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

"Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com> Mon, 14 December 2015 04:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.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 B6B811A8955; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:17:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 ZPQ65EtQdv9U; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:17:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.pacifier.net (smtp1.pacifier.net [64.255.237.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82B541A8848; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:17:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hebrews (c-24-21-96-37.hsd1.or.comcast.net [24.21.96.37]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jimsch@nwlink.com) by smtp1.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CA3C2C9FE; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:17:23 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: "'Kathleen Moriarty'" <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, "'Mike Jones'" <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, <jose-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
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>
In-Reply-To: <CAHbuEH5rXhaRP1iZM25E5T+iYCpPtRzjyPPsntW4FYDgfY4isA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:14:38 -0800
Message-ID: <062f01d13625$f3cfb260$db6f1720$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQG6tIZnrou72CdNvIZtQKk61WL5FALChNxMAduZhGwC/dFLUgHU4wNWAmmRJKEBx3b12gK6sEKonnP9jlA=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/nURuiYuCoEKSV-6X3-BD0k_zSkM>
Cc: secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-jose-jws-signing-input-options.all@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 04:17:27 -0000

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=