Re: [Emu] Issue 47 Certificate identity checks

Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> Wed, 14 April 2021 17:21 UTC

Return-Path: <aland@deployingradius.com>
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 3CE9A3A1839 for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 1UubKXdCwMzA for <emu@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.networkradius.com (mail.networkradius.com [62.210.147.122]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0DB03A1838 for <emu@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.46.152] (24-52-251-6.cable.teksavvy.com [24.52.251.6]) by mail.networkradius.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F1264F7; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 17:21:10 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: NetworkRADIUS; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=deployingradius.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com>
In-Reply-To: <SJ0PR00MB1039DF0140713A18B360B185954E9@SJ0PR00MB1039.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 13:21:09 -0400
Cc: "mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca" <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "emu@ietf.org" <emu@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BEB9C306-5EA2-461B-82B3-2319B4B459C6@deployingradius.com>
References: <CAOgPGoArm2RdEN4V-L9XEUvOeG0Vs+58Zj_p3Y2yRY0aYsVV_A@mail.gmail.com> <950CF2A7-2C9A-4BAE-8EA2-0FC2DE3C740C@deployingradius.com> <12533.1618359438@localhost> <9B6DEC06-E681-413D-9092-712C20924846@deployingradius.com> <SJ0PR00MB1039DF0140713A18B360B185954E9@SJ0PR00MB1039.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
To: Tim Cappalli <Tim.Cappalli@microsoft.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/emu/Vv60q3OMx0J9pKtEFZarpzyPVV4>
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: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 17:21:19 -0000

On Apr 14, 2021, at 10:56 AM, Tim Cappalli <Tim.Cappalli@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> Honestly, no information in an EAP server certificate is good enough for a user to make a "walk up" informed decision.

  I'm curious how this is different from say, HTTPS.  The use-cases seem pretty similar.

> At least requiring an EAP-specific EKU or OID would require operating systems to separate out the EAP trust store.

  I agree 100% there.

> TLS Web Server Certificate should not be acceptable for EAP.

  Well, yes.  The question is how do we get there from here.

  Alan DeKok.