IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Why are mail servers not also key servers?

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Fri, 21 April 2017 17:31 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1999129B08 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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=gmail.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 CLxzFKEOZDv4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x234.google.com (mail-oi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::234]) (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 97989129A98 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x234.google.com with SMTP id s131so18106511oia.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=dplpMo1xoN8nEAn3iaP+gHYImJYqr+IJ46f7ke9AX+0=; b=ShywB9k5otQr9ZT67222NIUzVeN2x2QH4kBJtvkT/BQMhE7jN561poa6hcdPAikCML MOMiTVXz1VvR7e7O5rA7XoX4eU16SsJPFiZDNSScbzv1NPcNS3ki1T3b86gYgTwhUrq0 aWzvKmrKQR1dOwFrjI/8bcMOMNgr9iRaif1LP7pcDgIb1cDKaCZI1tYtR7MdXCX8r180 2Y/CI+yxs7wblMt4Z+rbFibmFJPStJ/2/7U3TvZMDFWjab7mPLs90PV3MT8YqozLrGr3 KPCaxQFteVzRsIwDuITIbhVXIA1rOw6muN4+NapT0KWcKNJgrHFm3lVU1+7qOKUIJn73 yvPA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dplpMo1xoN8nEAn3iaP+gHYImJYqr+IJ46f7ke9AX+0=; b=hQWNTbnNqFPzCqeZOQ9BYYI5vUZ/cBilzsKLv6JPbqzC5PX1VXfsIeE7VKfH6cVO9c hzl7F253lTnE1igPpOLjDLWoOuvnZ8xDbZ/wJKyMpjrOcoFYFaynAwVZRB64giWWIUWC RVkK0P+cDxSfmKC3hcagdWoPG6I1PIImy7TM4CABDv0G5zVTIq5l+3L0H3Qr7yCQVZb7 GALQIAfA5hXgKNhke8E94t1Vz+Z8L8CyyfhJIA64qv9OW+XMLG+Kr23/zlMW12zGQ2wR BwqgcOuG6jblzTdZBpUr1PtfG+w15mxY8aMEHc01XUyxeh9B1nDAYqmQYXjAb1DGsXVX nZsw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4r+9hM4tm6CTHhmqFrwOwpR/Kw7/8Mq615IkTA4qwGdrJ6xVdK hUYOCY3a4qJrH535gHCvV1kQr4zQMA==
X-Received: by 10.202.81.83 with SMTP id f80mr8719392oib.9.1492795887047; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.157.22.175 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:31:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAFsWK1FtqM2GqTkCWzgm-L87KoXGFW+yorRF-t===MycjR1Ow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <FC831208-97A3-4F1B-A37C-F8646C3FB208@gmail.com> <20170420205434.24400.qmail@ary.lan> <CAAFsWK1FtqM2GqTkCWzgm-L87KoXGFW+yorRF-t===MycjR1Ow@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:31:26 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: uKsfUv3dNjDTtFs8X6P33wTAqW0
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwivmUDD8Fjihiw7moFFphfL6RcT_7EFOPh7gDhvgT7M6A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Why are mail servers not also key servers?
To: Wei Chuang <weihaw@google.com>
Cc: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113b06c491daf7054db0a0cf"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/QWKnHe0qxyuNROaILAK15bubyx0>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 17:31:30 -0000

Again, how does the draft advance on the existing RFC?

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4386

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Wei Chuang <weihaw@google.com> wrote:

> I just wanted to second the draft-bhjl-x509-srv approach as preferable as
> opposed to a new SMTP extension.  That draft calls for transport of the
> certificate request and response to be over HTTPS.  As HTTPS is based on
> Web PKI and generally has more up-to-date crypto (due to the ecosystem)
> that traffic will stay private.  SMTP uses STARTTLS which has stripping
> problems, and its PKI is worse off.  There's a lot of self signed certs
> there making certificate path validation problematic.  Just my two cents.
>
> -Wei
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:54 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <FC831208-97A3-4F1B-A37C-F8646C3FB208@gmail.com> you write:
>> >> SMTP servers could be key servers without having the private key of
>> >> individuals?
>> >
>> >Sure. If they double as HTTPS servers.
>>
>> As others have noted, this topic has come up more than a few times before.
>>
>> Here's a recent draft we wrote for a simple per domain https key
>> server, based almost entirely on existing standards.  It distributes
>> public keys.  Managing your private keys on all of your MUAs remains
>> as intractable a problem as it's always been.
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bhjl-x509-srv/
>>
>> R's,
>> John
>>
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email