IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Emu] Issue 47 Certificate identity checks

Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net> Mon, 12 April 2021 16:25 UTC

Return-Path: <joe@salowey.net>
X-Original-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: emu@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B4403A03FB for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 09:25:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=salowey-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 8vczqeSqTVbD for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 09:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12e.google.com (mail-lf1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E5073A03F6 for <emu@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 09:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id b4so22345501lfi.6 for <emu@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 09:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=salowey-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=klSN0l0a0Nry+MOVQcgkIXPNRVprX87mas+VzBnyQsA=; b=hoXSIIwBjfOMqKuUGx5snwT+vRQp0odCnR8rWTd8IXOT7Q7NWH0Ssm2t6HjYuvjxx/ XMkXowqhWk86w9K9xblcDRTFvWYh/grsKmhK0nP3nKahTg6KRJXmMLQK1cG7q9tPm+NA US2l88zHvaN1Y1JwXWQEVq4D4axssLVWcxTmq8ptzWKmEZ/w1wU5ZmrB2X5XOUNlxSl3 5N+Le8NgrwY0BeNvd+hyhEycuo53lctwUDRX2iEPzy4Jg7KuCVI7+ZtJjycmBQzl4NsD 5La8z5sMpzXlkCH9dEWFAMe8Y6ntu+0gxxiuTmbg3bQ8AsDTSlpcptYpsGhHGr85hlRw UQfQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=klSN0l0a0Nry+MOVQcgkIXPNRVprX87mas+VzBnyQsA=; b=NlobMu+EkOQMwnN9EbPPK1SodV4nR9OmDMHWfeXNPABayV5nm99wFegotURCUtRb79 jRbUdLneuY1cfp4+K93s51W1ScDOiLKQ6HeDIw2RU3cQT/HecQc32UmuTo/T7PTadxBJ Cpxi24+CnDmqHKfv3Of54w+kJEEAi9isbpmd3zrXthPIDuJ6TykYuvceXba/KeC8THSX IoXRN7LYLNfrajq6lXJ1nNXCS8PyGCTN//HGELQhqGtvHQp5qYgNar6JynP/+ke6Bltn mixq4po2bQCUmyrffpcs9vnOgI4JWgmxtv0yxGJXs8FqboLQgvVuidoRjEOJ/FT2KUVD ymtg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530guwjsLLpCueDi3zp6QQW8egfKQN9/+AyU6AIfHUR07LrhzB39 hYTbTy2DThuvR7S584SKvrXhVjhlUfhH2RrhgvTvgEKxMxM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyKn/FktAfs2Oh2kn5Lav36lgRa6PMbi3ixzHD5IXN0nsdQUAHWnQOLVH5BIsBull3wr7iQ6Zn58Jds+8fMhRs=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:10c5:: with SMTP id k5mr20469131lfg.320.1618244738486; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 09:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOgPGoArm2RdEN4V-L9XEUvOeG0Vs+58Zj_p3Y2yRY0aYsVV_A@mail.gmail.com> <98456329-CE85-4BB2-B93F-74776FEBA299@cisco.com> <CE04DDF5-2605-4C2D-9E95-6C1DEDA478B8@deployingradius.com> <BEE48F72-7167-47C8-B4C6-7A486E2A05A0@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <BEE48F72-7167-47C8-B4C6-7A486E2A05A0@cisco.com>
From: Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 09:25:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOgPGoBWdKAADbLSJRzaUzsD=0hyKvSNpyk7d9ZZXSHiQTSM4w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>, EMU WG <emu@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cc256405bfc8f6fb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/Q_AaPmTNFrH_JsJSr58tNDEZ4-s>
Subject: Re: [Emu] Issue 47 Certificate identity checks
X-BeenThere: emu@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAP Methods Update \(EMU\)" <emu.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/emu/>
List-Post: <mailto:emu@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu>, <mailto:emu-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 16:25:46 -0000

On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 6:02 AM Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Alan,
>
> On 12 Apr 2021, at 14:52, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> wrote:
>
>
> EAP TLS peer implementations MUST allow for configuration of a unique
> trust root to validate the server's certificate.
>
>
> This statement seems independent of the previous one, and may be overly
> broad.  Let me give you an example: a device may be designed only to
> operate as part of a federation.
>
>
>  I would agure there that the federation should have it's own CA.
>
>
> That’s what I’m thinking.  But I could imagine hardcoded devices that make
> use of it.  That’s all.
>
>
[Joe] Relying on a burned in certificate this way seems like a really bad
idea.  What happens when that certificate expires?


> Eliot
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email