Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-06

Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> Mon, 14 December 2015 04:34 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D3871A914E; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:34:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 z8ceS3dgQ621; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:34:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0117.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 164D91A8AA9; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:34:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector1; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=hSaXC75vJLk6Uu6mpVJEVhqcRziBkTSbOKTHgPHtcW4=; b=K9K9qols5ulKOE4Y5ANo+ejLUb9e10UE2iC9QLMMCZQqzoznTEhnfSs9hJFDEzLhKTN6AL4/Z6jxAd0z5W1ggyZjfTUqPPr/Xzwu9yO4qWZIPfkm/NWYqrMR9giYYVuG6557zpBF0oRFL5IoB2QK0h/p7Li1meC449HZaz1+mT8=
Received: from BY2PR03MB442.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.141.145) by BY2PR03MB443.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.141.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.355.16; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:34:39 +0000
Received: from BY2PR03MB442.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.141.145]) by BY2PR03MB442.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.141.145]) with mapi id 15.01.0355.012; Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:34:39 +0000
From: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>, 'Kathleen Moriarty' <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, "jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: secdir review of draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-06
Thread-Index: AQHRND5yABvUUZjq8E6qK5eNiUXF1Z7ILfEwgAAWPYCAAACDMIABi4UAgAAIwQCAAAHY0IAABCuAgAAEbgCAAAVAEA==
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:34:39 +0000
Message-ID: <BY2PR03MB442CCF362A8C9E9A1069A92F5ED0@BY2PR03MB442.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <alpine.GSO.1.10.1512111248420.26829@multics.mit.edu> <BY2PR03MB442A7FF30189B4A39215B74F5EC0@BY2PR03MB442.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <8C206A9F-8629-4D6C-9EEA-25B71BF586D9@gmail.com> <BY2PR03MB442EC5B63F046735CF13227F5EC0@BY2PR03MB442.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAHbuEH6ONNAjmjZ+KvkEnCf28=sqveFc3Rkg4DEVmXqasnmneA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHbuEH4KTL7EKAsPt7fmmD7D0cRdBT_0Pg3t+uVXgGdzm_tGKg@mail.gmail.com> <BY2PR03MB442869845352C5E62CD33F4F5ED0@BY2PR03MB442.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAHbuEH5rXhaRP1iZM25E5T+iYCpPtRzjyPPsntW4FYDgfY4isA@mail.gmail.com> <062f01d13625$f3cfb260$db6f1720$@augustcellars.com>
In-Reply-To: <062f01d13625$f3cfb260$db6f1720$@augustcellars.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Michael.Jones@microsoft.com;
x-originating-ip: [188.92.133.18]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BY2PR03MB443; 5:PKpgiGvdulTEN25W6bMI4rjMrWsorvbD5037WJQT8Nkx+nrW5woteMMcdAalecMwHo3wwBKglw77MqF01W8p+KYKqXj2R7E+v636/eH4XmRjVAkjNQb83vIib8EZ6cq/U2SgaOjg6wx5TqQcArqTCQ==; 24:wyMx6njwMdRIKdh+u6tYFF6Ygn3v4uFAkQA7qyekWJqRIL/V3CibOkWNNFTISsOs+SDkm3CvIxtq7dTeR9Aka3F1ClgZ9IIHa7ad1d9e66M=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR03MB443;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BY2PR03MB44318A7E7E3B36886C82E03F5ED0@BY2PR03MB443.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425038)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(520078)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(61426038)(61427038); SRVR:BY2PR03MB443; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY2PR03MB443;
x-forefront-prvs: 0790FB1F33
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(164054003)(53754006)(52604005)(158454003)(51914003)(199003)(24454002)(189002)(377454003)(13464003)(74316001)(2501003)(5002640100001)(2950100001)(93886004)(33656002)(5003600100002)(2900100001)(5003630100001)(92566002)(101416001)(102836003)(10090500001)(6116002)(3846002)(5008740100001)(230783001)(5004730100002)(77096005)(586003)(1096002)(10290500002)(66066001)(10400500002)(106116001)(105586002)(1220700001)(99286002)(8990500004)(54356999)(11100500001)(86362001)(5005710100001)(122556002)(50986999)(40100003)(5001770100001)(19580405001)(97736004)(5001960100002)(87936001)(81156007)(19580395003)(189998001)(76176999)(106356001)(86612001)(76576001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR03MB443; H:BY2PR03MB442.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 Dec 2015 04:34:39.4055 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR03MB443
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/GD5ig_vqF2NbMblF2COpmGReNYk>
Cc: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options.all@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-06
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 04:34:43 -0000

Kathleen - do you now concur with Jim that we should leave the Updates clause for 7519 in?  Let me know and then I'll post the resolutions to the Gen-Art and Sec-Dir comments.

				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Schaad [mailto:ietf@augustcellars.com] 
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 8:15 PM
To: 'Kathleen Moriarty' <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>om>; Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>om>; jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Cc: 'Benjamin Kaduk' <kaduk@mit.edu>du>; iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options.all@ietf.org
Subject: RE: secdir review of draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-06

Please note that the write up addresses two different updates.

7519  which was in the document and updates JWT with the statement that says - don't do this
7515  which would be an update of JWS - however it was determined that updating the registry is sufficient without updating the document itself.

While I don't know that there is a need to update 7519 - there is not really a strong statement to be made either way, so I did not ask for it to be removed.  I was more worried about the question of having an update to 7515 which was not present. Karen and I determined that we probably did not need to have this document updated so there were no changes to be made to the document.

I would keep the 7519 update since that was seen by the WG.  And not put in an update to 7515 since, again, that was what the WG saw.

Jim


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 7:59 PM
> To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>om>; 
> jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>du>; iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org; 
> draft- ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options.all@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: secdir review of 
> draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-06
> 
> Jim & Karen,
> 
> I see the updates in the last 2 versions in both the header and 
> abstract, prior to when the shepherd report was posted.  I see in the 
> shepherd report that you do not agree that this draft updates RFC7519.
> Is there a reason this change was not already made to the draft?
> Please confirm that removing this is the right action, it seems to be 
> from your shepherd report reasoning.
> 
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
> 
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Mike Jones 
> <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > To confirm, you want me to remove the Updates 7519 clause, and the 
> > second
> paragraph of the abstract, which says:
> >
> >    This specification updates RFC 7519 by prohibiting the use of the
> >    unencoded payload option in JSON Web Tokens (JWTs).
> >
> > Correct?  I'll do that then shortly.
> >
> >                                 Thanks,
> >                                 -- Mike
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 7:37 PM
> > To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
> > Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>du>; iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org; 
> > draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options.all@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: secdir review of
> > draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-06
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > Sorry, I take that back.  The chairs make a good point in the shepherd writeup.
> This really doesn't update 7519, so it should not say that in the abstract.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Kathleen Moriarty
> <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Mike,
> >>
> >> Please do add that to the abstract and post as soon as you can with 
> >> all updates from last call received so far and agreed upon.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Kathleen
> >>
> >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Mike Jones 
> >> <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >>> Sounds good.  Thanks, Kathleen.
> >>>
> >>>                                 -- Mike
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com]
> >>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2015 7:28 PM
> >>> To: Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
> >>> Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU>DU>; iesg@ietf.org; 
> >>> secdir@ietf.org; 
> >>> draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options.all@ietf.org
> >>> Subject: Re: secdir review of
> >>> draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-06
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>
> >>>> On Dec 12, 2015, at 9:33 PM, Mike Jones 
> >>>> <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Ben,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for the useful review.  Replies are inline below...
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Benjamin Kaduk [mailto:kaduk@MIT.EDU]
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 10:05 AM
> >>>>> To: iesg@ietf.org; secdir@ietf.org;
> >>>>> draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-
> >>>>> options.all@ietf.org
> >>>>> Subject: secdir review of
> >>>>> draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options-06
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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 document is Ready.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The main JWS spec (RFC 7515) required that the signed payload 
> >>>>> was base64url-encoded prior to signing.  This results in a 
> >>>>> noticeable size expansion; in some circumstances it is desirable 
> >>>>> to avoid this expansion and reencoding.  I did not follow the 
> >>>>> JWS document closely at the time, but I believe this issue was 
> >>>>> raised at the time and consensus reached on the published 
> >>>>> version because it is always
> safe for applications to use.
> >>>>> This document provides an opt-in mechanism for application 
> >>>>> (protocol)s to avoid the extra encoding and expansion, leaving 
> >>>>> the burden on the application to determine whether it is safe to 
> >>>>> do so and perform the relevant input checking/sanitization.  The 
> >>>>> security considerations correctly describe the implications of 
> >>>>> the loss of encoding and the restrictions on the signed content 
> >>>>> when detached payloads are not used, interoperability concerns 
> >>>>> for applications not supporting the b64 header parameter, and 
> >>>>> proposes
> appropriate countermeasures.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for letting us know that the security considerations were 
> >>>> clear=