RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility
"Santosh Chokhani" <chokhani@orionsec.com> Mon, 08 October 2007 00:15 UTC
Return-path: <owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org>
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IegHD-0000b3-Vg for pkix-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Oct 2007 20:15:15 -0400
Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IegH8-0004rj-MP for pkix-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Oct 2007 20:15:11 -0400
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l97NJK5V077374 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 7 Oct 2007 16:19:20 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id l97NJKXi077373; Sun, 7 Oct 2007 16:19:20 -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 EXVS01.ex.dslextreme.net (exbe04.ex.dslextreme.net [66.51.199.86]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l97NJJuM077365 for <ietf-pkix@imc.org>; Sun, 7 Oct 2007 16:19:20 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from chokhani@orionsec.com)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Subject: RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:18:56 -0700
Message-ID: <82D5657AE1F54347A734BDD33637C879096618AD@EXVS01.ex.dslextreme.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: OCSP Algorithm Agility
thread-index: Acf8g+lSm4OdXAknTt2BXwIpRJkp9QAAN7VQAyzHXAA=
References: <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C3166155703DF57@mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <p0624080ec319a977190d@[165.227.249.200]> <p0624050dc319b62dedaf@[128.89.89.71]>
From: Santosh Chokhani <chokhani@orionsec.com>
To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>, ietf-pkix@imc.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by balder-227.proper.com id l97NJKuM077368
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>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d
Steve, Another way to do this securely is to let the client signal in the hash algorithm field of the certID. This will not be vulnerable to MITM attack since the client can check the hashing algorithm used to sign the response matches the hashing algorithm in the certID field. It also provides security since if an hashing algorithm is good enough for certificate, it is good enough for OCSP response. It provides interoperability for the client since the client has to have the hashing algorithm for certificate signature verification. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Kent Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 2:08 PM To: ietf-pkix@imc.org Subject: RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Folks, How about defining an extension to be included in the cert issued to an OCSP responder by a CA. The extension would have an ordered list of algorithms (hash and signature if we want to address more than the hash agility issue) accepted by the OCSP responder. An OCSP client can use this info to determine what is the "best" algorithm (or alg pair) that it and the responder share. The combination of this extension and an OCSP negotiation procedure will allow the client to detect MITM downgrade attacks. In fact, if the client acquires the responder's cert prior to making a request, there would not even be a need for real negotiation, since the client would know what alg to request in a response. Steve
- OCSP Algorithm Agility Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Stefan Santesson
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Michael Myers
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Santosh Chokhani
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Santosh Chokhani
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Santosh Chokhani
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Michael Myers
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Santosh Chokhani
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Andrews, Rick
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Santosh Chokhani
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Andrews, Rick
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Santosh Chokhani
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Paul Hoffman
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Santosh Chokhani
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Stefan Santesson
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Stephen Kent
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Stefan Santesson
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Santosh Chokhani
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Paul Hoffman
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Stephen Kent
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Santosh Chokhani
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Paul Hoffman
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Andrews, Rick
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Santosh Chokhani
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Santosh Chokhani
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Santosh Chokhani
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Santosh Chokhani
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Seth Hitchings
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Stefan Santesson
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: OCSP Algorithm Agility Santosh Chokhani