IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 28 July 2020 20:42 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 C90D53A0BB0 for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 sVNNWHKVcB6o for <saag@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87A843A0CD2 for <saag@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.116] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BGT9w65FCzyys; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 22:41:56 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200728191331.GV41010@kduck.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 22:41:56 +0200
Cc: saag@ietf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 617661716.136989-a84de8f1e828fa569bc6154f4fda778a
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E932C526-5A5C-4969-B806-213910693F18@tzi.org>
References: <20200728191331.GV41010@kduck.mit.edu>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/nqzw2wSSi4Yp6glKC-Y9ZPzw12I>
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: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 20:42:07 -0000

On 2020-07-28, at 21:13, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> Can we make a classification of what types of protocols are naturally
> suited for PKI scenarios and what types of protocols are naturally suited
> for pinning?

How about some definitions here:

PKI = the set of root CAs is determined by one of a oligopoly of entities, based on CA/Browser Forum operations, where the entities aren’t really justifiable parties to the application?

Pinning = the set of root CAs is determined by the application, choosing a set of CAs specifically authorized for the application to aid in authentication?

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email