Re: [Acme] Clarification about Identifier Validation Challenges

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 29 July 2015 17:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@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 218311B31C3 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 FWHH_40u2tnN for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:27:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x235.google.com (mail-wi0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::235]) (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 72B241B31D8 for <acme@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:27:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibud3 with SMTP id ud3so35941363wib.0 for <acme@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
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=toTDTmJa2kbSnoAOQ0bObA2vbMl9glsK7H4ytqice+s=; b=mLLNLuPknSa8behYCVEif5UrVwjYjY2DIoDe2moi+w7KhS0ZzFnc7kzYXdj8gRImGR M2x8iY8VE1cTvLH2YSCpB3vhFBtXqr/QggCIWGtpiaWsRCkPAY0aK1VKRpGdBxnsipI2 CBMnEjkxG3eHeUntIhic8PV+1xm4+dhiLnNcE1iFK5fJJeSXxUjx22RrW0c1VIhQTlGm piJIWYD8bg52WqTwp4tOnz/BJCgIaRa3624YGds5h9xOGdUAZG7+Q2d35K8naUmCVeHd qpbXt/g9RvTPTRN+w3ysn+8REha7DMsWz7mPH36nbmHJwOiJQ5uTCp8BmfsomtGbGsdo lutQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.108.232 with SMTP id hn8mr54658745wjb.154.1438190849168; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.17.68 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:27:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAO5z66DUamgbYtvhPTL0_uqw-WdL9rd7R8j=smWYPXwoxkqMiQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO5z66CK=B9pnRp4Hk4XDiuyqGXo-XGetn0FLzO9Au1rgu4cwA@mail.gmail.com> <CAO5z66DUamgbYtvhPTL0_uqw-WdL9rd7R8j=smWYPXwoxkqMiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:27:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMCcg-qiUqrV1DD0sGOtZrdAK9J5PaoaEYBAGGX8_EOzaQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Romain Fliedel <romain.fliedel@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bf198a0af1b32051c06e648
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/9lN3kt2rDQTn_ydC-ceJ1VkKHpA>
Cc: "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Clarification about Identifier Validation Challenges
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, 29 Jul 2015 17:27:33 -0000

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:27 AM, Romain Fliedel <romain.fliedel@gmail.com>;
wrote:

> Any feedback ?
>
>
​Why would you want the token to be in cleartext?

Ted​




> 2015-07-27 12:40 GMT+02:00 Romain Fliedel <romain.fliedel@gmail.com>;:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been reading the spec, and I don't really understand why the reply
>> to validation challenges is not designed the same way as other api. If I
>> understand the spec correctly, instead of sending a JWS reply, the jws is
>> embedded in a json object containing 'type' and 'validation'.
>>
>> For example the dvsni challenge response is :
>> {
>>   "type": "dvsni',
>>   "validation": {
>>     "header": { "alg": "HS256" },
>>     "payload": "qzu9...6bjn",
>>     "signature": "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> Why don't use a regular JWS as body for this challenge reply ?
>> In that case the reply would be:
>> {
>>     "signature": "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx",
>>     "protected": "eyJub25jZ...In0",
>>     "header": {
>>         "alg": "RS256",
>>         "jwk": {
>>             "kty": "RSA",
>>             "n": "ox33_lEk....Eg9zM",
>>             "e": "AQAB"
>>         }
>>     },
>>     "payload": /* in cleartext for readability */ {
>>        "type": "dvsni",
>>        "token": "fgf...gfdg"
>>     }
>> }
>>
>> Also for the dns challenge I don't understand why there is
>> "clientPublicKey" attribute in the reply.
>> Still regarding dns challenge I am concerned about the length of the
>> "signature" generated when RS256 is used to sign the JWS object with a 4096
>> bits key. It will then exceed the maximum txt record length. maybe using a
>> hash of this signature would solve this ?
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> Acme@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>
>