IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dane] "Name Checks are not appropriate for CU=3"

Stephen Nightingale <night@nist.gov> Thu, 16 January 2014 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.nightingale@nist.gov>
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 5B6871AE3FA for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:36:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.737
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.737 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] autolearn=ham
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 FtKADyoPWQDc for <dane@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:36:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wsget1.nist.gov (wsget1.nist.gov [129.6.13.150]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 650741AE3B4 for <dane@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:36:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from WSXGHUB1.xchange.nist.gov (129.6.18.96) by wsget1.nist.gov (129.6.13.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.1; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:35:26 -0500
Received: from postmark.nist.gov (129.6.16.94) by WSXGHUB1.xchange.nist.gov (129.6.18.96) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.327.1; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:36:06 -0500
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (31-140.antd.nist.gov [129.6.140.31]) by postmark.nist.gov (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id s0GHZqjp004063 for <dane@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:35:55 -0500
Message-ID: <52D81875.6050705@nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:35:49 -0500
From: Stephen Nightingale <night@nist.gov>
Organization: NIST
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dane@ietf.org
References: <20140116151959.4AA021ABB0@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp> <52D80CC4.9020407@bbn.com>
In-Reply-To: <52D80CC4.9020407@bbn.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000105000405040102090108"
X-NIST-MailScanner-Information:
Subject: Re: [dane] "Name Checks are not appropriate for CU=3"
X-BeenThere: dane@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: night@nist.gov
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: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:36:22 -0000

Granted the cert even for Cert Use DANE-EE(3) must be well-formed in 
order to see what's in it.
But I believe Victor's main point is that the only field *value* that 
matters for DANE-EE(3)
is the Public Key.  Issuer, Common Name and SubjectAltName are just 
deckchairs.

Stephen.


On 1/16/2014 11:45 AM, Stephen Kent wrote:
> Martin is correct. This is not  well-formed cert as per RFC 5280:
>
> 4.1.2.4.Issuer
>
> The issuer field identifies the entity that has signed and issued the
>
> certificate.The issuer field MUST contain a non-empty distinguished
>
>    name (DN)
>
>
>
> 4.1.2.6.Subject
>
> The subject field identifies the entity associated with the public
>
> carried in the subject field and/or the subjectAltName extension.
>
> We issued 5280bis in part to accommodate DANE's use of ss certs. 
> Please don't
> provide examples that are obviously non-complaint relative to basic 
> PKIX and
> X.509 specs.
>
> Steve
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dane mailing list
> dane@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email