Re: [jose] canonical JSON
Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Thu, 21 February 2013 17:50 UTC
Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
X-Original-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF3CB21F8EEC for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:50:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.746
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.746 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.230, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xrKF2GEPzifV for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:50:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oa0-f46.google.com (mail-oa0-f46.google.com [209.85.219.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB5A821F8EC3 for <jose@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:50:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id k1so9538222oag.33 for <jose@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:50:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=peVHAtCwFQhtPCPtBH+6yv6MVSqBsM2dyXpAEwIJrRU=; b=ODJPa0/VvOw5PbAF9Ox30fC63JNaKF9b2B0KA2zjUffKvXl94i3Ockvlyn3q+01akY 7HTeFP6lj90qLpaVJeveeodncAVQIaR0iYS+vtnrqJ9CYAg8Fo2/zeHMikb+HSWwAy2n uFz4gNxD06dpVKqYXIDIBu2Fxt1QXOVKAZ948rNxyR4EqYVZpUc0K8Qes/oLxxGGqHxf B42xDuotJz99I6D/8AGN09EinLQZH5PxB6qbHJZAcXwuqTIBr08H+LOLuyAgqmJkCu6t RZUpcESEAcEZm47FPDbiWmGKhKMduz6ZAkuCHl0WZ68HHwZl5RyTV0vwBY0FavgNMt2Z UbkQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.11.168 with SMTP id r8mr837061oeb.136.1361469030000; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:50:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.60.60.98 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:50:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [192.1.51.63]
In-Reply-To: <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394367477DB7@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <CAG8k2+4xaAUBPs=Kw-=eBHZNyOMs6VYByPEb1jnAv1aGjLupng@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWzdoo6b0ZymF0cv_v9zOjJKTWuUhkWuxiA-cM9qgu0jg@mail.gmail.com> <CAG8k2+47GQXHhWBdqd82UEAPZUfAigYE-vwxpaMJm4F5i8098A@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgQ3Oh1D9qHW7XWAZqzmfnE5T6-FjNydjpMEMhaHf2d7Xw@mail.gmail.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1150757902D@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <CAG8k2+5mVYJ6TgQHJ9juXEaWkfMteG6gV8w_dCoShP4-9fPqMA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgRZkf8rR=gAuR6ZT61WCah3aWQNAq8d+GLWweehH7jN6A@mail.gmail.com> <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411513E85D@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <7E415CBD-BA54-4E6A-8D16-2CE52C407260@ve7jtb.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B1680429673943674777ED@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <5123FF72.9060206@mitre.org> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394367477DB7@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:50:29 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL02cgQa438yvHCiWkEJ0xMafWYmTdm46uvEso_OBz2H5PbSHw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8fb1f35ae7e9b404d63fb5d9"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlnmoFR6ZQJHLdCzshW0NnPLTuypn60elH5R6sZNzGAVL+2JOgGq8hS15KAXRJJOGAoNQss
Cc: Daniel Holth <dholth@gmail.com>, jose <jose@ietf.org>, "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>, "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>, Justin Richer <jricher@mitre.org>
Subject: Re: [jose] canonical JSON
X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Javascript Object Signing and Encryption <jose.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose>
List-Post: <mailto:jose@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose>, <mailto:jose-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 17:50:38 -0000
That doesn't solve the problem. The point of a fingerprint is to have an identifier for the key that is shorter than the key itself. So a JWS with a JWK payload is irrelevant. Likewise, any solution that requires base64-encoding is also irrelevant, since you would need to carry the encoded version along in order to interpret the fingerprint. --Richard On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>wrote: > Nothing's preventing people from using the JWK as the payload of a JWS if > you want to sign/MAC it - just like Matt's draft uses it as the payload of > a JWE. Problem solved. ;-) > > -- Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Justin Richer > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 2:41 PM > To: Mike Jones > Cc: Daniel Holth; Richard Barnes; jose; Matt Miller (mamille2); John > Bradley; Manger, James H > Subject: Re: [jose] canonical JSON > > Since JWKs are passed around as JSON documents, and > order/spacing/formatting of JSON documents isn't guaranteed, this approach > won't work. > > -- Justin > > On 02/19/2013 05:19 PM, Mike Jones wrote: > > A SHA-256 hash of the base64url encoding of the UTF-8 representation of > JWK seems like a fine fingerprint that requires no canonicalization. > > > > -- Mike > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: jose-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:jose-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > > Of John Bradley > > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 2:16 PM > > To: Matt Miller (mamille2) > > Cc: Richard Barnes; Daniel Holth; Manger, James H; jose > > Subject: Re: [jose] canonical JSON > > > > I suspect that a way to fingerprint a subset of a JWK is what is > desired. e.g. probably font want to include "kid" as you may want to use > the fingerprint for that. > > > > I suspect that is possible without trying to come up with a general > method to canonicallise JSON. > > > > One might be to ASN1 encode it:) No that is crazy speak. > > > > I do empathize for the desire to have fingerprints without resorting to > DER encoding. > > > > If we scope the problem down to having a canonical representation for a > limited set of jwk elements that may be worth pursuing. > > > > > > John B. > > On 2013-02-19, at 5:35 PM, "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com> > wrote: > > > >> I know I'm still reeling from canonicalization (c14n) issues in XML, > but I can put that aside. It would be nice to have JWK fingerprinting. > >> > >> I can see value in each JWK type defining what is canonical; I'm less > thrilled limiting metadata to a specific place, but could live with that. > I can see where excluding metadata can get us in trouble later, but I > think that would mean having a much more robust c14n approach. > >> > >> By the way, there is going to be a JSON BoF in Orlando, and c14n seems > like a good thing to bring up there. > >> > >> > >> - m&m > >> > >> Matt Miller < mamille2@cisco.com > > >> Cisco Systems, Inc. > >> > >> PS: 42 vs 4.2e0 vs 4.2e1 > >> > >> On Feb 19, 2013, at 7:59 AM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote: > >> > >>> So your fingerprint algorithm would be something like the following? > >>> > >>> INPUT: JWK > >>> 1. Remove "metadata" fields. So, for RSA, you would be left with > >>> {"kty", "n", "e"} 2. Convert stripped JWK to canonical form 3. > >>> Compute digest over canonical form > >>> > >>> That seems generally agreeable to me. > >>> > >>> For (1) to be possible, you would need to define which fields are > >>> covered in the fingerprint for each key type ("kty" value). Or, > >>> alternatively, you could restructure JWK so that metadata fields are > grouped into a "meta" > >>> sub-dict. Which might be nice anyway. > >>> > >>> For (2), I agree that there is probably a better canonicalization > >>> than CJSON. The code I pasted earlier implements the following > >>> changes from RFC > >>> 4627: > >>> -- Object fields must be in lexicographic order, sorted by field > >>> name > >>> -- No white space allowed > >>> -- Numbers: Exponent part must use 'e' > >>> -- Numbers: Exponent part must not use '+' > >>> -- Numbers: Fraction part must not have trailing zeros > >>> -- Strings: All characters must be escaped ISTM that those changes > >>> are fairly minimal, and avoid some of the CJSON problems that have > >>> been discussed above. Reasonably people can disagree over the string > >>> aspect; if you want less expansion, you could do things like exempt > >>> printable ASCII. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Daniel Holth <dholth@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Manger, James H < > >>>> James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> A canonical form of JSON might be fairly easy, but the one you > >>>>> quote ( > >>>>> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Canonical_JSON) can't handle floating > >>>>> point numbers (or very large integers), and produces invalid JSON > >>>>> if a string includes a tab! Fix those (escaping control chars > >>>>> [\u0000-\u001f]; use normalized scientific notation for numbers) > >>>>> and it might be worth > >>>>> considering.**** > >>>>> > >>>>> ** ** > >>>>> > >>>>> Defining JOSE calculations in terms of 1 or more byte arrays, the > >>>>> first of which is a UTF-8-encoded JSON header, would be useful. It > >>>>> can then be packaged as dot-separated base64url-encoded segments > >>>>> to be HTTP-header-friendly, or packaged as a single JSON object to > >>>>> be programmer-friendly, or packaged as raw bytes to be efficient. > >>>>> > >>>> I am only proposing a key fingerprinting specification that does > >>>> not employ DER encoding. JWKs do not contain tabs or floating point > numbers. > >>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> jose mailing list > >>> jose@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose > >> _______________________________________________ > >> jose mailing list > >> jose@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose > > _______________________________________________ > > jose mailing list > > jose@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > jose@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose >
- [jose] JWK-specific key fingerprints? Daniel Holth
- Re: [jose] JWK-specific key fingerprints? Stephen Farrell
- Re: [jose] JWK-specific key fingerprints? Martin Thomson
- Re: [jose] JWK-specific key fingerprints? Daniel Holth
- Re: [jose] JWK-specific key fingerprints? Richard Barnes
- Re: [jose] JWK-specific key fingerprints? Daniel Holth
- Re: [jose] canonical JSON Manger, James H
- Re: [jose] canonical JSON Daniel Holth
- Re: [jose] canonical JSON Richard Barnes
- Re: [jose] canonical JSON Matt Miller (mamille2)
- Re: [jose] canonical JSON Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] canonical JSON Tim Bray
- Re: [jose] canonical JSON David Waite
- Re: [jose] canonical JSON John Bradley
- Re: [jose] canonical JSON Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] canonical JSON Justin Richer
- Re: [jose] canonical JSON Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] canonical JSON Axel.Nennker
- Re: [jose] canonical JSON Richard Barnes
- Re: [jose] canonical JSON Richard Barnes
- Re: [jose] canonical JSON Daniel Holth