Re: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-expect-ct-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 21 November 2018 21:55 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8B4812D7F8 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 13:55:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.358
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.358 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-1.459, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.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 iPlGkuZ33rs8 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 13:55:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [IPv6:2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2AA212D4E9 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 13:55:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1gPaQA-0007wj-QQ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 21:52:30 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 21:52:30 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1gPaQA-0007wj-QQ@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4f]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ekr@rtfm.com>) id 1gPaQ7-0007w2-S6 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 21:52:27 +0000
Received: from mail-lf1-x12b.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::12b]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ekr@rtfm.com>) id 1gPaQ5-0005mn-O3 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 21:52:27 +0000
Received: by mail-lf1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id n18so5095683lfh.6 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 13:52:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Y/ZMXkgjHzW12wzBB6ZXwAi+j2onSf3fN62kaNHwhMs=; b=nU5fjoyUTJNQot6kmdfGkCc2NRYGqjFXI8odtwkxa0Z4RgpiMANn9b9YqalS7xmGUV inSYVlDsBOqPSkf8B1Nl0aHdbo1YsW/dG2VZdTG0zFVN2PVB0MkjxOH+J93Tweh1GlfM Lr/qOJoAf1zsBnFIwIKO+0W9XHvDUk0oZqTLaoyhg5pE3MH/1nahh9DxMqfJ6MDr535n 7IEFAgEMACniC/gxJhQJOC7xqQSvvQzpcdxKl803pVxPZj/mb0XBXEk3mAfZGt6u90W/ Oa0vGUuP4GnbpKyuL6EyCM9S/UWHpr3V+1chvluSDV6299w9wnISkhTdZmRhNffvbdn+ nAPw==
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=Y/ZMXkgjHzW12wzBB6ZXwAi+j2onSf3fN62kaNHwhMs=; b=IpSRO3oSmkKbKQ/rORBJHhb/Y3f7nQ2h0qA8mzW1PRpIpAOGRJZ7dJAx7uG7vx1ZP7 nP+/TNOpzN3HhZI4kChvnGv1dfQoPnHWegfVCWokbL+TRG00eZ8rHDRElRFMal+UhA09 pEyEuNAnIlir2DowZyq2OuFB5Z9SpMirbmTe/ySAov3oK8EOIv7xOjx9pf4wQB6GLcw6 7nPTC31i5b0qFrDlfBAAo9cK7czfKA3p/gaSbpF3EYtHedFagFT0kdUrBzmoHgGX91kS 2ivJxxiNbLaUcS5vdkx3L9jE+9WOxR2g9aEjmMlGqZTCWrp88FtUv/gL5hoOkVueAgLJ eogQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJsIaawrGeU2NYZb18IV4ryhgNVlV1ios4iYI1m/BbMz7copwyj mRMX6j0r6t3nUPmNKMHmraEbbtw4v2FAtFLSVBwcPwJy
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5fw4hEIkkVRZybi06r4QLQiHTIbKvE29dtNryB902ZlqJIEo6u0/CAaT7TXV6dUcO79MdNfyXqOYLDf/vly6oQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:41c4:: with SMTP id o187mr5075785lfa.32.1542837124069; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 13:52:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <153679392855.9428.3632060253887931070.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABcZeBOEP=mPz-P2wJ+kQPTPOgfDYmYZX_b6LrKoUnac992h_Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBOEP=mPz-P2wJ+kQPTPOgfDYmYZX_b6LrKoUnac992h_Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 13:51:27 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPd8qbQ9_NZTTuzexka1FUjZwjpLxyhfz0L0nnPBmGHng@mail.gmail.com>
To: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, draft-ietf-httpbis-expect-ct@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ba145e057b33c286"
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.700, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1gPaQ5-0005mn-O3 03905bb44ecc9bce28cf778ff6c71552
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-expect-ct-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CABcZeBPd8qbQ9_NZTTuzexka1FUjZwjpLxyhfz0L0nnPBmGHng@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/36085
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Following up, I don't see any response to these comments. -Ekr On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 7:22 AM Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote: > I have one other non-blocking comment: Why is this document Experimental? > People are already deploying CT without this. It seems like PS would make > more sense or Informational. > > Alexey, I leave it to you. > -Ekr > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote: > >> Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-httpbis-expect-ct-07: Discuss >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-expect-ct/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> DISCUSS: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Rich version of this review at: >> https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D4579 >> >> >> This generally seems like a sound mechanism, but I believe there are >> some points here that are sufficiently unclear they might create >> interop problems,s o I am balloting DISCUSS. >> >> Most importantly, this document just says you support CT, but that >> creates a potential interop problem if say 6962-tris had a different >> way of delivering CT information or a different syntax. I'm not saying >> you need a version here, but you need to indicate that it's not >> forward-looking. >> >> Also, see below. >> >> DETAIL >> S 2.4. >> > beginning an HTTP conversation over the TLS channel. >> > >> > If a connection to a Known Expect-CT Host violates the UA's CT >> policy >> > (i.e., the connection is not CT-qualified), and if the Known >> Expect- >> > CT Host's Expect-CT metadata indicates an "enforce" configuration, >> > the UA MUST treat the CT compliance failure as an error. >> >> Is this supposed to be a hard failure, as with HSTS. If not, how does >> it interact with HSTS's hard failure reqs. >> >> >> S 3.1. >> > (This may differ from the value of the >> "served-certificate-chain" >> > key.) The value is provided as an array of strings, which MUST >> > appear in the order matching the chain that the UA validated; >> each >> > string in the array is the Privacy-Enhanced Mail (PEM) >> > representation of each X.509 certificate as described in >> > [RFC7468]. >> >> What happens if you try to construct multiple paths? >> >> >> S 3.1. >> > does not have or does not trust the public key of the log >> from >> > which the SCT was issued), "valid" (indicating that the UA >> > successfully validated the SCT as described in Section 5.2 of >> > [RFC6962] or Section 8.2.3 of [I-D.ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis]), >> or >> > "invalid" (indicating that the SCT validation failed because >> > of, e.g., a bad signature). >> >> Is "invalid" anything other than the specific cases listed above? >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> > allows web host operators to instruct user agents to expect valid >> > Signed Certificate Timestamps (SCTs) to be served on connections to >> > these hosts. Expect-CT allows web host operators to discover >> > misconfigurations in their Certificate Transparency deployments and >> > ensure that misissued certificates accepted by UAs are discoverable >> > in Certificate Transparency logs. >> >> I don't believe that it does this. Consider a client which simply did >> not support CT, then it would (a) accept a misissued certificate that >> (b) was not discoverable >> >> >> S 2.1.1. >> > >> > Figure 2: Syntax of the report-uri directive value >> > >> > "absolute-URI" is defined in Section 4.3 of [RFC3986]. >> > >> > Hosts may set "report-uri"s that use HTTP or HTTPS. If the scheme >> in >> >> Why are you allowing HTTP? >> >> >> S 2.3.2. >> > the "enforce", "max-age", or "report-uri" header field value >> > directives convey information different from that already >> > maintained by the UA. If the "max-age" directive has a value of >> > 0, the UA MUST remove its cached Expect-CT information if the >> host >> > was previously noted as a Known Expect-CT Host, and MUST NOT >> note >> > this host as a Known Expect-CT Host if it is not already noted. >> >> As noted above, I think you need to clear the cache when you upgrade >> to a potentially incompatible CT version, or otherwise reconfigure the >> client. >> >> >> S 2.3.2.1. >> > this host as a Known Expect-CT Host if it is not already noted. >> > >> > 2.3.2.1. Noting Expect-CT >> > >> > Upon receipt of the Expect-CT response header field over an error- >> > free TLS connection (including the validation adding in Section >> 2.4), >> >> s/adding/added/? >> >> >> S 2.3.2.1. >> > host's domain name and its associated Expect-CT directives in non- >> > volatile storage. >> > >> > To note a host as a Known Expect-CT Host, the UA MUST set its >> Expect- >> > CT metadata given in the most recently received valid Expect-CT >> > header field, as specified in Section 2.3.2.2. >> >> This seems ungrammatical. Set it where? >> >> >> S 2.3.2.2. >> > >> > 2.3.2.2. Storage Model >> > >> > If the substring matching the host production from the Request-URI >> > (of the message to which the host responded) does not congruently >> > match an existing Known Expect-CT Host's domain name, per the >> >> I would say "exactly match" rather than "congruently match" unless >> this ia term of art somewhere. >> >> >> S 2.3.2.2. >> > understands them, the UA MAY note them as well. >> > >> > UAs MAY set an upper limit on the value of max-age, so that UAs >> that >> > have noted erroneous Expect-CT hosts (whether by accident or due to >> > attack) have some chance of recovering over time. If the server >> sets >> > a max-age greater than the UA's upper limit, the UA MAY behave as >> if >> >> This MAY seems out of place, given that you already said MAY. >> >> >> S 2.4. >> > >> > When a UA connects to a Known Expect-CT Host using a TLS >> connection, >> > if the TLS connection has no errors, then the UA will apply an >> > additional correctness check: compliance with a CT Policy. A UA >> > should evaluate compliance with its CT Policy whenever connecting >> to >> > a Known Expect-CT Host, as soon as possible. However, the check >> can >> >> What does "as soon as possible" mean? >> >> >> S 2.4. >> > terminates the connection due to an Expect-CT failure, this could >> > cause the UA to skip subsequent correctness checks. When the CT >> > compliance check is skipped or bypassed, Expect-CT reports >> > (Section 3) will not be sent. >> > >> > When CT compliance is evaluted for a Known Expect-CT Host, the UA >> >> Nit: evaluated >> >> >> S 2.4.1. >> > "report-uri" (Section 3). >> > >> > 2.4.1. Skipping CT compliance checks >> > >> > It is acceptable for a UA to skip CT compliance checks for some >> hosts >> > according to local policy. For example, a UA may disable CT >> >> Should this be MAY? >> >> >> S 3.1. >> > >> > o "scts": the value represents the SCTs (if any) that the UA >> > received for the Expect-CT host and their validation statuses. >> > The value is provided as an array of JSON objects. The SCTs may >> > appear in any order. Each JSON object in the array has the >> > following keys: >> >> So these just apply to the EE cert? What about CT for the non-EE >> certs? >> >> >> >> >> S 3.1. >> > of, e.g., a bad signature). >> > >> > * The "source" key, with a string value that indicates from >> where >> > the UA obtained the SCT, as defined in Section 3 of [RFC6962] >> > and Section 6 of [I-D.ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis]. The UA MUST >> set >> > the value to one of "tls-extension", "ocsp", or "embedded". >> >> What do these mean? They seem obvious, but you don't say. >> >> >> >
- Re: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis… Emily Stark
- Re: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis… Emily Stark