Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-31
Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Mon, 15 September 2014 21:21 UTC
Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Original-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jose@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF64B1A878D for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable
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 9a0h201CUF3q for <jose@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-f174.google.com (mail-vc0-f174.google.com [209.85.220.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91B191A6F6B for <jose@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id hy10so3997020vcb.5 for <jose@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:21:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=kSXwnjBkmaOy3HTt4yCWMrHQxUU9g8xuhSb4WMyBkGU=; b=kYjI7CPoNSg4vZ9Nec4NhDvhl5Wb1X2H6LFYHLjMb9utmyLDEunRGXECV6btUxHu+n 31XQRSF2qy1Ji0T9uFgeAhJhqfMZoszdjFb5ntflr51rLHzvpkDUUbnL3PWOzbCir9Tc RCVWNy+pQSn31OlcqMx3okYn6MFouqo3uB8WKRd6Ix7bCwZNhDGB+oiYvK3lJxKO4gWi 9DdLQTOqtvpkfPoo5Ej4aRjloI/7PgS2etsHC7mQ7tW4fitvIxGE2w6BkV7m+AYnD/Qz prXvggaAWfK2paEj3kkMx003OYuhsFb/97z1VZYFUYRleM86arA8CKu0HYwW9ekkY/zO 73WQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkl2Z8yCKVwIsdqhbNqBkJSdYv++hHQvftBuRmj2D/uyM931SiY4jmEBGUHDJCnuWvXILjn
X-Received: by 10.52.185.168 with SMTP id fd8mr18318643vdc.58.1410816104519; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:21:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.214.4 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32]
In-Reply-To: <EB1515F8-95D4-4F9F-B2EC-F6B0D54C1CC2@ve7jtb.com>
References: <CAHbuEH4Ccn2Z=8kEECzvgjmtshwsFoa-EH_NpkJPos7zirGeaQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439AEC00DB@TK5EX14MBXC292.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <5416FE10.3060608@bbn.com> <CAHBU6iu3GfsLCAint3z7risZUnVW4EK0WrGVW6Dv=gvppiHSxQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B16804296739439AECCCDD@TK5EX14MBXC292.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <54173546.5000400@bbn.com> <CAHBU6ivb3BeEufcnJB+eSk8wgETMx+qzH3miE6Z1jtrQkXNR3w@mail.gmail.com> <EB1515F8-95D4-4F9F-B2EC-F6B0D54C1CC2@ve7jtb.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:21:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6ivny2qZBK+Afay=Y2kUx-NXCNaeQRZkHtf07JJrVAWWAQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec5485a24c0f05b05032138cd"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/g7fGGIt_kw4QlbWTBUHkwbWwlio
Cc: "jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key.all@tools.ietf.org>, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, Michael Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, "jose@ietf.org" <jose@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-key-31
X-BeenThere: jose@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 21:21:54 -0000
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 12:18 PM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote: > Are you recommending that: > That receivers MUST reject JOSE objects with duplicate keys. > > This would require compliant implementations to write there own parsers > (perhaps not a good idea), or wait for I-JSON parsers (perhaps sometime > soonish) > Agree, sigh. > Or that JOSE require producers not to send dup keys, and receivers SHOULD > reject them if possible based on the parser. > Yeah… MUST NOT send malformed JSON (I argue that an economical way to do that would be to reference I-JSON if the schedule works). As for the receiver, I like SHOULD reject, but I’m wondering if we can get away with that given that a high proportion of receiving software will have no way to detect the error. > For JWE and JWS the header is integrity protected so we are talking about > duplicate keys inserted by a bad producer rather than an attacker modifying > the message after signing.. > Whatever. If you get a busted message, something is wrong somewhere upstream. > I suspect the important issue is taking care that when producing a JWE/JWS > you are not accepting arbitrary elements for the header without verifying > that they are not JOSE parameters. > Hm, for ID Tokens, didn’t we do exactly the opposite, and end up with a Must-Ignore policy? > > John B. > > > On Sep 15, 2014, at 3:54 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote: > > When I talk about existing software I’m referring to generic JSON parsers > such as are included in the basic library set of every programming language > now, and which are unfortunately idiosyncratic and inconsistent in their > handling of dupe keys, but in almost no cases actually inform the calling > software whether or not dupe keys were encountered. > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> wrote: > >> OK, I'm a bit confused. >> >> I thought the JOSE specs were intended to create standards for transport >> of keys, and for sigs, >> MACs, and encryption of JSON objects. >> >> What is the existing software to which you and Tim refer, when referring >> to keys (vs. >> JSON parsing in general)? >> >> Steve >> >> > > > -- > - Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see > https://keybase.io/timbray) > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > -- - Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see https://keybase.io/timbray)
- [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review of dr… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Tim Bray
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Tim Bray
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Tim Bray
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Stephen Kent
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Tim Bray
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Stephen Kent
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Stephen Kent
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Tim Bray
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… John Bradley
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Tim Bray
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Tim Bray
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… John Bradley
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Jim Schaad
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Stephen Kent
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Stephen Kent
- Re: [jose] [secdir] JWK member names, was: SECDIR… John Bradley
- Re: [jose] [secdir] JWK member names, was: SECDIR… Tero Kivinen
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Tim Bray
- Re: [jose] [secdir] JWK member names, was: SECDIR… Tim Bray
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Stephen Kent
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… John Bradley
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Tim Bray
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Stephen Kent
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Tim Bray
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Richard Barnes
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Stephen Kent
- Re: [jose] [secdir] JWK member names, was: SECDIR… Tero Kivinen
- Re: [jose] [secdir] JWK member names, was: SECDIR… Richard Barnes
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Mike Jones
- Re: [jose] JWK member names, was: SECDIR review o… Kathleen Moriarty