IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [certid] It is not always a good idea to enforce CN check as leaf RDN only

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 31 March 2010 21:52 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: certid@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: certid@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAE8F3A6A40 for <certid@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:52:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.349
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0vN5P4X3zQgg for <certid@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:52:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7DA03A6AE3 for <certid@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:52:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-158.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-158.cisco.com [64.101.72.158]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 20ADA40D3A for <certid@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:53:12 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4BB3C447.7000505@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:53:11 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: certid@ietf.org
References: <20100317134327.GA14163@eltex.net> <4BA1A532.9090107@stpeter.im> <20100318045825.GA14076@eltex.net>
In-Reply-To: <20100318045825.GA14076@eltex.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms070200010300020906030707"
Subject: Re: [certid] It is not always a good idea to enforce CN check as leaf RDN only
X-BeenThere: certid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Representation and verification of identity in certificates <certid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/certid>, <mailto:certid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/certid>
List-Post: <mailto:certid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:certid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/certid>, <mailto:certid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:52:42 -0000

On 3/17/10 10:58 PM, ArkanoiD wrote:
> Well, when it comes to implementation we get *two* matching algorithms then,
> which is definitely no good ;-). 

Given that a self-signed certificate can say *anything*, I don't know
that it's helpful to enforce any rules about issuance and checking of
self-signed certs. It's not as if any "certification" has taken place in
this situation.

> What is the rationale of enforcing CN to
> be leaf RDN?

As I recall, Alexey Melnikov brought that up so I'll ping him about it.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email