Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applications handle the LockBox in client in <plasma:GetCMSToken> elements
"Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com> Tue, 20 November 2012 04:10 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.com>
X-Original-To: plasma@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: plasma@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4497321F87EF for <plasma@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 20:10:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.854
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.745, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i8MvQZMRH2AW for <plasma@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 20:10:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.pacifier.net (smtp2.pacifier.net [64.255.237.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 621BC21F87F3 for <plasma@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 20:10:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Philemon (173-160-230-153-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.160.230.153]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jimsch@nwlink.com) by smtp2.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1FA062CA18; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 20:10:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: 'Trevor Freeman' <trevorf@exchange.microsoft.com>, 'Ed Simon' <Ed.Simon@titus.com>, plasma@ietf.org
References: <DCD8C7A5A8B3E844AA2E2CBE327CDC92013D21D4@E10MB3.tituscorp.local> <002601cdc6a0$fa38dcf0$eeaa96d0$@augustcellars.com> <3020AC5E95452D43B5D8D0FB02F881D30A6DA4@DF-M14-10.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <3020AC5E95452D43B5D8D0FB02F881D30A6DA4@DF-M14-10.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 20:10:44 -0800
Message-ID: <005d01cdc6d5$04f967c0$0eec3740$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQEeaXGaF3ugIn/POqXt8r+ivF6IKQHOr5HmAl5A6eOZL2vfIA==
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applications handle the LockBox in client in <plasma:GetCMSToken> elements
X-BeenThere: plasma@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The PoLicy Augmented S/Mime \(plasma\) bof discussion list." <plasma.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/plasma>, <mailto:plasma-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/plasma>
List-Post: <mailto:plasma@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:plasma-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma>, <mailto:plasma-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 04:10:57 -0000
> -----Original Message----- > From: Trevor Freeman [mailto:trevorf@exchange.microsoft.com] > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 2:18 PM > To: Jim Schaad; 'Ed Simon'; plasma@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [plasma] Clarification of how client applications handle the > LockBox in client in <plasma:GetCMSToken> elements > > Hi Jim, > > Let me restate things to see if I understood you correctly. > > The list of recipient is one per message not one per policy. While one or more > policies may require the list be supplied; only one list would be included in > the GetCMSToken request via the recipient structure. > > < Recipient> > <Subject>lisa@simpsons.com</Subject> > </Recipient> > < Recipient> > <Subject>bart@simpsons.com</Subject> > </Recipient> No that is not correct. There are three distinct ways that a list of recipients may be supplied to the system. These each have different outcomes. 1. A recipient may be supplied with a lock box created by the sender. This supports a mode where the Plasma server does not know the CEK. This is done through the <Recipient/> element. (As you did below here) 2. A recipient list may be supplied as part of a policy. This allows for a policy to have a set of names to evaluate as part of the policy. This will (normally) be combined with giving a CEK to the server and allowing it to determine who gets the CEK back. 3. A recipient lists specific to email may be provided as part of the input data. This behavior (perhaps not currently in the document) is provided for the purpose of doing pre-authorization of gateways and is specific to email. Currently the above is better expressed as Policy=basic Policy BasicPolicy Recipient List is "lisa@simpsons.com bart@simpsons.com" Jim > > Policies may also require that lock boxes be generated for receipts rather > than supply the CEK to the Plasma server. In that instance, the list of receipts > together with the associated lock box would be included in the > GetCMSToken request. > > < Recipient> > <Subject>lisa@simpsons.com</Subject> > <LockBox>123456789</LockBox> > </Recipient> > < Recipient> > <Subject>bart@simpsons.com</Subject> > <LockBox>abcdef</LockBox> > </Recipient> > > Trevor > > -----Original Message----- > From: plasma-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:plasma-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Jim Schaad > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 1:58 PM > To: 'Ed Simon'; plasma@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applications handle the > LockBox in client in <plasma:GetCMSToken> elements > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: plasma-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:plasma-bounces@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Ed Simon > > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:07 PM > > To: plasma@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applications handle > > the LockBox in client in <plasma:GetCMSToken> elements > > > > Based on discussions with others on this mailing list, and > > > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/plasma/current/msg00118.html > > > > ...I have drawn up the following three scenarios regarding the > construction of > > the <GetCMSToken> element sent to the PLASMA Server by the Sending > > Agent, and the construction of the LockBox by the PLASMA Server. > > > > Does what I've described in these scenarios, particularly Scenario B > > in > which > > the Sending Agent leaves it to the PLASMA Server to construct a > > LockBox > for > > a named recipient, sound reasonable? Scenario B follows from the text > > "Additionally the Plasma server could return the standard > > recipient info structures to be added to the message for recipients > > if it can pre-authorize them to have access the message and knows the > > appropriate keying material." > > in the PLASMA Service CMS Processing v2 document. > > This text is intended to deal with the case of creating lockboxes for entities > such as virus checking gateways in a mail system. The lockboxes that are > being returned with here are placed parallel to the Plasma Lockbox in the > CMS Enveloped data object and are not embedded into the lockbox created > by the Plasma server. > > > > > Here are the scenarios: > > > > Scenario A: The Sending Agent does NOT share the CEK with the PLASMA > > server and specifies a limited set of recipients who can decrypt the > message > > (for example, due to section 7.2.2 of PLASMA Service Trust processing v3). > > > > Sending Agent: In the <GetCMSToken> element of the PLASMA Request, > the > > sender will construct a <Recipient> list specifying, for each > recipient, both > > the <Subject> element (to identify the recipient), and the <LockBox> > > element to contain the encrypted CEK for that recipient (encrypted so > > only that recipient can decrypt it). There will be no <CEK> element. > > > > PLASMA Server: Will construct an ASN.1 PLASMA LockBox (as described in > > PLASMA Service CMS Processing v2). The LockBox constructed by the > > PLASMA Server will comprise, in the namedRecipients, the LockBox-es > > provided by the Sending Agent. There will be no defaultRecipients > structure. > > Note that in this scenario, the PLASMA Server will not be able, > > barring > further > > communication with the Sending Agent, be able to supplement the list > > of recipients. > > This looks correct > > > > > Scenario B: The sender shares the CEK with the PLASMA server and > > specifies a limited set of recipients who can decrypt the message (for > > example, > again, > > due to section 7.2.2 of PLASMA Trust processing). For each recipient > > specified, there may or may not be a LockBox specified by the Sending > > Agent. > > > > Sending Agent: In the <GetCMSToken> element of the PLASMA Request, > the > > sender will construct a <Recipient> list specifying, for each > recipient, both > > the <Subject> element (to identify the recipient), and, optionally, > > the <LockBox> element to contain the encrypted CEK for that recipient > > (encrypted so only that recipient can decrypt it). The Sending Agent > > will > also > > construct a <CEK> element to contain the CEK. > > > > PLASMA Server: Where a LockBox for a recipient was specified by the > > Sending Agent, it will be treated as in Scenario A; otherwise, the > > PLASMA Server will create a LockBox for that recipient to populate the > > namedRecipients structure. It will also create a defaultRecipients > structure > > using the CEK provided by the Sending Agent. Note that in this > > scenario, > the > > PLASMA Server will be able to, independently of the Sending Agent, be > > able to supplement the list of recipients. > > > > Note that for Scenario B, the schema definition for the <LockBox> > > element will need to have the attribute minOccurs=0. > > This is not currently an envisioned scenario in terms of the Plasma server > creating the lock boxes at send time. Currently if there is a list of recipients > that the sender does not create lockboxes for, it is envisioned that this would > be handled as part of the policy set on the message. The Plasma server > would then deal with potentially creating a lock box (as oppose to returning a > bare key) when the recipient tries to get the key from the server. > > > > > Scenario C: The Sending Agent shares the CEK with the PLASMA server > > and does NOT specify any recipients. > > > > Sending Agent: The Sending Agent will also construct a <CEK> element > > to contain the CEK; no <Recipient> element will be created. > > > > PLASMA Server: The PLASMA Server will also create a defaultRecipients > > structure using the CEK provided by the Sending Agent; it may or may > > not create a namedRecipients structure (populated independently of the > > Sending Agent). As in Scenario B, the PLASMA Server will be able to, > > independently of the Sending Agent, be able to supplement the list of > > recipients. > > This is what I would expect to see. > > Jim > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > plasma mailing list > > plasma@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma > > _______________________________________________ > plasma mailing list > plasma@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma
- [plasma] Clarification of how client applications… Ed Simon
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Jim Schaad
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Ed Simon
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Ed Simon
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Jim Schaad
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Trevor Freeman
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Jim Schaad
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Trevor Freeman
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Jim Schaad
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Ed Simon
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Ed Simon
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Jim Schaad
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Ed Simon
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Ed Simon
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Jim Schaad
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Ed Simon
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Trevor Freeman
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Jim Schaad
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Jim Schaad
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Trevor Freeman
- Re: [plasma] Clarification of how client applicat… Trevor Freeman