RFC 9642: A YANG Data Model for a Keystore
- K. Watsen
Abstract
This document presents a YANG module called "ietf-keystore" that enables centralized configuration of both symmetric and asymmetric keys. The secret value for both key types may be encrypted or hidden. Asymmetric keys may be associated with certificates. Notifications are sent when certificates are about to expire.¶
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.¶
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://
1. Introduction
This document presents a YANG 1.1 [RFC7950] module called "ietf-keystore" that enables centralized configuration of both symmetric and asymmetric keys. The secret value for both key types may be encrypted or hidden (see [RFC9640]). Asymmetric keys may be associated with certificates. Notifications are sent when certificates are about to expire.¶
The "ietf-keystore" module defines many "grouping" statements intended for use by other modules that may import it. For instance, there are groupings that define enabling a key to be configured either inline (within the defining data model) or as a reference to a key in the central keystore.¶
Special consideration has been given for servers that have cryptographic hardware, such as a trusted platform module (TPM). These servers are unique in that the cryptographic hardware hides the secret key values. Additionally, such hardware is commonly initialized when manufactured to protect a "built-in" asymmetric key for which its public half is conveyed in an identity certificate (e.g., an Initial Device Identifier (IDevID) [Std-802.1AR-2018] certificate). See how built-in keys are supported in Section 3.¶
This document is intended to reflect existing practices that many server implementations support at the time of writing. To simplify implementation, advanced key formats may be selectively implemented.¶
Implementations may utilize operating
1.1. Relation to Other RFCs
This document presents a YANG module [RFC7950] that is part of a collection of RFCs that work together to ultimately support the configuration of both the clients and servers of the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC6241] and RESTCONF [RFC8040].¶
The dependency relationship between the primary YANG groupings defined in the various RFCs is presented in the diagram below. In some cases, a document may define secondary groupings that introduce dependencies not illustrated in the diagram. The labels in the diagram are shorthand names for the defining RFCs. The citation references for the shorthand names are provided below the diagram.¶
Please note that the arrows in the diagram point from referencer to referenced. For example, the "crypto-types" RFC does not have any dependencies, whilst the "keystore" RFC depends on the "crypto-types" RFC.¶
1.2. Specification Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
1.3. Terminology
The terms "client" and "server" are defined in [RFC6241] and are not redefined here.¶
The term "keystore" is defined in this document as a mechanism that intends to safeguard secrets.¶
The nomenclatures "<running>" and "<operational>" are defined in [RFC8342].¶
The sentence fragments "augmented" and "augmented in" are used herein as the past tense verbified form of the "augment" statement defined in Section 7.17 of [RFC7950].¶
The term "key" may be used to mean one of three things in this document: 1) the YANG-defined
"asymmetric
1.4. Adherence to the NMDA
This document is compliant with Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) [RFC8342]. For instance, keys and associated certificates installed during manufacturing (e.g., for an IDevID certificate) are expected to appear in <operational> (see Section 3).¶
1.5. Conventions
Various examples in this document use "BASE64VALUE=" as a placeholder value for binary data that has been base64 encoded (per Section 9.8 of [RFC7950]). This placeholder value is used because real base64-encoded structures are often many lines long and hence distracting to the example being presented.¶
Various examples in this document use the XML [W3C
Various examples in this document contain long lines that may be folded, as described in [RFC8792].¶
This document uses the adjective "central" to the word "keystore"
to refer to the top-level instance of the "keystore
2. The "ietf-keystore" Module
This section defines a YANG 1.1 [RFC7950] module called
"ietf
2.1. Data Model Overview
This section provides an overview of the "ietf-keystore" module
in terms of its features, typedefs, groupings, and protocol
2.1.1. Features
The following diagram lists all the "feature" statements defined in the "ietf-keystore" module:¶
The diagram above uses syntax that is similar to but not defined in [RFC8340].¶
2.1.2. Typedefs
The following diagram lists the "typedef" statements defined in the "ietf-keystore" module:¶
The diagram above uses syntax that is similar to but not defined in [RFC8340].¶
Comments:¶
2.1.3. Groupings
The "ietf-keystore" module defines the following "grouping" statements:¶
Each of these groupings are presented in the following subsections.¶
2.1.3.1. The "encrypted-by-grouping" Grouping
The following tree diagram [RFC8340] illustrates the
"encrypted
Comments:¶
2.1.3.2. The "central-asymmetric-key-certificate-ref-grouping" Grouping
The following tree diagram [RFC8340] illustrates the
"central
Comments:¶
2.1.3.3. The "inline-or-keystore-symmetric-key-grouping" Grouping
The following tree diagram [RFC8340] illustrates the
"inline
Comments:¶
2.1.3.4. The "inline-or-keystore-asymmetric-key-grouping" Grouping
The following tree diagram [RFC8340] illustrates the
"inline
Comments:¶
2.1.3.5. The "inline-or-keystore-asymmetric-key-with-certs-grouping" Grouping
The following tree diagram [RFC8340] illustrates the
"inline
Comments:¶
2.1.3.6. The "inline-or-keystore-end-entity-cert-with-key-grouping" Grouping
The following tree diagram [RFC8340] illustrates the
"inline
Comments:¶
2.1.4. Protocol-Accessible Nodes
The following tree diagram [RFC8340] lists all the
protocol
The following tree diagram [RFC8340] lists all the
protocol
Comments:¶
2.2. Example Usage
The examples in this section are encoded using XML, such as might be the case when using the NETCONF protocol. Other encodings MAY be used, such as JSON when using the RESTCONF protocol.¶
2.2.1. A Keystore Instance
The following example illustrates keys in <running>. Please see Section 3 for an example illustrating built-in values in <operational>.¶
2.2.2. A Certificate Expiration Notification
The following example illustrates a "certificate
2.2.3. The "Inline or Keystore" Groupings
This section illustrates the various "inline
These examples assume the existence of an example module called "ex
The ex
2.2.3.1. Tree Diagrams for the "ex-keystore-usage" Module
The following tree diagram illustrates "ex
The following tree diagram illustrates the "ex
2.2.3.2. Example Usage for the "ex-keystore-usage" Module
The following example provides two equivalent instances of each grouping, the first being a reference to a keystore and the second being inlined. The instance having a reference to a keystore is consistent with the keystore defined in Section 2.2.1. The two instances are equivalent, as the inlined instance example contains the same values defined by the keystore instance referenced by its sibling example.¶
2.2.3.3. The "ex-keystore-usage" YANG Module
Following is the "ex
3. Support for Built-In Keys
In some implementations
Built-in keys are "hidden" keys expected to be set by a vendor-specific process. Any ability for operators to set and/or modify built-in keys is outside the scope of this document.¶
The primary characteristic of the built-in keys is that they are provided
by the server, as opposed to being configured. As such, they are present in
<operational> (Section 5.3 of [RFC8342]) and <system>
[NETMOD
The example below illustrates what the keystore in <operational> might look like for a server in its factory default state. Note that the built-in keys have the "or:origin" annotation value "or:system".¶
The following example illustrates how a single built-in key definition from the previous example has been propagated to <running>:¶
After the above configuration is applied, <operational> should appear as follows:¶
4. Encrypting Keys in Configuration
This section describes an approach that enables both the symmetric and asymmetric keys on a server to be encrypted, such that backup/restore procedures can be used without concern for raw key data being compromised when in transit.¶
The approach presented in this section is not normative. This section answers how a configuration containing secrets that are encrypted by a built-in key (Section 3) can be backed up from one server and restored on a different server when each server has unique primary keys. The API defined by the "ietf-keystore" YANG module presented in this document is sufficient to support the workflow described in this section.¶
4.1. Key Encryption Key
The ability to encrypt configured keys is predicated on the existence of a key encryption key (KEK). There may be any number of KEKs in a server. A KEK, by its namesake, is a key that is used to encrypt other keys. A KEK MAY be either a symmetric key or an asymmetric key.¶
If a KEK is a symmetric key, then the server MUST provide an API for administrators to encrypt other keys without needing to know the symmetric key's value. If the KEK is an asymmetric key, then the server SHOULD provide an API enabling the encryption of other keys or, alternatively, assume the administrators can do so themselves using the asymmetric key's public half.¶
A server MUST possess access to the KEK, or an API using the KEK, so that it can decrypt the other keys in the configuration at runtime.¶
4.2. Configuring Encrypted Keys
Each time a new key is configured, it SHOULD be encrypted by a KEK.¶
In the "ietf
Implementations of servers implementing the "ietf-keystore" module
SHOULD provide an API that simultaneously generates a key and encrypts
the generated key using a KEK. Thus, the cleartext value of the newly
generated key may never be known to the administrators generating the keys.
Such an API is defined in the "ietf
In case the server implementation does not provide such an API, then the generating and encrypting steps MAY be performed outside the server, e.g., by an administrator with special access control rights (such as an organization's crypto officer).¶
In either case, the encrypted key can be configured into the keystore
using either the "encrypted
4.3. Migrating Configuration to Another Server
When a KEK is used to encrypt other keys, migrating the configuration to another server is only possible if the second server has the same KEK. How the second server comes to have the same KEK is discussed in this section.¶
In some deployments, mechanisms outside the scope of this document may be used to migrate a KEK from one server to another. That said, beware that the ability to do so typically entails having access to the first server; however, in some scenarios, the first server may no longer be operational.¶
In other deployments, an organization's crypto officer, possessing a KEK's cleartext value, configures the same KEK on the second server, presumably as a hidden key or a key protected by access control, so that the cleartext value is not disclosed to regular administrators. However, this approach creates high coupling to and dependency on the crypto officers that does not scale in production environments.¶
In order to decouple the crypto officers from the regular administrators, a special KEK, called the "primary key" (PK), may be used.¶
A PK is commonly a globally unique built-in (see Section 3)
asymmetric key. The private raw key value, due to its long lifetime, is hidden
(i.e., "hidden
Assuming the server has a PK, the PK can be used to encrypt a "shared KEK", which is then used to encrypt the keys configured by regular administrators.¶
With this extra level of indirection, it is possible for a crypto officer to encrypt the same KEK for a multiplicity of servers offline using the public key contained in their identity certificates. The crypto officer can then safely hand off the encrypted KEKs to regular administrators responsible for server installations, including migrations.¶
In order to migrate the configuration from a first server, an administrator would need to make just a single modification to the configuration before loading it onto a second server, which is to replace the encrypted KEK keystore entry from the first server with the encrypted KEK for the second server. Upon doing this, the configuration (containing many encrypted keys) can be loaded into the second server while enabling the second server to decrypt all the encrypted keys in the configuration.¶
The following diagram illustrates this idea:¶
5. Security Considerations
5.1. Security of Data at Rest and in Motion
The YANG module defined in this document defines a mechanism called a "keystore" that intends to protect its contents from unauthorized disclosure and modification.¶
In order to satisfy the expectations of a keystore, it is RECOMMENDED that server implementations ensure that the keystore contents are encrypted when persisted to non-volatile memory and that the keystore contents that have been decrypted in volatile memory are zeroized when not in use.¶
The keystore contents may be encrypted by either encrypting
the contents individually (e.g., using the "encrypted" value
formats) or using persistence
If the keystore contents are not encrypted when persisted, then server implementations MUST ensure the persisted storage is inaccessible.¶
5.2. Unconstrained Private Key Usage
This module enables the configuration of private keys without constraints on their usage, e.g., what operations the key is allowed to be used for (such as signature, decryption, or both).¶
This module also does not constrain the usage of the associated public keys other than in the context of a configured certificate (e.g., an identity certificate), in which case the key usage is constrained by the certificate.¶
5.3. Security Considerations for the "ietf-keystore" YANG Module
This section is modeled after the template defined in Section 3.7.1 of [RFC8407].¶
The ietf-keystore YANG module defines a data model that is designed to be accessed via YANG-based management protocols, such as NETCONF [RFC6241] and RESTCONF [RFC8040]. These protocols have mandatory
The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341] provides the means to restrict access for particular users to a preconfigured subset of all available protocol operations and content.¶
Please be aware that this YANG module uses groupings from other YANG modules that define nodes that may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in network environments. Please review the Security Considerations for dependent YANG modules for information as to which nodes may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in network environments.¶
Some of the readable data nodes in this YANG module
may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network
environments. It is thus important to control read access
(e.g., via get, get-config, or notification) to these
data nodes. These are the subtrees and data nodes and their
sensitivity
- The "cleartext
-symmetric -key" node: - This node, imported from the "symmetric
-key -grouping" grouping defined in [RFC9640], is additionally sensitive to read operations such that, in normal use cases, it should never be returned to a client. For this reason, the NACM extension "default -deny -all" was applied to it in [RFC9640].¶ - The "cleartext
-private -key" node: - This node, defined in the "asymmetric
-key -pair -grouping" grouping in [RFC9640], is additionally sensitive to read operations such that, in normal use cases, it should never be returned to a client. For this reason, the NACM extension "default -deny -all" is applied to it in [RFC9640].¶
All the writable data nodes defined by this YANG module, both in the
"grouping" statements as well as the protocol
This YANG module does not define any "rpc" or "action" statements, and thus the security considerations for such is not provided here.¶
Built-in key types SHOULD be hidden and/or encrypted (not cleartext). If this is not possible, access control mechanisms like NACM SHOULD be used to limit access to the key's secret data to only the most trusted authorized clients (e.g., belonging to an organization's crypto officer).¶
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. The IETF XML Registry
IANA has registered the following URI in the "ns" registry of the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688].¶
6.2. The YANG Module Names Registry
IANA has registered the following YANG module in the "YANG Module Names" registry defined in [RFC6020].¶
7. References
7.1. Normative References
- [RFC2119]
-
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2119 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2119 - [RFC4252]
-
Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH) Authentication Protocol", RFC 4252, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4252 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4252 - [RFC6020]
-
Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6020 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6020 - [RFC6241]
-
Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6241 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6241 - [RFC7950]
-
Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language", RFC 7950, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7950 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7950 - [RFC8040]
-
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8040 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8040 - [RFC8174]
-
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8174 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8174 - [RFC8341]
-
Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8341 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8341 - [RFC8446]
-
Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8446 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8446 - [RFC9000]
-
Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9000 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9000 - [RFC9640]
-
Watsen, K., "YANG Data Types and Groupings for Cryptography", RFC 9640, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9640 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9640
7.2. Informative References
- [HTTP
-CLIENT -SERVER] -
Watsen, K., "YANG Groupings for HTTP Clients and HTTP Servers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft
-ietf , , <https://-netconf -http -client -server -23 datatracker >..ietf .org /doc /html /draft -ietf -netconf -http -client -server -23 - [NETCONF
-CLIENT -SERVER] -
Watsen, K., "NETCONF Client and Server Models", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft
-ietf , , <https://-netconf -netconf -client -server -37 datatracker >..ietf .org /doc /html /draft -ietf -netconf -netconf -client -server -37 - [NETMOD
-SYSTEM -CONFIG] -
Ma, Q., Ed., Wu, Q., and C. Feng, "System-defined Configuration", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft
-ietf , , <https://-netmod -system -config -09 datatracker >..ietf .org /doc /html /draft -ietf -netmod -system -config -09 - [RESTCONF
-CLIENT -SERVER] -
Watsen, K., "RESTCONF Client and Server Models", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft
-ietf , , <https://-netconf -restconf -client -server -38 datatracker >..ietf .org /doc /html /draft -ietf -netconf -restconf -client -server -38 - [RFC3688]
-
Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3688 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3688 - [RFC8259]
-
Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8259 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8259 - [RFC8340]
-
Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams", BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8340 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8340 - [RFC8342]
-
Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K., and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8342 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8342 - [RFC8407]
-
Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data Models", BCP 216, RFC 8407, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8407 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8407 - [RFC8792]
-
Watsen, K., Auerswald, E., Farrel, A., and Q. Wu, "Handling Long Lines in Content of Internet-Drafts and RFCs", RFC 8792, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8792 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8792 - [RFC9641]
-
Watsen, K., "A YANG Data Model for a Truststore", RFC 9641, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9641 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9641 - [RFC9643]
-
Watsen, K. and M. Scharf, "YANG Groupings for TCP Clients and TCP Servers", RFC 9643, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9643 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9643 - [RFC9644]
-
Watsen, K., "YANG Groupings for SSH Clients and SSH Servers", RFC 9644, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9644 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9644 - [RFC9645]
-
Watsen, K., "YANG Groupings for TLS Clients and TLS Servers", RFC 9645, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9645 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9645 - [Std
-802 .1AR -2018] -
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Secure Device Identity", IEEE Std 802.1AR-2018, DOI 10
.1109 , , <https:///IEEESTD .2018 .8423794 standards >..ieee .org /standard /802 _1AR -2018 .html - [W3C
.REC -xml -20081126] -
Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg
-Mc , Maler, E., and F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth Edition)", W3C Recommendation RECQueen, C. M. -xml , , <https://-20081126 www >..w3 .org /TR /xml /
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the following for lively discussions on list and in the halls (ordered by first name): Alan Luchuk, Andy Bierman, Balázs Kovács, Benoit Claise, Bert Wijnen, David Lamparter, Eric Voit, Éric Vyncke, Francesca Palombini, Jürgen Schönwälder, Ladislav Lhotka, Liang Xia, Magnus Nyström, Mahesh Jethanandani, Martin Björklund, Mehmet Ersue, Murray Kucherawy, Paul Wouters, Phil Shafer, Qin Wu, Radek Krejci, Ramkumar Dhanapal, Reese Enghardt, Reshad Rahman, Rob Wilton, Roman Danyliw, Sandra Murphy, Sean Turner, Tom Petch, Warren Kumari, and Zaheduzzaman Sarker.¶