Re: [Acme] Issuing certificates based on Simple HTTP challenges

Julian Dropmann <julian@dropmann.org> Mon, 14 December 2015 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <julian@dropmann.org>
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 C3FB71AC417 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:53:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 5r5w4OVVbj1p for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:53:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22c.google.com (mail-lf0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22c]) (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 78A341AC407 for <Acme@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:53:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lfed137 with SMTP id d137so74427295lfe.3 for <Acme@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:53:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dropmann.org; s=dkim1; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=PQh0RpxLQxDLy6esrWP5pkMZVb/H2VD9N8ZurCR5L1Q=; b=L06PX8wH9fCIIp0gBZdozq6pBtE9lGZaL1zQAYNTerC1RahqIXUwwJ28MPAqxp/v7N a2a6mYmB29EX1HaVj8VVAa8kTgARsqbFAy1i6fWPRZ6rOSFivGFAEjWpOL2CeZj+qIc6 2XghONDpCsZ7QW7dobZixZTQsTYmmbrPT6+98=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=PQh0RpxLQxDLy6esrWP5pkMZVb/H2VD9N8ZurCR5L1Q=; b=PDKzA/cx7YOv2DqZb+0oTpu/GnWWUKy8abjxhue60FIEC0qSj5xSEgDzPQB58A72E0 ASiusLF31X3TW12eXv8WRlsRApqqjP8HHIJuPG8kNcMB1aJhSOFt+RU6s1+kxWAeafA+ Z9KkmJr3VHrUyz31IUTNLCk1+wtzbtDDsOuWXXdtsRSfDFdfexT1jtVy8zSRktKdwjSq U3dg87adDh9n6KdHz9Lms1pfXD1mqHbnUA/PCAjuwL511X2ejxGMp+0ujtms2iDRprDZ 0WoutOuDoBFOsvl9IVnNMa1yOytPsRVl5T9CXbZo7aSyMSI1+3dEWo0ekFPgwgIKPinR Cotw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnvjB7VwRFMOiDkRRhLWMLGXyrACI7vIZs0amD1AJCJy0D/kQS4cOMlcLqRSZxjwOdTg+s/Po9vY/zun7jG8IOEA1aUMQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.25.43.146 with SMTP id r140mr11029191lfr.140.1450111997620; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:53:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.25.39.2 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:53:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [62.154.225.234]
In-Reply-To: <3071e2d95eaf49acac00e91d3626ccfa@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
References: <CAF+SmEpOLoaREymVhi=qOUg2opz1vKzzNp6tGrDTZAjYSKFDkg@mail.gmail.com> <3071e2d95eaf49acac00e91d3626ccfa@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 17:53:17 +0100
Message-ID: <CAF+SmEo_s8svTgwvBPqqHyhKFKCt5e-3kSpZK2dUAqapzzORiw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Julian Dropmann <julian@dropmann.org>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1141170c80cb3c0526de824c"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/am1pkQrtstrGgPpMpzZOrZs4gvg>
Cc: "Acme@ietf.org" <Acme@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Issuing certificates based on Simple HTTP 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: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:53:20 -0000

> >This effectively means, as a domain zone admin, I have to trust every
> single service I define, not just to properly deliver this service, but
> also not to exploit his ability to obtain signed certificates in my name.
>
> Yes.


And you are perfectly aware, that this was not the case before ACME-enabled
CAs existed, and now applies to every single domain admin on this planet,
right?


> >Also you rely on the fact that on UNIX only root can bind on port 80 and
> 443.
>
> Not for *security* but for connectivity.  That is an important difference.
>

If it was not for security, then why not allow other ports, so you can
verify the ownership while for example an application server is bound to
that port? The A record does not specify the port anyway.