[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-acme-ari-06
Shawn Emery via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 26 November 2024 08:45 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from [10.244.8.175] (unknown [104.131.183.230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEC18C14F6A0; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:45:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Shawn Emery via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.28.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <173261075049.517382.2529024979014948296@dt-datatracker-5679c9c6d-qbvvv>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:45:50 -0800
Message-ID-Hash: 5YRQUPSP56DGW3JGBDPJKLTIEXTI5A47
X-Message-ID-Hash: 5YRQUPSP56DGW3JGBDPJKLTIEXTI5A47
X-MailFrom: noreply@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-secdir.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: acme@ietf.org, draft-ietf-acme-ari.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Reply-To: Shawn Emery <shawn.emery@gmail.com>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-acme-ari-06
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/9RjjXrZKEnQo6XOyLOyYkiPpWYc>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:secdir-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:secdir-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:secdir-leave@ietf.org>
Reviewer: Shawn Emery Review result: Has Issues I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This standards track draft specifies an extension to the Automated Certificate Management Environment (ACME) service, which specifies a protocol that allows a client to ask an ACME server when they should renew their certificate. The security considerations section does exist and asserts that the base RFC for ACME, 8555, covers the various attacks and mitigations that this extensions entails. However, this draft concedes that the client's GET request for renewal information MUST be unauthenticated, contrary to 8555's requirement that they MUST be authenticated (in which this draft discloses). The justification for this position is that the renewal information is not confidential and allows the renewal information to be cached which will prevent aggressive clients from loading the server. I'm concerned that exceptions that allow unauthenticated requests could lead to easier forms of DoS attacks (e.g., bypassing the cache through tweaking the requests, no-store, etc.) against the ACME server. This draft should describe how to mitigate against such attacks. General Comments: Thank you for the examples. Editorial Comments: s/to ACME/to the ACME/ Are the bytes specification required in the following? (If not then I would suggest NEW else this may still need some rewording): OLD: base64url-encoding [RFC4648] of the bytes of the keyIdentifier field of certificate's Authority Key Identifier (AKI) [RFC5280] extension, a literal period, and the base64url-encoding of the bytes of the DER encoding of the certificate's Serial Number (without the tag and NEW: base64url-encoding [RFC4648] of the Key Identifier field [RFC5280], a literal period, and the base64url-encoding of the DER encoded Serial Number field (without the tag and s/build upon/builds upon/ s/to shed load/to shed the load/ s/is what it is/is provided/ s/e.g./e.g.,/g
- [secdir] Re: Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Shawn M Emery
- [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ac… Shawn Emery via Datatracker
- [secdir] Re: Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Aaron Gable
- [secdir] Re: Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Aaron Gable