Current status of CRL validation ?
"Julien Stern" <julien.stern@cryptolog.com> Mon, 22 March 2004 18:00 UTC
Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA09048 for <pkix-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:00:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i2MGXwJP010575; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:33:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i2MGXwI4010574; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:33:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from kraid.nerim.net (smtp-101-monday.nerim.net [62.4.16.101]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i2MGXvl9010561 for <ietf-pkix@imc.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:33:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julien.stern@cryptolog.com)
Received: from jupiter.cry.pto (cryptolog.net1.nerim.net [80.65.224.225]) by kraid.nerim.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2D5541041 for <ietf-pkix@imc.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:33:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jupiter.cry.pto (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F50E4BD4 for <ietf-pkix@imc.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:33:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from jupiter.cry.pto ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (jupiter [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with SMTP id 15776-06 for <ietf-pkix@imc.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:33:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from callisto.cry.pto (callisto.cry.pto [10.0.1.4]) by jupiter.cry.pto (Postfix) with SMTP id 217AC4259 for <ietf-pkix@imc.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:33:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: by callisto.cry.pto (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:33:56 +0100
From: Julien Stern <julien.stern@cryptolog.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 17:33:56 +0100
To: ietf-pkix@imc.org
Subject: Current status of CRL validation ?
Message-ID: <20040322163356.GA19867@cryptolog.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030314-p2 (Debian) at cryptolog.com
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>
Dear list, In November 2003, Santosh Chokhani raised a problem in the validation of CRL paths. I was wondering what was the current status of CRL validation and also have a few questions: My current understanding is the following: We have two different setups 1) direct CRL (signed by the CA itself) 2) Indirect CRL (signed with a certificate signed with the CA itself + a few other bindings in extensions (crlIssuer, etc) Santosh Chokhani suggested (I'm summarizing, see his post for the exact words) that the path validating the certificate and the path validating the CRL should have the same trust anchor and the same Issuer DNs one-by-one (expect for the last cert in case 2, of course). Question 1: what is the status of this proposal ? Question 2: How do you validate the cert path associated to the CRL ? Some of the certificates included in this path might have been revoked. Do you have to construct a third path to validate the CRL which has information on the certificates in the CRL validation path ? (And possibly a fourth, a fifth, etc ?) Do you really have to through all the following to validate this hypothetical 2 level scheme: Let us say that I have - a Trust Anchor (CA1) - a subCA (CA2) - user certificates CA1 -> CA2 -> Cert To validate the chain, do I really have to: 1) start applying the X509 validation algorithm 2) obtain the CRL for CA2 3) reconstruct the path to validate the certificate which signs it. 4) start applying a new X509 validation algorithm to this new path + the additional Trust Anchor and DN matching rules 5) Possibly repeat steps 3-4 until I find a path that I have already fully validated 6) verify the CRL and check that CA2 is not in. 7) obtain the CRL for user certificates 8) reconstruct the path to validate the certificate which signs it. 9) start applying a new X509 validation algorithm to this new path + the additional Trust Anchor and DN matching rules 10) Possibly repeat steps 8-9 until I find a path that I have already fully validated 11) verify the CRL and check the certificate is not in. Question 3: How to you replace CRL processing by OCSP in X509 path validation ? In particular, how do you check that the OSCP server certificate has not been revoked if it is different that the CA one ? Thank you very much. -- Julien
- Current status of CRL validation ? Julien Stern
- RE: Current status of CRL validation ? Santosh Chokhani
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Julien Stern
- RE: Current status of CRL validation ? Santosh Chokhani
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Julien Stern
- RE: Current status of CRL validation ? Santosh Chokhani
- RE: Current status of CRL validation ? Ambarish Malpani
- RE: Current status of CRL validation ? Ambarish Malpani
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Stephen Kent
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Ed Gerck
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Santosh Chokhani
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Ed Gerck
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Stephen Kent
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Ed Gerck
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Stephen Kent
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Ed Gerck
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Stephen Kent
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Ed Gerck
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Stephen Kent
- clarification proposal -- Re: Current status of C… Ed Gerck
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Paul Hoffman / IMC
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Ed Gerck
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Stephen Kent
- RE: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Santosh Chokhani
- RE: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Stephen Kent
- RE: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Santosh Chokhani
- RE: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Stephen Kent
- RE: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Santosh Chokhani
- RE: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Stephen Kent
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Ed Gerck
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Ed Gerck
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Stephen Kent
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Ed Gerck
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Santosh Chokhani
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Ed Gerck
- RE: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Santosh Chokhani
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Ed Gerck
- RE: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Santosh Chokhani
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Ed Gerck
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Stephen Kent
- restated -- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Cur… Ed Gerck
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … David P. Kemp
- Re: clarification proposal -- Re: Current status … Ed Gerck
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Ed Gerck
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Eric Norman
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Ed Gerck
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Julien Stern
- RE: Current status of CRL validation ? Santosh Chokhani
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Julien Stern
- RE: Current status of CRL validation ? Santosh Chokhani
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Julien Stern
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Stephen Kent
- Re: Current status of CRL validation ? Stephen Kent