|
// stores the nodes at depth i, and the entire level has already been
|
|
// calculated.
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// (e) If the certificate policies extension is not present, set the
|
|
// valid_policy_tree to NULL.
|
|
if (!cert.has_policy_oids())
|
|
valid_policy_tree_.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_tree_.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 == AnyPolicy() ||
|
|
mapping.subject_domain_policy == AnyPolicy()) {
|
|
// Because this implementation continues processing certificates after
|
|
// this error, clear the valid policy tree to ensure the
|
|
// "user_constrained_policy_set" output upon failure is empty.
|
|
valid_policy_tree_.SetNull();
|
|
errors->AddError(cert_errors::kPolicyMappingAnyPolicy);
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// (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) {
|
|
const ValidPolicyTree::Node* any_policy_node =
|
|
ValidPolicyTree::FindAnyPolicyNode(valid_policy_tree_.current_level());
|
|
|
|
// Group mappings by issuer domain policy.
|
|
std::map<der::Input, std::set<der::Input>> mappings;
|
|
for (const ParsedPolicyMapping& mapping : cert.policy_mappings()) {
|
|
mappings[mapping.issuer_domain_policy].insert(
|
|
mapping.subject_domain_policy);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
for (const auto& it : mappings) {
|
|
const der::Input& issuer_domain_policy = it.first;
|
|
const std::set<der::Input>& subject_domain_policies = it.second;
|
|
bool found_node = false;
|
|
|
|
for (ValidPolicyTree::Node& node : valid_policy_tree_.current_level()) {
|
|
if (node.valid_policy == issuer_domain_policy) {
|
|
node.expected_policy_set = subject_domain_policies;
|
|
found_node = true;
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (!found_node && any_policy_node) {
|
|
valid_policy_tree_.AddNodeWithExpectedPolicySet(
|
|
*any_policy_node, issuer_domain_policy, subject_domain_policies);
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// (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.
|
|
if (policy_mapping_ == 0) {
|
|
for (const ParsedPolicyMapping& mapping : cert.policy_mappings()) {
|
|
ValidPolicyTree::DeleteNodesMatchingValidPolicy(
|
|
mapping.issuer_domain_policy, &valid_policy_tree_.current_level());
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
void PathVerifier::BasicCertificateProcessing(
|
|
const ParsedCertificate& cert,
|
|
bool is_target_cert,
|
|
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))
|
|
*shortcircuit_chain_validation = true;
|
|
|
|
// Check whether this signature algorithm is allowed.
|
|
if (!delegate_->IsSignatureAlgorithmAcceptable(cert.signature_algorithm(),
|
|
errors)) {
|
|
*shortcircuit_chain_validation = true;
|
|
errors->AddError(cert_errors::kUnacceptableSignatureAlgorithm);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
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())) {
|
|
*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);
|
|
|
|
// TODO(eroman): Check revocation (RFC 5280 section 6.1.3 step a.3)
|
|
|
|
// 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);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
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;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// (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().has_require_explicit_policy &&
|
|
cert.policy_constraints().require_explicit_policy < explicit_policy_) {
|
|
explicit_policy_ = cert.policy_constraints().require_explicit_policy;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// (2) If inhibitPolicyMapping is present and is less than
|
|
// policy_mapping, set policy_mapping to the value of
|
|
// inhibitPolicyMapping.
|
|
if (cert.policy_constraints().has_inhibit_policy_mapping &&
|
|
cert.policy_constraints().inhibit_policy_mapping < policy_mapping_) {
|
|
policy_mapping_ = cert.policy_constraints().inhibit_policy_mapping;
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// (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();
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// 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 that if the target certificate has properties that only a CA should
|
|
// have (keyCertSign, CA=true, pathLenConstraint), then its other properties
|
|
// are consistent with being a CA. If it does, adds errors to |errors|.
|
|
//
|
|
// This follows from some requirements in RFC 5280 section 4.2.1.9. In
|
|
// particular:
|
|
//
|
|
// CAs MUST NOT include the pathLenConstraint field unless the cA
|
|
// boolean is asserted and the key usage extension asserts the
|
|
// keyCertSign bit.
|
|
//
|
|
// And:
|
|
//
|
|
// If the cA boolean is not asserted, then the keyCertSign bit in the key
|
|
// usage extension MUST NOT be asserted.
|
|
//
|
|
// TODO(eroman): Strictly speaking the first requirement is on CAs and not the
|
|
// certificate client, so could be skipped.
|
|
//
|
|
// TODO(eroman): I don't believe Firefox enforces the keyCertSign restriction
|
|
// for compatibility reasons. Investigate if we need to similarly relax this
|
|
// constraint.
|
|
void VerifyTargetCertHasConsistentCaBits(const ParsedCertificate& cert,
|
|
CertErrors* errors) {
|
|
// Check if the certificate contains any property specific to CAs.
|
|
bool has_ca_property =
|
|
(cert.has_basic_constraints() &&
|
|
(cert.basic_constraints().is_ca ||
|
|
cert.basic_constraints().has_path_len)) ||
|
|
(cert.has_key_usage() &&
|
|
cert.key_usage().AssertsBit(KEY_USAGE_BIT_KEY_CERT_SIGN));
|
|
|
|
// If it "looks" like a CA because it has a CA-only property, then check that
|
|
// it sets ALL the properties expected of a CA.
|
|
if (has_ca_property) {
|
|
bool success = cert.has_basic_constraints() &&
|
|
cert.basic_constraints().is_ca &&
|
|
(!cert.has_key_usage() ||
|
|
cert.key_usage().AssertsBit(KEY_USAGE_BIT_KEY_CERT_SIGN));
|
|
if (!success) {
|
|
// TODO(eroman): Add DER for basic constraints and key usage.
|
|
errors->AddError(cert_errors::kTargetCertInconsistentCaBits);
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
void PathVerifier::WrapUp(const ParsedCertificate& cert, 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().has_require_explicit_policy &&
|
|
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);
|
|
|
|
// RFC 5280 section 6.1.5 step g is skipped, as the intersection of valid
|
|
// policies was computed during previous steps.
|
|
//
|
|
// 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 || !valid_policy_tree_.IsNull())) {
|
|
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.
|
|
VerifyTargetCertHasConsistentCaBits(cert, 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) {
|
|
// 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);
|
|
|
|
// 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());
|
|
|
|
// TODO(eroman): Initialize user-initial-policy-set based on anchor
|
|
// constraints.
|
|
|
|
// TODO(eroman): Initialize inhibit any policy based on anchor constraints.
|
|
|
|
// TODO(eroman): Initialize require explicit policy based on anchor
|
|
// constraints.
|
|
|
|
// TODO(eroman): Initialize inhibit policy mapping based on anchor
|
|
// constraints.
|
|
|
|
// 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.
|
|
//
|
|
// NOTE: RFC 5937 does not say to enforce the CA=true part of basic
|
|
// constraints.
|
|
if (cert.has_basic_constraints() && 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,
|
|
KeyPurpose required_key_purpose,
|
|
CertErrors* errors,
|
|
bool* shortcircuit_chain_validation) {
|
|
*shortcircuit_chain_validation = false;
|
|
switch (trust.type) {
|
|
case CertificateTrustType::UNSPECIFIED:
|
|
// 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_WITH_CONSTRAINTS:
|
|
// If the trust anchor has constraints, enforce them.
|
|
if (trust.type == CertificateTrustType::TRUSTED_ANCHOR_WITH_CONSTRAINTS) {
|
|
ApplyTrustAnchorConstraints(cert, required_key_purpose, errors);
|
|
}
|
|
break;
|
|
}
|
|
if (*shortcircuit_chain_validation)
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
// 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();
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
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 is not permitted. (It isn't a
|
|
// well-specified operation.) See https://crbug.com/814994.
|
|
if (certs.size() == 1) {
|
|
errors->GetOtherErrors()->AddError(cert_errors::kChainIsLength1);
|
|
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_tree_.Init(user_initial_policy_set);
|
|
|
|
// 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_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, 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.
|
|
DCHECK(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, 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.
|
|
DCHECK(
|
|
cert_errors->ContainsAnyErrorWithSeverity(CertError::SEVERITY_HIGH));
|
|
return;
|
|
}
|
|
if (!is_target_cert) {
|
|
PrepareForNextCertificate(cert, cert_errors);
|
|
} else {
|
|
WrapUp(cert, cert_errors);
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (user_constrained_policy_set) {
|
|
// valid_policy_tree_ already contains the intersection of valid policies
|
|
// with user_initial_policy_set.
|
|
valid_policy_tree_.GetValidRootPolicySet(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);
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
} // namespace net
|