IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Acme] I-D Action: draft-ietf-acme-email-smime-05.txt

"A. Schulze" <sca@andreasschulze.de> Tue, 09 July 2019 21:37 UTC

Return-Path: <sca@andreasschulze.de>
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 B1913120020 for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.299 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=andreasschulze.de header.b=dODAKS34; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=andreasschulze.de header.b=Pk5HME/G
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 xIsq8nx--OUU for <acme@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta.somaf.de (mta.somaf.de [IPv6:2001:470:77b3:103::25]) (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 0E06D12007A for <acme@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=andreasschulze.de; i=@andreasschulze.de; q=dns/txt; s=ed25519; t=1562708272; h=subject : to : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : from; bh=4zdhYrzyhbWmV9tXfGYeLRwDocuHpoq08gDhq7kp8I0=; b=dODAKS344WG4osmwjcGoc7P/g37+WSVefSSxLrCCIo07vQRCDuOPPyYU PBg6AEWagJ3LXgps+XDOZIDr0rIICQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=andreasschulze.de; s=201906-5F195DBE; t=1562708272; x=1567708272; bh=4zdhYrzyhbWmV9tXfGYeLRwDocuHpoq08gDhq7kp8I0=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:autocrypt:cc: content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to: message-id:mime-version:openpgp:references:subject:to; b=Pk5HME/Gz0c1nWnDZSjyS/o+9otg+lb12aXdf4oAmVWsgvpsRYbekS4kaxY3101BO 9yo2iCbiWbIbPPfZ/c5EHjob4Scu5hSQi4uv5u3Mrd1KthHyzoU/3kGANYqMDzHHD5 bUemTdlKleUEzo2O0NMQ9Ya9f+28wZBKjmh0LN0IgeAEtzaR6rcGoNMGblirmk9zSf qg4OYgsZfdgJhYDq4e6kTSbOKSos2xnqoTq/zKePmjIy0fxFERohteR1kUefrf7PVX afMdOlz+2aul9wCmjCJOk9xCiXQ7cWj/5ZJbx6t6l/+xgAL7yyDGVtwd3tj9CsHTVk NiP9dpLlG1qNg==
To: acme@ietf.org
References: <156260109884.927.16438195900063865237@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: "A. Schulze" <sca@andreasschulze.de>
Message-ID: <374d4ff4-5338-0e34-a4ff-4c217dbffec6@andreasschulze.de>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 23:37:33 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <156260109884.927.16438195900063865237@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/acme/vssTFVF06KJ-E7OJLd6-iDXEeFU>
Subject: Re: [Acme] I-D Action: draft-ietf-acme-email-smime-05.txt
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, 09 Jul 2019 21:37:59 -0000


Am 08.07.19 um 17:51 schrieb internet-drafts@ietf.org:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-acme-email-smime-05

Hello,

certification based on messages require confidence the messages aren't tampered.
To assure that I suggest to require some properties that make the messages more robust
against modification.

messages sent by the CA

 - message content MUST be 7 bit before signing
   -> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6376#section-5.3

   The draft mention 7 bit only for response messages (Section 3.2 6.)

 - DKIM signatures MUST be creates in a way that allow detection
   of header addition.
   -> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6376#section-5.4

   while RFC 6376 don't name it "oversigning" it's a common
   phrase for OpenDKIM users...

messages send back to the CA:

  the CA MAY require same DKIM properties for the messages they
  expect from the user.

Andreas

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email