RE: What are certificates fundamentally all about? [was: draft-turner-caclearanceconstraints-01.txt]

"Santosh Chokhani" <SChokhani@cygnacom.com> Mon, 13 October 2008 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-pkix-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pkix-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80CD03A6A2F for <ietfarch-pkix-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 07:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.469
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QO6JbjQb66O2 for <ietfarch-pkix-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 07:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (properopus-pt.tunnel.tserv3.fmt2.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f04:392::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22F073A67F1 for <pkix-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 07:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m9DENDo3001668 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 13 Oct 2008 07:23:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.13.5/Submit) id m9DENDrU001666; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 07:23:13 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from scygmxsecs1.cygnacom.com (scygmxsecs1.cygnacom.com [65.242.48.253]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id m9DEN29G001652 for <ietf-pkix@imc.org>; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 07:23:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from SChokhani@cygnacom.com)
Received: (qmail 5959 invoked from network); 13 Oct 2008 14:09:41 -0000
Received: from SChokhani@cygnacom.com by scygmxsecs1.cygnacom.com with EntrustECS-Server-7.4; 13 Oct 2008 14:09:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO scygexch1.cygnacom.com) (10.60.50.8) by scygmxsecs1.cygnacom.com with SMTP; 13 Oct 2008 14:09:41 -0000
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Subject: RE: What are certificates fundamentally all about? [was: draft-turner-caclearanceconstraints-01.txt]
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:22:59 -0400
Message-ID: <FAD1CF17F2A45B43ADE04E140BA83D487A42F9@scygexch1.cygnacom.com>
In-Reply-To: <48F34FB6.2020205@mitre.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: What are certificates fundamentally all about? [was: draft-turner-caclearanceconstraints-01.txt]
Thread-Index: AcktO65N7h87jtyzRKSrYZj9ffBIgQAAzctg
References: <p0624051bc5098b483ca0@[128.89.89.71]> <9F11911AED01D24BAA1C2355723C3D3218DDA55C66@EA-EXMSG-C332.europe.corp.microsoft.com> <48EFD404.6090602@lockstep.com.au> <48F34FB6.2020205@mitre.org>
From: Santosh Chokhani <SChokhani@cygnacom.com>
To: "Timothy J. Miller" <tmiller@mitre.org>, swilson@lockstep.com.au
Cc: ietf-pkix@imc.org
Sender: owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-pkix/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-pkix.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-pkix-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>

There are many ways to promulgate privileges and authorizations.  Two of
these methods are public key certificates and attribute certificates.

The I-D deals with how to process the clearance information in a chain
of public key and attribute certificates.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org]
On Behalf Of Timothy J. Miller
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 9:40 AM
To: swilson@lockstep.com.au
Cc: ietf-pkix@imc.org
Subject: Re: What are certificates fundamentally all about? [was:
draft-turner-caclearanceconstraints-01.txt]

Stephen Wilson wrote:

> Then you can subtly adjust the conception of a PKC as being "an 
> assertion of an entity's key and a RELATIVELY STATIC identity IN A 
> DEFINED CONTEXT".  A flexible interpretation of "identity in a defined

> context" embraces things like my identity as an chartered engineer, my

> identity as a business owner, my identity as a health insurance 
> subscriber, my identity as a bank account holder.  In each of these 
> scenarios, it would be very powerful for me to carry a separate 
> dedicated certificate with which to sign specific types of
transactions 
> (e.g. engineering test reports, tax returns, health insurance claims, 
> and payment instructions respectively).  That is, four different 
> certificates all independently registered and managed, tightly coupled

> to regular customer relationship management processes, probably
carried 
> on separate smartcards.

We have that; it's called SPKI/SDSI.  :)

> To illustrate the point, I don't actually see any reason in principle 
> why a PKC could not be used to assert my identity (or relationship) as

> 'a person cleared to Top Secret' so long as that relationship is 
> relatively long lived; say a few months.  Path validation is a cinch: 
> the relationship I would have express in my PKC is with a particular 
> vetting agency, which would appear in the path, with a Policy OID in
the 
> Subject PKC that specifies the clearance protocol.  The Public Key of 
> the vetting agency -- or a higher Root Key -- would be the trust
anchor 
> needed in a whole class of applications processing my digital
signature 
> applied to Secret documents.

However, that's a *lot* of work, infrastructure, and code needed to 
communicate an attribute the relying party can more simply look up in a 
directory at the time of the transaction, or that the relying party can 
have communicated to it as part of an authorization token (InfoCard, 
OpenID, SAML, WS-*, etc.).

These schemes have the advantage of accommodating both static, 
relatively static, and highly dynamic attributes, *plus* supports 
non-person attributes such as environment level, current threat posture,

etc.

In short, you have to have the directory anyway for at least some 
attributes, so it's simpler in the long run to stuff *all* the 
attributes in there.

-- Tim