Re: [Acme] "authorized key pair" vs CSR keys
Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> Thu, 18 December 2014 19:58 UTC
Return-Path: <anders.rundgren.net@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 60D681A6F2C for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:58:25 -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 sUP_JgYX06eD for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:58:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x236.google.com (mail-wi0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 095731A3BA9 for <acme@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:58:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id h11so3033354wiw.3 for <acme@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:58:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GwGav/xH9/DueaK5seBQ6r9SAd8wpebM/sRbX2MTMn4=; b=Gl2EGJGZe0bFBT6Mht6/WHpfu9VVxbx+tVpbs4Jaxs+RE2kVwIYgeLTOPES+hxrczJ XQ9LKclPjamkmVdJaBsB+LTlDRs28LcExu81go5QOt+zFt+YjLBKUuYA21uq6hRn5AbB 0js1EPwELnw9sE1JvnzesDJxAuEuyk6ebYZwJZfr4UZWl4OvX6BBcBHxP1y70OMEbLsy /zEWcnzYT9q7IcX4CKPFGj1P/q5QRj9AkD3K3C8wDUqfLKNA2QP1JZncsp7iKJns5wBR j7VH48pj1n2wR55XNdzcfg5e5icMyUBrF/xiUg2o3zwCGzhYCLxC6oQ5UlH9BauWluRR uK+g==
X-Received: by 10.180.75.42 with SMTP id z10mr8304386wiv.70.1418932702808; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:58:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.79] (52.16.14.81.rev.sfr.net. [81.14.16.52]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id gy8sm25951984wib.23.2014.12.18.11.58.22 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:58:22 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <549331D7.7030302@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 20:58:15 +0100
From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
References: <5492C4AF.3050708@gmail.com> <CABkgnnWxuD4qPeaMEQZWacxZEO1nCh5XczsG+BvnE9hrZHPTiA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWxuD4qPeaMEQZWacxZEO1nCh5XczsG+BvnE9hrZHPTiA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/OmyEawMhNGBkLg-w1Id_nTUNV4E
Cc: "acme@ietf.org" <acme@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Acme] "authorized key pair" vs CSR keys
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 19:58:25 -0000
On 2014-12-18 20:55, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 18 December 2014 at 04:12, Anders Rundgren > <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote: >> Does/can the CSR use another key-pair than the "authorized key pair"? >> >> If not the outer signature seems a bit odd since the CSR itself should >> contain a signature. > > The signature in the CSR isn't enough to bind the CSR to the ACME > protocol process. Without that, the information that appears in the > ACME context couldn't be properly attributed to the private key owner. > The authorized key pair mentioned in the spec is *another* key-pair than used for the CSR? If not, the design appears strange to me at least. Anders
- [Acme] "authorized key pair" vs CSR keys Anders Rundgren
- Re: [Acme] "authorized key pair" vs CSR keys Martin Thomson
- Re: [Acme] "authorized key pair" vs CSR keys Anders Rundgren
- Re: [Acme] "authorized key pair" vs CSR keys Martin Thomson
- Re: [Acme] "authorized key pair" vs CSR keys Anders Rundgren