IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [COSE] Pull-request addressing issues #29 #30 #31 #33 in draft-ietf-cose-x509-08

Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com> Fri, 12 March 2021 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <lgl@island-resort.com>
X-Original-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cose@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E85163A190D for <cose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 10:02:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 UoeQeKCz1gQr for <cose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 10:02:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p3plsmtpa07-09.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa07-09.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [173.201.192.238]) (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 C44693A1916 for <cose@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 10:02:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.81] ([76.167.193.86]) by :SMTPAUTH: with ESMTPA id Km70lG7qqdIHpKm71lL3o2; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 11:02:11 -0700
X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=UdWU9IeN c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=604baca3 a=t2DvPg6iSvRzsOFYbaV4uQ==:117 a=t2DvPg6iSvRzsOFYbaV4uQ==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=NeJZvmmVAAAA:20 a=0FD05c-RAAAA:8 a=gKmFwSsBAAAA:8 a=TQz8MJJc4U__7YPa7H4A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22 a=l1rpMCqCXRGZwUSuRcM3:22 a=nnPW6aIcBuj1ljLj_o6Q:22
X-SECURESERVER-ACCT: lgl@island-resort.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\))
From: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D49BABD-474A-4FD8-B1EF-967A9D30E646@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 10:02:10 -0800
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, cose <cose@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D0A8ED69-115A-48F9-8FD3-FDBEF24AEE69@island-resort.com>
References: <FE8C6CA0-DC5B-4A12-B467-957A9C1CD1BF@ericsson.com> <394D515A-62ED-4C0A-A2F0-B8686904F979@tzi.org> <43FF858C-455F-4A3E-8FC0-1B64D715518E@ericsson.com> <8D49BABD-474A-4FD8-B1EF-967A9D30E646@ericsson.com>
To: John Mattsson <john.mattsson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17)
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfLhwOF6akGTy0ySh17y5O0HyT/JhWiz9MD6RGwhZK3X1CBVlIZPgK/myvM1EcJUm5u9c3qhhxGfwT6kHZH26LD5j+G8F6CiRK+ZZQUxrEJ4rkZ+1LM0O HTV88u0hd5mwWrrlFL6nBMJp070QT472RVWNogAtmPwZBVgknllA5WBTQUQ6j8UfHK9bzRfec6jKuIVlL/YFyC0ZMTzWcGkyvBBM5uHXbjflirQ5ArdpYBgc twzUPk9JJQhP2FZ/m1UcJjcHieyUW7123qSAab7iAIw=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/LOosQ0s-Ioq-9aF4-XE9hK03STI>
Subject: Re: [COSE] Pull-request addressing issues #29 #30 #31 #33 in draft-ietf-cose-x509-08
X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: CBOR Object Signing and Encryption <cose.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cose>, <mailto:cose-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cose/>
List-Post: <mailto:cose@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cose-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose>, <mailto:cose-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 18:02:13 -0000

I wouldn’t say MUST, just highly recommended. If there is consensus for MUST I won’t object considering that the cost of protection is low for all the uses I can imagine.

LL

> On Mar 11, 2021, at 11:35 PM, John Mattsson <john.mattsson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> New comment from Laurance on GitHub pointing out that proof-of-possesion
> is not enough. I think this point to that COSE integrity protection of the end-entity certificate needs to be MUST.
> 
> Cheers,
> John
> 
> https://github.com/cose-wg/X509/pull/35
> 
>  This doesn't address the case where a CA correctly and intentionally
>  issued two certs for the same key with different characteristics (e.g.,
>  key use, expiration, other extensions) and the attacker swapped them.
> 
>  Maybe this: "When any field in a certificate beyond the key (e.g., key
>  use, expiration, other extensions) is used in security decisions by the
>  receiver, the COSE header containing or referencing the certificate
>  should be in the protected bucket"."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Mattsson <john.mattsson@ericsson.com>
> Date: Thursday, 11 March 2021 at 08:33
> To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
> Cc: cose <cose@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [COSE] Pull-request addressing issues #29 #30 #31 #33 in draft-ietf-cose-x509-08
> 
> Yes it probably better to register a new media type. E.g.:
> 
> application/cose-x509-chain
> 
> Let's discuss tomorrow.
> 
> Cheers,
> John
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
> Date: Wednesday, 10 March 2021 at 21:03
> To: John Mattsson <john.mattsson@ericsson.com>
> Cc: cose <cose@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [COSE] Pull-request addressing issues #29 #30 #31 #33 in draft-ietf-cose-x509-08
> 
> On 24. Feb 2021, at 10:35, John Mattsson <john.mattsson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>> 
>> - Added media type application/cbor for a COSE_X509 chain.
> 
> Why is that the right media type?
> (We have specific ones for everything else, no?)
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> COSE mailing list
> COSE@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email