IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [saag] On PKI vs. Pinning (SAAG 108 preview)

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Sat, 22 August 2020 04:51 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
X-Original-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD20B3A0B39 for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 21:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KfjqCVndtu1o for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 21:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from anteater.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (anteater.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 010703A0A12 for <saag@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 21:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0265232127A; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 04:51:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a15.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-22-62.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.22.62]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 713EF32136A; Sat, 22 Aug 2020 04:51:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a15.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.18.8); Sat, 22 Aug 2020 04:51:54 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Spicy-Lonely: 16c7a8de09f228be_1598071914689_2618560706
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1598071914689:1178602117
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1598071914689
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a15.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a15.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2739D7F702; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 21:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=xC5z1sD8zTskGr+/gnoV10J0/44 =; b=LXci5gerWMaTEw2cc3s2SrUJTwm8DwKPStnm1O5EVLwEVQBD2NGwFAPllQI JAKI5SREm0G7c0Z/bxsMohkvADpmU3HDHv7Ko8shu3/UGfTp1GJzgM+T33efs7zi JqqADwO747Fs9TWSP5Cwrl5Z8KbcplElO0H0FfUWe05sfc3o=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a15.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 945657F13F; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 21:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 23:51:51 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a15
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: saag@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200822045147.GR3100@localhost>
References: <20200728191331.GV41010@kduck.mit.edu> <20200822014328.GI37427@straasha.imrryr.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200822014328.GI37427@straasha.imrryr.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: 0
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedruddufedgkeefucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuggftfghnshhusghstghrihgsvgdpffftgfetoffjqffuvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkfhggtggujggfsehttdertddtredvnecuhfhrohhmpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepffdtkeethfeuteeviefgfeegjeetjedvhfehgfdvtdefueejheelgeeuhffghffgnecukfhppedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmohguvgepshhmthhppdhhvghloheplhhotggrlhhhohhsthdpihhnvghtpedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefpdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomhdpnhhrtghpthhtohepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomh
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/_RTSRIJ8M9kdcjS4aE3IVj9xccI>
Subject: Re: [saag] On PKI vs. Pinning (SAAG 108 preview)
X-BeenThere: saag@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group <saag.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/saag/>
List-Post: <mailto:saag@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 04:51:58 -0000

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 09:43:28PM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 12:13:31PM -0700, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > Is there benefit in arranging for a description of the system where
> > the ability to pin is just a degenerate case of a PKI, with a single
> > trust anchor and no real hierarchy?
>
> [...]

Shorter Viktor: TLSA RDATA is a generic data format for specifying pins,
and if you have an API that accepts trust-me-they-are-validated TLSA
RRsets, then you've got an API that does pinning.  That's what OpenSSL
has -- its DANE API does no DNSSEC lookups, so it's not _DANE_ as such.

I.e., one could use TLSA RDATA as a pin configuration and exchange format!

Nico

PS: So OpenSSL's DANE API is a no-batteries-included thing.  I don't why
    Viktor is so 'stingy' about it :) putting his DNSSEC code only in
    Postfix and not in OpenSSL.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email