IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Acme] Looking for comments on https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/issues/215

Patrick Figel <patrick@figel.email> Sat, 03 December 2016 12:35 UTC

Return-Path: <patrick@figel.email>
X-Original-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: acme@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AE28129713 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Dec 2016 04:35:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=figel.email
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 A2UlV7DNNBPc for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Dec 2016 04:35:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22f.google.com (mail-qt0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22f]) (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 8CBDE129712 for <acme@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Dec 2016 04:35:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id p16so275421233qta.0 for <acme@ietf.org>; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 04:35:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=figel.email; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kjcjrOI9EKXzcvgQBTLyIqPOgqHdemljkUAX3vKW3f4=; b=bcNFSxPJ8en5Di4PzFl7HQxCF+rkOiEleOnnPydBJvY6NuMVvF39WB0zjmnzwwf/ld 15FROpGELEAhgldqFvs5OsFhbzWri3BQ0knekJARklyDvKOk78K/oEHGxQqAQTexZWjX PhaiU5BRLrNLFq+wXcR6urKSEHJgYnRM/WJtKErsTzHXqywkuiS3yTLDhLoWH5k+gxoh tGH2dp64bV58vJVpjh5DKKJaFxcfreS9bUb84PfaYaMtJlxufn7z9sMJ9bGuyhCCc6aA +DJtWw8yVEPYzX4yxur5W9VHMeYioT54M4DB2W58hLMzaubJuap/G+yiBnAv9FtK+1Cu YwLw==
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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kjcjrOI9EKXzcvgQBTLyIqPOgqHdemljkUAX3vKW3f4=; b=TMf6zUuHwPD9aK9PAnw7IKkC1fLi032A0FQFrwDGuR2mRwASCQVWueW+ijGlLILYGz Ppry4NtEM6WpNpYHxVgj+/89oOAqy/28YakeSLhFKy1qouCPz5Z0UT01ys1Qa9L2L9Mx E4Zdlxw3n313/ibMk88qZVVCjcI5qcWvZD7/w5Pep876aByk0CZ9eRiVUYIUGc9ZOy5r PN+l4bXtTE6EZ1oRUnShCIoLDRe1rbHLs9P20uzcF1XQ4SLeWxN8PjGwMTlcB5hgyvqk J7spYqufPPwpHm/f+ibRTRbHIeGdZgrhXcU1qqho/SamGt7B7Wzzev/xXnK0UQzTkPLZ Iu1w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00stIR7jlZuWtMgqhP5v1ukt/yQDGxWbLnoX9AHW76HmPZ8nFyAhmgpPsLSJj+Iq3wf28vs+/LskEZJXA==
X-Received: by 10.237.33.3 with SMTP id 3mr41430710qtc.118.1480768544558; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 04:35:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.200.44.179 with HTTP; Sat, 3 Dec 2016 04:35:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [213.47.56.124]
In-Reply-To: <0af93d402273472f9b54603f6aa73e5f@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
References: <0af93d402273472f9b54603f6aa73e5f@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com>
From: Patrick Figel <patrick@figel.email>
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2016 13:35:23 +0100
Message-ID: <CABPsnA=gFpOKSnSd0c4FagQFBWiD8iCrxW8M22m5cO3kY0fPsQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/dZdA_SOWqrGSLdEjD0ZvCCVX4Rk>
Cc: IETF ACME <acme@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Acme] Looking for comments on https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/issues/215
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sat, 03 Dec 2016 12:35:48 -0000

I wrote together some thoughts on this proposal here[1]. In short, I think it's
vulnerable to the default vhost attack that caused simpleHTTP to be dropped, and
it's not compatible with the "Agreed-Upon Change to Website" method described
in the BRs, which would prevent adoption by any publicly-trusted CA.

The proposed workaround for this issue[2] would make this a variant of tls-sni,
AIUI, which already has these pseudo-hostnames, so I think we're down to "allow
other ports" here, and I believe there's consensus against this.

Patrick

[1]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/QiXu84RJtURfGVVEYfSpRdtcU5o
[2]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/NFKJ5sqBePGlJglKRwodc5m4ZEo

On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 3:18 AM, Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:
> With the couple of recent pull requests, the document editors are about to
> close all but on issue, #215.
>
>
>
> Does the WG have any feelings on this?  Is it something we need to address
> NOW, or can we add a new type of challenge later on if there’s interest?
>
>
>
> Please reply on-list by earl next week.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies
>
> Member, OpenSSL Dev Team
>
> IM: richsalz@jabber.at Twitter: RichSalz
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> Acme@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email