IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] Content-Transfer-Encoding and HTTP 1.x in ANIMA BRSKI

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 17 June 2019 20:44 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCFB6120431 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 13:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 BjYXHJ0GXqTb for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 13:44:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62e.google.com (mail-pl1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62e]) (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 740921203F3 for <anima@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 13:44:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id b7so4628888pls.6; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 13:44:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dENyHE9uA+ezvFczIuF9miBNRlR84E9Ptdi6ZFvBNQk=; b=Jxhd5nOXeSrY02QRvcwXLc9oR5RQqURtK9j0U+Qs1/YOdLxTR7MyxBiGa8c3bQalxh HQIUMJO5YVK/DHqlxjuH2iJo8KisQIcBhVD1qSeZbPSN1z6csX6K/j8CRtaGE2t6eNSu igEp5ueME9VXQlqBseTQiDIspM3rxFNAlrbnV/LgUROmLXTS9X87WytMN+qFxNX7DWGI sgxciLbGdblf4fuWb8qnrQUk+4HgXYEp/40A93eYT5D24WKHpMCE5id7z1P+y+SPXdMd CITEM7IgyeelE+D16IACekFz2ETjzEmgJV/KtBZGAe6CD6omgttiSlhGgMdZHRpStCUe DLNg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=dENyHE9uA+ezvFczIuF9miBNRlR84E9Ptdi6ZFvBNQk=; b=hLzaE4qOsbrQI54/nYOkb47jLMIltjjmkaPVk1ksClvOaIksQJwRL7h2eJ3tXp3aGf hc19dlwcz9X1Np+rdWnodwfAAaCcwNsu10PJiXL+K0OFT7NaB+ctP6HKxTAX9IobTE16 A7B0rd//KxkeKU5ZP3P411jPbqbHD5ktJYNyuUS/YUEyZOHL0OQJP2OfYptCgQOsHYl8 R4BXgzwaIK+k5gyFa0G3/NJ2uo3N8yJAALTyIGusRx9RVfG5ftAN46byJeB17P9w21A7 OHABUhHBoCzvbquZZoq7V7do8S5wsYxGFNaQ4saa+BeBXGrtmeuz7CySLtRykqJoc90T kLww==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXeEl//ZB6kM0OpXdcpVvfhbintbqGDNcPMjxwOo4gceYg+kZjN Ww4PmwG86k8MyoIUgcPoWLIiN913
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx4sprXCdtfWfJO1mG6Rn+Zlncz3bzlo5SLRYqj1oQezXUQhFz3M01gYgLPoWeNPCl4P1ExWg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8ec3:: with SMTP id x3mr23020548plo.313.1560804287670; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 13:44:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] (32.23.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [123.255.23.32]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t8sm2243714pfq.31.2019.06.17.13.44.43 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Jun 2019 13:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)" <pkampana@cisco.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "draft-ietf-pkix-est@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pkix-est@ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Anima WG <anima@ietf.org>
References: <32410.1560275231@localhost> <15839.1560351718@localhost> <8a538f76-787d-de13-97f1-16195daae8ce@gmx.de> <F896BCBC-6C32-4107-B4B5-C12617F81326@tzi.org> <AD4DC1AA-C332-4BC7-B095-0CDD30700B99@cisco.com> <909.1560436148@localhost> <BN7PR11MB25473A12F646FAC8C19C1118C9EF0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <8921.1560788417@dooku.sandelman.ca> <BN7PR11MB2547DFFF1EC4B7B92D0FC9DDC9EB0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f2403f8d-f40b-3112-cd23-cde9ae04a74b@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 08:44:43 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BN7PR11MB2547DFFF1EC4B7B92D0FC9DDC9EB0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/gkdzTXM7-tRnh0cLkFnX2Tm_cWo>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Content-Transfer-Encoding and HTTP 1.x in ANIMA BRSKI
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 20:44:51 -0000

On 18-Jun-19 05:18, Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) wrote:
>> So effectively, the CTE header has effectively been dropped, but the payload is now assumed to be base64, regardless.
>> This suggests that we can not use the CTE header as a signal.

I went and looked at RFC4648 for my own education, and then spent a few minutes
trying to design a Turing machine that can distinguish a binary bit string from
a base64 bit string. Fail. You can determine that a bit string is definitely
not base64 if it contains at least one character outside the base64 alphabet,
but not the converse. So it needs a signal. Not having a signal would be wide
open to malicious misuse, IMHO. Indicating the length of the payload would be
enough, I think.

   Brian

> 
> I am not sure I can speak about all implementations out there, but that is what I saw in my interop testing.
> 
>> One has to assume base64 encoded values for the RFC7030 end-points.
> 
> In all tests I did yes.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 12:20 PM
> To: Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) <pkampana@cisco.com>
> Cc: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>; Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>; Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>; draft-ietf-pkix-est@ietf.org; ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Anima WG <anima@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Anima] Content-Transfer-Encoding and HTTP 1.x in ANIMA BRSKI
> 
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
> 
> 
>> Now, I don’t know how other EST clients would act. There are many out
>> there by now that we can’t safely tell if they would act up.
>> The commercial and enterprise CAs I tested with interoped fine with
>> the libest client and they were not all sending the CTE field. They
>> payload was base64 though.
> 
> I didn't read this well enough before.
> 
> So effectively, the CTE header has effectively been dropped, but the payload is now assumed to be base64, regardless.
> 
> This suggests that we can not use the CTE header as a signal.
> One has to assume base64 encoded values for the RFC7030 end-points.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Unknown Key
> * 0xFDFC4290
> _______________________________________________
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email