Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 25 November 2015 23:33 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 40FDB1B3299 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:33:03 -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 ebu0USAdeiHA for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:33:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-x231.google.com (mail-ig0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::231]) (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 6F0EA1B3292 for <acme@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:33:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by igcto18 with SMTP id to18so935043igc.0 for <acme@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:32:59 -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=VLMxg/uPxpCbHAyq9kwOHcnl3aekFMViYd9ETdxkQx0=; b=tuzbBvnNnaxH8MGfovf9iyUpshiO39dsBWH4I6+9Dq1vTCMudnHxM8ltbdTJjtkvvj StGRTkoiqvWfT7sl9z+yhh1qx/kA3M5LpyJj49ZOvcnnBDE7ZRikzD/ZEwtRWo948uvi mrZ/oLWSGQ4E5NF77KJme0VzCRz4dP3FZK//n0TnPq551sLIsTeIjCeJqUn+JnXWOn0e X9xttd3YWOjPs7clZ4b2hxNd7qUC8q+OsdUmODlbDAKcz7Jutlsnl861m8AV3KJnQ54F zDYR9+8nJS/I0gTF8no+FRBbkUR1vBbBU06zeC30TwNAVXf9uC2ZP2DXNnD6yq2OqEIV xSCQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.183.11 with SMTP id ei11mr255267igc.94.1448494379799; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:32:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.155.139 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:32:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <565589E4.2030107@desy.de>
References: <565589E4.2030107@desy.de>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:32:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXB5OiNmwMhPm6Y+xchJ2vRVFWfspTaSQ5bzkMd_Z=O=g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Paul Millar <paul.millar@desy.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/LFvApQz8p0_b0hSkmSm57TzH-2M>
Cc: "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Server on >= 1024 port
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 23:33:03 -0000

On 25 November 2015 at 02:13, Paul Millar <paul.millar@desy.de> wrote:
> Therefore, there seems no reason to limit ACME to the traditionally secure
> port number.


I would be OK with having an ACME server validate against any port,
but only if it were going to issue a certificate with a subjectAltName
that references the port number in question.  Otherwise, for the
reason ekr noted, a user that happens to get shell access on a shared
hosting environment could get certificates issued to them for the
entire domain.