IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Acme] ACME breaking change: Most GETs become POSTs

Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org> Tue, 04 September 2018 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <jsha@eff.org>
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 B6473126DBF for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Sep 2018 10:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.011 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_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eff.org
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 u0eftbVjfL9g for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Sep 2018 10:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.eff.org (mail2.eff.org [173.239.79.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F088A12008A for <acme@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Sep 2018 10:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eff.org; s=mail2; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version: Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=ELE4g5Vj42pDG2k/xv800R9so/Cb9uk/h521UUrXsu0=; b=Za63eQJpVHvoZcBQiwGQo2yRVL BOSPk5dcgp708do7Hqxm7dj2Oo6+KERCj9arSFoJ6+PeWjw4qDSPyVVVcH7uyfsaA8A0OXayFc35H 4ZnGX4/QnG85ZOz0pGeMR/mwOnTFSfzFcXV2YH5CeUskTA5YIYYEzG2ir4AJuoIqHdRA=;
Received: ; Tue, 04 Sep 2018 10:33:50 -0700
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Cc: IETF ACME <acme@ietf.org>
References: <c33184f3-4e64-b7ea-babb-d29e2307f1f3@eff.org> <CAL02cgQ1BAzYH4f1nUD3fO0dKTc4mVrJ_NnoKq+Zb0BjT9J35Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <jsha@eff.org>
Message-ID: <c05aa84f-257b-991a-08b7-821f4ed279f6@eff.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2018 10:33:50 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgQ1BAzYH4f1nUD3fO0dKTc4mVrJ_NnoKq+Zb0BjT9J35Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/doJko3lvR37H1VjALXlb-IddgN0>
Subject: Re: [Acme] ACME breaking change: Most GETs become POSTs
X-BeenThere: acme@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 04 Sep 2018 17:33:53 -0000

On 08/31/2018 03:08 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
> ISSUE 1. Should we do POST-as-GET at all, vs. keeping GET and doing 
> the privacy analysis?
Agreed we're solved on this.
> ISSUE 2: How should we signal that POST-as-GET request is different 
> from other POST requests?
Started a separate thread on this.
> ISSUE 3: Should servers be required to allow GET requests for 
> certificate URLs?
I'm not convinced this is absolutely necessary for the STAR use case, 
and I'm still not thrilled about carving out exceptions, but I'm okay 
leaving this as a MAY GET in the interests of landing the change.
> ISSUE 4: How should we address the risk that an attacker can discover 
> URLs by probing for Unauthorized vs. Not Found?
>
> There seemed to be agreement on the list that this should be addressed 
> with some guidance to servers on how to assign URLs.  I have just 
> added some text to the PR for this.
This seems like a good plan to me.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email