Re: [perpass] The problem with scaling authentication...
SM <sm@resistor.net> Mon, 25 November 2013 21:51 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: perpass@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F2B11AE050 for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:51:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham
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 P2XuXxuL6GTY for <perpass@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:51:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 369601AE040 for <perpass@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:51:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAPLorsa008174; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:50:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1385416259; bh=Yprso7yQNeSRBa7cCEBqBO1vZKirk/maSzU8c3JM7YM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=P93dL6tK+LgIiczgw18Qu/vvNvnQnbIWRiICgbt5LuUPb/x7pQHmBFyeuTGfDFw8x G6L1WA3GYjpBxqkGSyHX6roTUBPln3tWMeJTCdFo0xl/cT7dt9vi+TJDoIWEwu3/09 lqMWO/h0n5jn51DbYuWWDDw/01iZd0LrihnSQ9CY=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1385416259; i=@resistor.net; bh=Yprso7yQNeSRBa7cCEBqBO1vZKirk/maSzU8c3JM7YM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=DErF7dvaLLhN5F/aQ0qJD94cjFji62gx7uw36ksJedPOb3LqZMgOcG86g3Ib3ns4a 0ombewBS9EOhptXr0cnU5qrPKv2tMQOgdnsyCEKHwB4fXLEjYT9r80eDY9WfEXe23Y 9melwIm+nUtwz2IUK+yyS50q0iBbgu+4bt7Q4Wpw=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20131125123240.0cbf8680@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:42:20 -0800
To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <5293AFA5.3070804@bbn.com>
References: <CAL02cgSsznNFOjtAfMwWDBOW34LT_md3N+rUpGhDvXKM+dpP2w@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20131125092440.0d240ae0@resistor.net> <5293AFA5.3070804@bbn.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: perpass@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [perpass] The problem with scaling authentication...
X-BeenThere: perpass@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The perpass list is for IETF discussion of pervasive monitoring. " <perpass.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/perpass>, <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/perpass/>
List-Post: <mailto:perpass@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass>, <mailto:perpass-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:51:04 -0000
Hi Steve, At 12:14 25-11-2013, Stephen Kent wrote: >I'm puzzled by your last comment. In the PKI context, the phrase >"proof of possession" >(PoP) refers to a mechanism used to verify that a subject requesting >a cert possesses the >private key corresponding to the public key in the cert request. > >When an entity receives a cert containing Subject name (or Subject alt name) >that is not appropriately associated with the entity, that is NOT a failure >of PoP. The entity presumably does possess the corresponding private key, >since it can't complete a TLS exchange without it. I wasn't thinking about failure of PoP or PKI. Your message reminded me that I didn't think about some real world details when I made that comment. Regards, -sm P.S. I was thinking about how often passports were used.