Re: [Rats] Requesting a Nonce from a Verifier

[Orie Steele <[e-mail]>]

Hey Michael,

The point of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-demarco-oauth-status-attestations/

Is for the wallet / holder to convince the verifier that their credential
has a state, within some refresh window.

This eliminates the need for the verifier to contact the issuer, and
address the herd privacy issues with
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-status-list/

In order for the issuer to know if they should provide the proof of non
revocation, the wallet / holder needs to demonstrate proof of possession
for the credential the revocation is bound to.

However, even in the status list approach, the wallet / holder might
present the full list (all statuses for all credentials) to the verifier,
in the case the verifier cannot make network requests to the issuer.

It's generally considered "bad" for the verifier to "phone home" regarding
credential use, because it enables tracking... and while herd privacy does
increase the anonymity set, it's still an information leakage.

Regards,

OS


On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 12:35 PM Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> Orie Steele <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > The wallet proves possession of the license, the issuer provides a
>     > fresh proof of non revocation, and then later (within some validity
>     > period window for the status attestation) the wallet can present both
>     > the credential and the proof of non suspension, even to an offline
>     > verifier.
>
> Does the verifier have to contact the issuer to determine if
> the non-revocation proof is valid?    If that part a symmetric encryption
> from the issuer, or an assymetric signed statement?   I guess I am
> confusing
> the nonce with the fresh-proof of non-revocation.
>
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>
>
>
>
>

-- 


ORIE STEELE
Chief Technology Officer
www.transmute.industries

<https://transmute.industries>