Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-31

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014, Tero Kivinen <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Richard Barnes writes:
> >     Perhaps, but is there benefits for leaving the alg without
> protection?
> >
> > Simplicity (if you omit protected headers altogether), and
> > compatibility with other signed things.  In the sense that you could
> > transform one of them into a JWS without re-signing.  This would
> > apply, for example, to an X.509 certificate -- just parse the outer
> > SEQUENCE, and re-assemble into a JWS with the tbsCertificate as
> > payload.  Same security properties that X.509 already has.
>
> Ok, having this kind of information somewhere in the draft would help
> to understand the reason. Also having text explaining that is
> possible, and that the security properties of this option (i.e. no
> problem with PKCS#1, etc... the text you had in the other email).
>
> > It's also completely unnecessary for PKCS#1 signatures, which are
> > the dominant use case today.
>
> I agree.
>
> > In general, I'm opposed to protocols baking in more
> > application-specific logic than they need to.  The point of JOSE is
> > to describe the cryptographic operation that was performed, and
> > carry the relevant bits around.  Its job is not to fix all the
> > weaknesses that every algorithm has.
>
> Yes, but this property might have security issues, so they should be
> covered by the security considerations section.


I'm perfectly happy to have it documented in the Security Considerations.

Mike: Should I generate some text, or do you want to take a stab?


> --
> [e-mail] <javascript:;>
>