IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [COSE] Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-cose-countersign-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 08 September 2022 20:04 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 474D4C1533A5; Thu, 8 Sep 2022 13:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fUGFERQsgoEo; Thu, 8 Sep 2022 13:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (mail3.g24.pair.com [66.39.134.11]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16344C1533AB; Thu, 8 Sep 2022 13:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A80975D27; Thu, 8 Sep 2022 16:04:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.2] (pfs.iad.rg.net [198.180.150.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E5EFA75A6F; Thu, 8 Sep 2022 16:04:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Message-Id: <E226CF54-4C8C-490A-839A-6B0E3DF34EFC@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D2DB9CD8-9AD8-47A4-A885-1B63811736F0"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2022 16:04:39 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1B3B559C-1E33-46DD-A09C-C58DF4D9A729@tzi.org>
Cc: Paul Wouters <paul.wouters@aiven.io>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-cose-countersign@ietf.org, Cose Chairs Wg <cose-chairs@ietf.org>, cose <cose@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
References: <166260329928.48271.213904604186540650@ietfa.amsl.com> <1B3B559C-1E33-46DD-A09C-C58DF4D9A729@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
X-Scanned-By: mailmunge 3.09 on 66.39.134.11
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/Li1rs9xK8p3FC7nsfTfINkByDUY>
Subject: Re: [COSE] Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-cose-countersign-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: cose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 08 Sep 2022 20:04:50 -0000


> On Sep 8, 2022, at 1:47 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> 
> On 2022-09-08, at 04:14, Paul Wouters via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>>       gem install cbor-diag
>> 
>> I am concerned about adding install commands for "programs from the internet"
>> within an RFC. If the rubygem for some reason becomes malicious, we cannot
>> pull it from the RFC (even if we pull it from the datatracker link, it would
>> still live on in copies of the RFC elsewhere and malicious people could point
>> to copies of those original RFCs to point people to downlod the malicious rubygem.
>> 
>> I would be okay with an iet.org download location of a ruby gem.
> 
> “gem install” is the appropriate way to install rubygems software, not a “location of a rubygem”.
> 
> What you seem to be asking for is some indirection so we can swap out the name of the gem in case cbor-diag becomes rogue.  That does make some sense to me, but we’d need to install that indirection somewhere in a place maintained by the IETF.
> 
> ➔ “Please consult https://www.ietf.org/software/cbor-diag for the way to install this software”.
> And that page would contain instructions including “gem install cbor-diag” until that goes rogue.
> 
> Can we get such a infrastructure of pages recommending software up and running?  Do we mire ourselves in process issues (who gets change control etc.)?
> 
> Data point from a quick search:
> The RFCs that already suggest installing rubygems via a direct “gem install” include RFC 8152, RFC 8610, RFC 9052.
> 
> (In reality, I’d expect the rubygems organization to act more quickly on a report of cbor-diag going rogue than the IETF would.)
> 
> Grüße, Carsten


Paul:

Are you satisfied with this explanation? Or, would you prefer the pointer to https://www.ietf.org/software/cbor-diag <https://www.ietf.org/software/cbor-diag>

Russ

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email