IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Acme] Issue: Allow ports other than 443

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 25 November 2015 23:22 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBDF91B327E for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:22:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FzfOdAX3FjDd for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:22:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x22a.google.com (mail-io0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C22A51B327A for <acme@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:22:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iouu10 with SMTP id u10so69670106iou.0 for <acme@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:22:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=FAQhZKKY45Xu5nKRZTYOSf2b10Pb7dIZ+Jf0VojoUAM=; b=J4mbO+N3vqZoTC+3hxPrNiEDoXJGYw6nNRTFaNWbR2YTclLO3OHjidGVVB0i7SwxVF RI9NY5lUip8n37TrC3g6oVLKVLmd5CWXc8twBMIX9khPwdZbO402JiC+PfQLnl08Pv8P lVvFEv+bSPPXoIJAH9tzsdV7mKJb6blVOzjcL34vd0il+NJQHBOWRjrWwYYS/AcPhSdV 2FKxoSaKI0qD9B5GNleKYrXDBEUhmDSQ/lcjpxf4kpxT+9VQAIA+A5mchLufBHhNrPSV a2ixZ06Hij1UJ0HIQKr83LQB3NvSc4gEA5IVPg7Br525BjaZLtGwmLNRFFwNreo7uj5g gWqw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.169.29 with SMTP id s29mr39716063ioe.190.1448493761258; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:22:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.155.139 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:22:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CANUQDCjMN5qTKakA02m4EiKRdBUkazFL_-esUn2LVm0dTBt1gQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5e9b22a3942d4a39981878b13e4a7752@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com> <0630035C-E4F6-41AA-A339-7101B448F0FA@vigilsec.com> <CABkgnnUxSwMmOR=QVE-gMvj9dHW6Tk2Z=EO7RDx6E5zVAp_SrQ@mail.gmail.com> <20151124033325.GH18430@eff.org> <56545B4C.3020406@cisco.com> <m2io4ro83g.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAHbuEH4Yh-UUin1F0ajsRAHrzrEZ+eDraXd9xLxcnY5kQVxPUg@mail.gmail.com> <59394DAB-E7B3-487F-9DC0-2820709F5252@gmail.com> <56549520.2050907@cisco.com> <CANUQDCjMN5qTKakA02m4EiKRdBUkazFL_-esUn2LVm0dTBt1gQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:22:41 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUNBa0QT4DJQvaZ2FVJguahgVY_3OkNujhBdCidGCfJUw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Niklas Keller <me@kelunik.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/4Kog34YMP9r71yh5OGamadowIbc>
Cc: Peter Eckersley <pde@eff.org>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, IETF ACME <acme@ietf.org>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Issue: Allow ports other than 443
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Automated Certificate Management Environment <acme.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/acme/>
List-Post: <mailto:acme@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme>, <mailto:acme-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 23:22:43 -0000

On 25 November 2015 at 11:18, Niklas Keller <me@kelunik.com> wrote:
> It's an issue with shared hosting where users have shell access but no root
> access.

If a user isn't able to write to the web server, or stand up any a
server on any "privileged" port, can they really be said to exercise
"control" over that server?  I certainly wouldn't consider that to be
a strong enough signal.

I think that these users will have to rely on access to the
.well-known tree if they are genuinely admins, but limited in their
access to the metal.  That might be more disruptive to their ongoing
operations, but I don't see any alternative that would satisfy me that
this isn't just some guy who happened to get shell access to a
machine.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email