Re: [dane] On the PKIX-TA / PKIX-CA question? [ One week WGLC ]

Ben Laurie <benl@google.com> Tue, 10 December 2013 11:21 UTC

Return-Path: <benl@google.com>
X-Original-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dane@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B32601AD8F5 for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 03:21:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.379
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.379 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 Cz1RZrcH9JZs for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 03:21:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ve0-x230.google.com (mail-ve0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB9031AD7C0 for <dane@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 03:21:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ve0-f176.google.com with SMTP id oz11so4624453veb.21 for <dane@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 03:21:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=YbLkhrTUKh999tgne2/TRdC0AHcrhPG2p/9pYxj/qXU=; b=HIykQPYN798q7x2eGVyB1a8b/v9J8fv6/MGlOaohXVt5cjij7loTKtAXQLoRaj+YXA DNRsnZiFKaDTCKs4JKNSt5HiXSDdg8BV3yUDysJIwn2Z4EFqMOTFIfJ4omLv77a00EGu pwfemj6TSA8aF5sXLjTVCv6+z57V4ebusIO5+OzurA5jxmMHhkB2wcYZDbUenMrJt/PS WyMsSweNp/UTwgPtlJBR6OrnLZ+la4H/scuwkY+r9+s5kWaeKRpaVoX7NP6POosrFE+s 0oc9WJ01SWCO4x8LEio8qiVC9AhBX/UaVaDzWCLQVFiTVULIH0zKFd8l4GNA6DEVIXfa ba5A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=YbLkhrTUKh999tgne2/TRdC0AHcrhPG2p/9pYxj/qXU=; b=cjBdojhwsh9m0hlAqYL4GCI9Fyfi+Hrr+uAcYwdQ1LFSpcOyjEG79c9+rfCPLZsy9t ubPmcAlRgZRNDdnIiqlCv4RNw6yPTX7jW5ibm300fZaoT+iWT3l2YkS/egRdgFRwaPYn jAsenWYfR7sKENcjkF032Z/4Ij8ZXKM/bJFlqowR7XyijQGd4gawYAr+wqwPabb/VQT5 z5NwVrQHj6zs0D5XvZ2TfganYOfJEYpyGlePLSv6HxOsb6mXo+5DIQSyDcdeAmeoO4SY 3+gBOFyGRYm1EIfaDjTwv3qktwbNszepijChNuJ09T5hdg+zJ0fxqMCrvx8QTUxNS6lo sCnw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlTOQS62FseVH1UxOHXajxSFjg5/N6I23ZsraRoCuRYpJXg27meZUs2FwLhE+UXV0NwOsTY4PH+VgLxExXQ5to0Wivf4ovzcMyAg3rex4sD/LDasLdaDgcpDC/Hjx3+ch6o8BXbqh8/EN6TKZGIMk2WaLty0+xDORF7Hd38f8aQm4aZjztImaHwAEP2O7x/NeqInJzV
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.165.240 with SMTP id zb16mr11129877vdb.19.1386674477390; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 03:21:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.183.65 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 03:21:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20131210073402.GA761@mournblade.imrryr.org>
References: <A06891E1-01E0-40CC-A9A2-171CAA39AB79@kumari.net> <20131205175314.GH761@mournblade.imrryr.org> <E78C07CA-B742-43B2-8848-33DEB22A8014@kumari.net> <201312080234.rB82YeoW029387@new.toad.com> <m3y53tg0c3.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org> <20131209231919.GY761@mournblade.imrryr.org> <4FAF6906-D258-4AB3-B76C-888C35566097@kirei.se> <20131210073402.GA761@mournblade.imrryr.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:21:17 +0000
Message-ID: <CABrd9SSSPFOe7HGyFiH=8oP=cvQ-g6HEqBytY8h=bbVonwNR7w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
To: IETF DANE WG list <dane@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c24e80a4f25204ed2c4fd3
Subject: Re: [dane] On the PKIX-TA / PKIX-CA question? [ One week WGLC ]
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities <dane.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dane>, <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dane/>
List-Post: <mailto:dane@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane>, <mailto:dane-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:21:24 -0000

On 10 December 2013 07:34, Viktor Dukhovni <viktor1dane@dukhovni.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 08:12:42AM +0100, Jakob Schlyter wrote:
>
> > > [ Usages 0/1 are a blunder, we're continuing to pay the cost of
> > >  this blunder. ]
> >
> > As the author of 6698, I don't agree and believe 0/1 are still
> > useful as an additional layer of security for traditional PKIX.
>
> You left out the word "theatre" after "security". :-)  I guess time
> will tell whether the definition of 0/1 in 6698 is in fact pointless
> complexity.  The critical thing now is to drive DNSSEC adoption,
> so that DANE becomes viable (or perhaps adoption of both in parallel,
> if DANE is the carrot for DNSSEC adoption).
>
> In the mean-time, I have a working, and plausibly correct, be it
> not yet extensively tested, general purpose DANE interface for
> OpenSSL.  It fully supports all the DANE usages (including the
> theatrical ones).  It even supports out-of-band "2 x 0" certificates
> and keys and certificates even when these are not in the peer's
> TLS chain.
>
> Let's hope that support for DANE verification with OpenSSL will
> encourage broader application support for DANE.  With a bit of
> luck, someone from the OpenSSL team will volunteer to work with me
> to integrate the code into the development tree.
>

I'm willing to consider it. But I'm still concerned that without something
akin to CT, DANE is more dangerous than the existing PKI.


>
> This took just over 1200 lines of commented code.  It should work
> with OpenSSL 0.9.8 or newer.  A very recent insight made it possible
> to remove the need for signing operations and generation of internal
> private keys in the verifier, so it is now about as simple as it
> can get.
>

0.9.8 is closed to new functionality, as are some of the more recent
branches.


>
> The usage 2 implementation is radically different from all the
> other cases, and accounts for the bulk of the code.  This is why
> I am not comfortable with language that suggests that the difference
> between 0 and 2 is just like that between 1 and 3.  This is very
> far from the truth.
>
> --
>         Viktor.
> _______________________________________________
> dane mailing list
> dane@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
>