Re: Online Certificate Revocation Protocol

Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@rsasecurity.com> Mon, 11 June 2001 17:49 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 NAA15884 for <pkix-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:49:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f5BH4P811235 for ietf-pkix-bks; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nebula.x509.com (nebula.x509.com [199.175.150.19]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f5BH4NJ11231 for <ietf-pkix@imc.org>; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from crack.x509.com (mail.x509.com [199.175.150.1]) by nebula.x509.com (8.11.3/XCERT) with ESMTP id f5BH4Hi26295 for <ietf-pkix@imc.org>; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exvan01.x509.com (exvan01.x509.com [10.9.22.50]) by crack.x509.com (8.11.3/XCERT) with ESMTP id f5BH4HU27952 for <ietf-pkix@imc.org>; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rsasecurity.com (eskarina.eng.x509.com [10.7.33.45]) by exvan01.x509.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id L2KC5CC7; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:04:50 -0700
Message-ID: <3B24F9E7.404E39DC@rsasecurity.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:03:35 -0700
From: Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@rsasecurity.com>
Organization: RSA Security
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.18 i686)
X-Accept-Language: en, fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-pkix@imc.org
Subject: Re: Online Certificate Revocation Protocol
References: <8D7EC1912E25D411A32100D0B76953978DF474@scygmxs01.cygnacom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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>
List-ID: <ietf-pkix.imc.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


All I'm saying is that "destroyed" does not mean that the key can't be
recovered by someone with enough determination and expertise/money.

Yes, in theory, if a key is actually wiped from existence then the security
reasons for revoking its certificate are fairly weak (to be diplomatic about
it).  However, I seem to recall seeing reports a few months ago about some
data being recovered from a hard drive even though the data was overwritten
many times.  Destroying information seems to be a lot harder than expected.

Tony's original question concerned the accidental destruction of a key.  I
suggest that "accidental destruction" really means that the key is beyond the
owner's ability to recover it.  But that doesn't mean it's beyond everyone
else's ability as well.

For your average user, "destroyed" might mean that they accidentally dragged
their private key file into the trashcan.  This would hardly be "Destroyed"
in the theoretical sense, but if the policy is that there need be no
revocation when a key is "lost" then there's a huge vulnerability here.

		Marc


Santosh Chokhani wrote:
> 
> You could revoke, but there is no compelling security reason just because
> the key is destroyed regardless of the sensitivity of the subject component
> or the application.
> 
> Now, if some other foul play is suspected as part of the destruction event,
> that is another matter.
>