RE: Embedded certificate image

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Tue, 04 August 2009 15:14 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 9771328C253 for <ietfarch-pkix-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 08:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 Ld8A6mj5SjAG for <ietfarch-pkix-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 08:14:34 -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 D20273A6358 for <pkix-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 08:13:35 -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 n74Ef1Ip087255 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Aug 2009 07:41:01 -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 n74Ef1WA087254; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 07:41:01 -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 mx11.bbn.com (mx11.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n74EerlY087232 for <ietf-pkix@imc.org>; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 07:41:01 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from kent@bbn.com)
Received: from dhcp89-089-105.bbn.com ([128.89.89.105]) by mx11.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1MYKG1-0008Cd-Ef; Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:40:49 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240806c69df525a82d@[128.89.89.105]>
In-Reply-To: <200908032046.n73KkngW008756@stingray.missi.ncsc.mil>
References: <OF2286E3D9.59D2D2E5-ON85257604.0083D2A6-85257605.0000A6A0@us.ibm.com> <4A76DD1E.2060805@mitre.org> <FAD1CF17F2A45B43ADE04E140BA83D48C73DE7@scygexch1.cygnacom.com> <200908032046.n73KkngW008756@stingray.missi.ncsc.mil>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:27:17 -0400
To: "Kemp, David P." <DPKemp@missi.ncsc.mil>
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Subject: RE: Embedded certificate image
Cc: ietf-pkix <ietf-pkix@imc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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>

At 4:46 PM -0400 8/3/09, Kemp, David P. wrote:
>If a CA were going to accept user input to an image composed by the CA,
>then the composition process can provide confounding data by doing more
>than just "inserting a customer-provided graphic into a [known] template
>provided by the CA".  The Security Considerations section could
>recommend steganographic techniques for unpredictably modifying the
>image in perceptually-insignificant ways, such as by adding noise to the
>image data and/or inserting random tags in image formats for which tags
>are defined.
>

David,

I think a CA-selected, random prefix may be a better choice here. An 
organization may be very "attached" to its logo and not want any form 
of manipulation.  In many (most?) cases I expect the organization to 
provide the artwork in precisely the form they will want it to be 
displayed. It would be much easier for a CA to just generate random 
bit string and insert in into a data structure used to convey the 
image, rather than having to be able to watermark the image in some 
fahsion.

Steve