Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
120 lines (105 loc) · 17.5 KB

mitigations.md

File metadata and controls

120 lines (105 loc) · 17.5 KB

Mitigation Strategies Analysis for smallstep/certificates

Mitigation Strategy: Regular Key Rotation (Certificate-Focused)

  • Mitigation Strategy: Regular Certificate Key Rotation
  • Description:
    1. Define Certificate Rotation Policy: Establish a policy for rotating certificate key pairs at regular intervals, shorter than the certificate validity period. This policy should specify the rotation frequency for different types of certificates (e.g., service certificates, user certificates).
    2. Automate Certificate Renewal with Key Rotation: Configure smallstep/certificates' automated renewal features (e.g., step certificate renew) to always generate a new key pair during each renewal cycle. Ensure the renewal process is configured to trigger new key generation, not just certificate re-issuance with the same key.
    3. Graceful Certificate Rollover in Applications: Implement application-level mechanisms to handle certificate rollover smoothly. Applications should be designed to accept both the old and new certificates for a brief overlap period during rotation to prevent service disruptions.
    4. Monitor Certificate Rotation Success: Implement monitoring to track successful certificate rotations and alert on failures. Verify that new key pairs are indeed generated and deployed with each renewal.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Long-Term Certificate Compromise (Medium to High Severity): Limits the window of opportunity for attackers if a certificate's private key is compromised, as the key will be rotated regularly.
    • Cryptographic Algorithm Weakness over Certificate Lifespan (Low to Medium Severity): Allows for periodic updates to stronger cryptographic algorithms during key rotation cycles, mitigating risks associated with algorithm deprecation over long certificate lifespans.
  • Impact:
    • Long-Term Certificate Compromise: Medium Risk Reduction. Reduces the impact duration of a potential key compromise.
    • Cryptographic Algorithm Weakness: Low to Medium Risk Reduction. Enables algorithm updates during rotation.
  • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. Automated certificate renewal is likely in place, but key rotation during renewal might not be consistently enforced across all certificate types and renewal processes.
  • Missing Implementation: Ensuring key pair rotation is always part of the automated renewal process. Clear policies defining rotation frequencies for different certificate types. Robust application-level graceful rollover mechanisms.

Mitigation Strategy: Offline Root CA (Certificate-Focused)

  • Mitigation Strategy: Offline Root Certificate Authority
  • Description:
    1. Isolate Root CA System: Maintain the Root CA system completely offline. It should not be connected to any network, especially the internet or production networks.
    2. Air-Gapped Root CA (Ideal): Ideally, the Root CA should reside on an air-gapped system, physically isolated.
    3. Limited Root CA Certificate Issuance: Restrict the Root CA's sole purpose to issuing certificates only for Intermediate CAs. Never use the Root CA to issue end-entity certificates directly.
    4. Secure Root CA Certificate Generation Environment: Establish a highly secure physical and operational environment for the Root CA, with strict access control and documented, auditable procedures for Root CA certificate generation and key management.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Root CA Certificate Key Compromise (Critical Severity): Significantly reduces the risk of Root CA private key compromise by eliminating network exposure and limiting its operational use. Compromise of the Root CA key would allow attackers to issue trusted certificates for any domain.
  • Impact:
    • Root CA Certificate Key Compromise: Very High Risk Reduction. Offline Root CA is the most effective mitigation against Root CA compromise, protecting the foundation of certificate trust.
  • Currently Implemented: Likely implemented in production environments. The Root CA is probably offline and dedicated to issuing Intermediate CA certificates.
  • Missing Implementation: Maintaining strict offline procedures and the security of the Root CA certificate generation environment requires ongoing vigilance and regular audits to ensure continued effectiveness.

Mitigation Strategy: Intermediate Certificate Authorities

  • Mitigation Strategy: Use of Intermediate Certificate Authorities
  • Description:
    1. Establish Intermediate CA Hierarchy: Design a certificate infrastructure that utilizes a hierarchy of CAs, with one or more Intermediate CAs subordinate to the Root CA. smallstep/certificates is designed to facilitate this structure.
    2. Issue End-Entity Certificates from Intermediate CAs: Configure smallstep/certificates to issue all end-entity certificates (for services, applications, users, etc.) exclusively from the Intermediate CAs. Never issue end-entity certificates directly from the Root CA.
    3. Scope Intermediate CA Certificates (Optional): Consider further segmentation by using different Intermediate CAs for distinct purposes or environments (e.g., separate Intermediate CAs for production services, development environments, user certificates). This further isolates potential compromise.
    4. Secure Online Intermediate CAs: While Intermediate CAs can be online for automated certificate issuance, ensure they are protected with robust security measures, including secure key storage, access controls, and monitoring.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Limited Impact of Intermediate CA Certificate Compromise (High Severity): If an Intermediate CA is compromised, the impact is contained to the certificates issued by that specific Intermediate CA. It does not directly compromise the Root CA or other Intermediate CAs, limiting the blast radius of a compromise.
    • Reduced Root CA Certificate Exposure (Critical Severity): Prevents the need to use the highly sensitive Root CA for routine certificate issuance operations, minimizing the risk of accidental Root CA exposure or misuse.
  • Impact:
    • Impact of Intermediate CA Certificate Compromise: High Risk Reduction. Significantly limits the scope of damage from a CA compromise.
    • Root CA Certificate Exposure: High Risk Reduction. Protects the Root CA from routine operational risks.
  • Currently Implemented: Likely implemented in production. smallstep/certificates architecture strongly encourages and facilitates the use of Intermediate CAs.
  • Missing Implementation: The granularity of Intermediate CAs might be limited. Further segmentation with more specialized Intermediate CAs for different environments or application types could enhance security.

Mitigation Strategy: Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs) and OCSP (Certificate-Focused)

  • Mitigation Strategy: Implement and Utilize Certificate Revocation Mechanisms (CRLs and OCSP)
  • Description:
    1. Enable CRL and/or OCSP in smallstep/certificates: Configure smallstep/certificates to generate and publish CRLs and/or operate an OCSP responder. This configuration is typically done within the step-ca.json file.
    2. Include CRL Distribution Points (CDPs) and OCSP URLs in Certificates: Ensure that issued certificates include CRL Distribution Points (CDPs) and/or OCSP URLs. smallstep/certificates should automatically include these extensions in certificates.
    3. Regular CRL Updates and OCSP Availability: Configure smallstep/certificates for frequent and automated CRL generation and publication. Ensure the OCSP responder is highly available and responsive.
    4. Client-Side Certificate Revocation Checking: Configure applications and clients to actively perform certificate revocation checks using CRLs or OCSP during TLS/SSL connections. This requires configuring TLS libraries or application settings to enable revocation checking.
    5. OCSP Stapling (Recommended): Implement OCSP stapling (TLS Certificate Status Request extension) on servers to reduce the load on OCSP responders and improve performance. Servers proactively fetch OCSP responses and "staple" them to the TLS handshake.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Use of Revoked Certificates (High Severity): Prevents the continued use of certificates that have been compromised or invalidated. Without revocation checking, compromised certificates could remain trusted until their natural expiration.
  • Impact:
    • Use of Revoked Certificates: Medium to High Risk Reduction. Effective revocation mechanisms prevent reliance on compromised certificates. The effectiveness depends on CRL update frequency, OCSP responder availability, and consistent client-side implementation.
  • Currently Implemented: Likely partially implemented. smallstep/certificates probably generates CRLs and may have OCSP enabled. Certificates likely include CDP and OCSP URL extensions.
  • Missing Implementation: Consistent and robust client-side revocation checking might be lacking across all applications and services. CRL update frequency and OCSP infrastructure availability might need optimization. OCSP stapling might not be universally implemented on servers.

Mitigation Strategy: Short-Lived Certificates (Certificate-Focused)

  • Mitigation Strategy: Issuance of Short-Lived Certificates
  • Description:
    1. Reduce Certificate Validity Period in smallstep/certificates: Configure smallstep/certificates to issue certificates with significantly shorter validity periods. This can be configured in certificate templates or through policy settings. Aim for validity periods of hours, days, or weeks instead of months or years.
    2. Robust Automated Certificate Renewal: Implement highly reliable and automated certificate renewal processes (as described in "Regular Certificate Key Rotation") to ensure seamless certificate renewal before short-lived certificates expire. Reliable automation is critical for short lifespans.
    3. Application Design for Frequent Certificate Renewal: Applications must be designed to gracefully handle frequent certificate renewals without service interruptions.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Reduced Window of Vulnerability for Compromised Certificates (Medium to High Severity): If a certificate is compromised, the short validity period drastically limits the time window during which the compromised certificate can be misused before it automatically expires.
    • Mitigation of Revocation Propagation Delays (Medium Severity): Even if there are delays in propagating revocation information, short-lived certificates will expire relatively quickly, reducing the impact of revocation delays.
  • Impact:
    • Reduced Window of Vulnerability: Medium to High Risk Reduction. Significantly minimizes the time a compromised certificate remains valid and usable.
    • Mitigation of Revocation Delays: Medium Risk Reduction. Lessens the dependence on immediate and perfect revocation propagation.
  • Currently Implemented: Likely implemented for service certificates. smallstep/certificates is well-suited for issuing short-lived certificates, and default configurations might already use shorter TTLs.
  • Missing Implementation: Certificate lifespans might not be consistently short across all certificate types. User certificates or certain administrative certificates might still have longer validity periods. Renewal automation might require further strengthening for maximum reliability under frequent renewal scenarios.

Mitigation Strategy: Strict Certificate Policies (Certificate-Focused)

  • Mitigation Strategy: Enforcement of Strict Certificate Policies
  • Description:
    1. Define Granular Certificate Policies: Define detailed and strict certificate policies that specify allowed key usages, extended key usages, Subject Alternative Names (SANs), allowed algorithms, and other relevant certificate parameters. Policies should be tailored to different certificate types and use cases.
    2. Implement Policy Enforcement in smallstep/certificates: Configure smallstep/certificates to rigorously enforce these defined policies during certificate issuance. This can be achieved using certificate templates, policy hooks, custom certificate issuance logic, or the policy engine within smallstep/certificates.
    3. Regular Certificate Policy Review and Updates: Establish a process for periodically reviewing and updating certificate policies to adapt to evolving security requirements, application changes, and emerging threats.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Certificate Misuse and Privilege Escalation (Medium to High Severity): Strict policies prevent certificates from being issued with overly broad permissions or for unintended purposes. For example, preventing a server certificate from being misused for code signing or client authentication.
    • Domain Control Validation Bypass Vulnerabilities (Medium Severity): Policies enforcing SANs and restricting wildcard certificates in specific contexts can help prevent certain types of domain control validation bypass attacks.
  • Impact:
    • Certificate Misuse: Medium to High Risk Reduction. Limits the potential for certificates to be exploited in unintended or malicious ways by restricting their capabilities.
    • Domain Control Validation Bypass: Medium Risk Reduction. Reduces the attack surface related to domain control validation weaknesses.
  • Currently Implemented: Partially implemented. Basic certificate templates likely exist in smallstep/certificates, providing some level of policy control.
  • Missing Implementation: Comprehensive and granular certificate policies might be lacking. Policy enforcement might not be fully automated or consistently applied across all certificate issuance scenarios. A formal process for regular policy review and updates might not be established.

Mitigation Strategy: Automated Certificate Validation (Certificate-Focused)

  • Mitigation Strategy: Automated Certificate Validation in Applications
  • Description:
    1. Integrate Certificate Validation Logic: Implement robust certificate validation logic within all applications that rely on certificates for authentication, authorization, or secure communication.
    2. Comprehensive Validation Steps: Automated validation should include, at a minimum:
      • Certificate Chain of Trust Verification: Verify that the certificate chain is complete and validly chains back to a trusted Root CA certificate.
      • Certificate Expiration Check: Ensure the certificate is currently valid and not expired.
      • Certificate Revocation Status Check: Perform certificate revocation checks using CRLs or OCSP to ensure the certificate has not been revoked.
      • Hostname Verification (for Server Certificates): For server certificates used in TLS/SSL, strictly verify that the hostname in the URL or connection request matches the Common Name (CN) or Subject Alternative Name (SAN) present in the server certificate.
      • Policy Compliance Verification (Optional): Implement application-specific policy checks beyond basic validation, such as verifying specific Extended Key Usages or other certificate extensions relevant to the application's security requirements.
    3. Centralized Validation Libraries/Modules: Utilize centralized certificate validation libraries or modules where possible to ensure consistent and correct validation logic across different applications and services.
  • Threats Mitigated:
    • Acceptance of Invalid or Compromised Certificates (High Severity): Without proper validation, applications might mistakenly trust expired, revoked, or otherwise invalid certificates, leading to security breaches and vulnerabilities.
    • Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) Attacks (High Severity): Hostname verification is a critical defense against MITM attacks where attackers present fraudulent certificates for domains they do not control.
  • Impact:
    • Acceptance of Invalid or Compromised Certificates: High Risk Reduction. Prevents applications from establishing trust based on untrustworthy certificates.
    • Man-in-the-Middle Attacks: High Risk Reduction. Hostname verification is a fundamental security control against MITM attacks in TLS/SSL.
  • Currently Implemented: Likely partially implemented. Basic TLS libraries used by applications typically perform some default certificate validation (chain verification, expiration check).
  • Missing Implementation: Consistent and robust certificate revocation checking (CRL/OCSP) might be missing in some applications. Hostname verification might not be strictly enforced in all contexts. Application-specific policy checks are likely not implemented. Centralized validation libraries might not be consistently used across all projects.