Re: [Secdispatch] Clarification for a question about OCSP caching from Nick (Cloudflare)

Carrick Bartle <cbartle891@icloud.com> Mon, 02 December 2019 11:32 UTC

Return-Path: <cbartle891@icloud.com>
X-Original-To: secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18787120047 for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 03:32:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.447
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=icloud.com
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 YwJxSAyBxeGH for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 03:32:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mr85p00im-zteg06011601.me.com (mr85p00im-zteg06011601.me.com [17.58.23.186]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0743812002E for <secdispatch@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 03:32:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=icloud.com; s=1a1hai; t=1575286330; bh=xUMUdiAwzuVZ5tQLhI9n8czFYUL3yElyuO7AXqSQHTk=; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Subject:Date:To; b=oOP3jWIxyICHZpaq3mRCBTqyMEfawBpzBOxKuLWHnkEt3eAklOaW3EshDP466DCaZ w2EV4dkBqZacHb1JGLy4ZhqIXZWl6KoereuU63refz5LhiyURw2IbeVGdqF9wp74yi hqJqYfXRda7dV0A1/E+tG8ROGOcMNVqmVUiyZhkYzZyUWXmvNj9cF+GmxynZayWMtf v36Arm1gwhiRykr11fb8v73f/mxYoUYUxIZuNnj5i33fEbQiFPEvMjSJmziARRH/7r 6fbPLIcu7bMZBXOGEYnBpMU6Vm//VwlvlFry1DC0Qw1JKBcFSFEMJawf4vC1B7x2ZU HPWCazoxGVjJQ==
Received: from [192.168.1.7] (c-73-241-31-81.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.241.31.81]) by mr85p00im-zteg06011601.me.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 590E8920C8D; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 11:32:10 +0000 (UTC)
From: Carrick Bartle <cbartle891@icloud.com>
Message-Id: <FB609203-A3A1-4462-9533-C7B35CA13D47@icloud.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_57CE84B2-32DC-4CE0-9AED-055EB830FAF4"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3594.4.19\))
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 03:32:09 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CH2PR14MB36444B9F84F39AD8F9BD68FB83450@CH2PR14MB3644.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: "Dr. Pala" <madwolf@openca.org>, IETF SecDispatch <secdispatch@ietf.org>, Nick Sullivan <nick@cloudflare.com>
To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com>
References: <265ce9c3-8d24-b8c2-f13c-a54280a7ffba@openca.org> <CAFDDyk9x1w-voWdM31zwExkj3UWX9Dir4d4JF2DQrxYArH-jbg@mail.gmail.com> <5e81fda8-52d3-e39a-1999-ac98efd4ae70@openca.org> <58FB63D0-58A3-4610-8A86-43D6050C5FAA@icloud.com> <CH2PR14MB36444B9F84F39AD8F9BD68FB83450@CH2PR14MB3644.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3594.4.19)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-12-02_02:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1912020105
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/ChHXUk8VEP4gaQmvWx1U8gJ3wQE>
Subject: Re: [Secdispatch] Clarification for a question about OCSP caching from Nick (Cloudflare)
X-BeenThere: secdispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Dispatch <secdispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdispatch>, <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch>, <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:32:15 -0000

> this isn’t about saving OCSP requests at all

I'm confused then: if the revocation data on the ranges isn't cached to be used later, how is this method any different from the status quo, i.e. receiving an OCSP response with data on one certificate?

> However, these filters express an aggregate of all the information across multiple CRLs, and have some false positives due to the compression.


Yes, that happens, but we handle that by performing OCSP on all positives to confirm revocation. This solves the issue of the "common case" that Max described, whereby most certificates are not revoked: we don't make OCSP requests for unrevoked certificates and do make requests for those that might be, which does include some small percentage of false positives.

As for the lightbulb example, how many domains should things like lightbulbs really be accessing anyway? I'm not an IoT expert, but I would think that if your lightbulb is surfing the internet, something is wrong. I would imagine it would access just a handful of domains in normal operation, in which case it would make sense to have even just one Bloom filter of revocation data.

Carrick



> On Nov 26, 2019, at 11:55 AM, Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
>  
> I’m a big fan of the bloom filters that several browsers are deploying.  However, these filters express an aggregate of all the information across multiple CRLs, and have some false positives due to the compression.  It naively seems to me that creating these bloom filters based on compressed CRLs would be a bad idea, as it would compound the errors.  But I’d love to see or work with people on data on that, because perhaps with the proper tuning that isn’t really an issue.  So if you’re using bloom filters, you probably want to spend the time working on raw CRLs, and either way, this proposal is of no interest to you since you’re not relying on OCSP on the client side.
>  
> However, that’s not the use case that ranges really address.  Ranges are NOT intended for clients that want the status of multiple certificates.  Indeed, they don’t work particularly well for that use case because it doesn’t take too many revocations before you have to get a bit lucky for multiple of the certificates you are interested in to be in the same range.
>  
> The real use case is for devices that do not have the storage capacity to take advantage of the bloom filter approach.  These clients still need OCSP to be efficient for single certificates.  And it is, on the client end.  However, on the server end, generating individual OCSP responses and distributing them to a CDN for every valid certificate is a significant workload.  This is especially true because the smaller and more resource constrained your devices are, the likelihood is you have many, many more of them.  So it makes sense to think about how to optimize for the “most lightbulbs are not revoked” case.
> Both the generation time and the amount of CDN content that needs to be distributed is greatly reduced by allowing range-based responses.
>  
> So again, this isn’t about saving OCSP requests at all, and this proposal has absolutely no impact on the very intelligent and forward looking endpoint that choose to avoid OCSP requests by compressing CRLs and replacing OCSP with local lookup.  It’s designed for systems and ecosystems who can’t do that, which is not the Apple use case.
>  
> -Tim
>  
> From: Carrick Bartle <cbartle891@icloud.com> 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 8:43 AM
> To: Dr. Pala <madwolf@openca.org>
> Cc: Nick Sullivan <nick@cloudflare.com>om>; IETF SecDispatch <secdispatch@ietf.org>rg>; Tim Hollebeek <tim.hollebeek@digicert.com>
> Subject: Re: [Secdispatch] Clarification for a question about OCSP caching from Nick (Cloudflare)
>  
> Hi Max,
>  
> What's the current proposal? The draft <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pala-ocspv2-00> doesn't appear to contain details beyond the notion of providing ranges and information about the entire chain, and it doesn't seem to address the issues raised in the PKIX and LAMPS discussions linked here <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/agenda-106-secdispatch-03>.
>  
> At Apple, we also cache OCSP responses in a compressed form, i.e. in Bloom filters. Having the option to receive CRLs in a compressed format like that would definitely be more efficient for us. I'm not convinced that ranges would be as helpful. CRLs are helpful when someone is compiling an entire catalog of revoked certificates. OCSP is helpful when you want to check the revocation status of one particular certificate. If OCSP is instead a hybrid of these two approaches, this assumes that the client is going to want data on the other certificates in the range they receive (many of which won't even exist, since, as someone commented in the pkix thread, serial numbers are often (usually?) randomized). I'm not sure how often that additional revocation information is actually going to be useful to the client. Statistics on that is the sort of data that would be helpful in evaluating this proposal. If it turns out, for instance, that providing ranges ends up saving only, say, 0.1% of OCSP requests, it probably wouldn't be worth the effort.
>  
> As for returning revocation data for the entire chain, the question must be asked: which chain? In some cases, certificates are cross-signed, and so there is no one chain to provide revocation data for. Is the client effectively going to delegate finding the best chain to the OCSP responder? I'm not sure that's in the client's best interest, and I'm not sure OCSP responders are going to want to bother handling that.
>  
> Carrick
>  
>  
> 
> 
> On Nov 20, 2019, at 2:47 PM, Dr. Pala <madwolf@openca.org <mailto:madwolf@openca.org>> wrote:
>  
> Hi Nick,
> thanks for the reply. My comments are inline...
> On 11/20/19 1:07 PM, Nick Sullivan wrote:
> Hi Max,
>  
> Thanks for your clarification. I now understand the work is aimed at optimizing the number of signatures by the CA's OCSP responder and the number of bytes of unique OCSP data.
>  
> Yes, that is correct. The other optimization is about the ability to provide responses for the whole chain in a single message.
> 
> Currently, the number of OCSP signatures the CA needs to do is linear in the number of active certificates. This proposal changes this so that the number of signatures is linear in the number of revocations of active certificates. It's conceptually similar to NSEC in that way: it's a cover proposal in which the artifacts are constant size, but require a linear number signatures in the size of the revocation set. Contrast this with CRLs, which require a constant number of signatures, but are linear in the size of the revocation set. So maybe the goals could be better phrased in terms of lowering the cost of generating compared to OCSP and distributing compared to CRLs.
>  
> I am not sure I follow. In PKIs, today, we use both mechanisms. This is because usually the CRLs are used as a backup mechanism for OCSP - we also need to support both because of Certification Policies (exactly as in the Internet PKI environment), therefore it is not a choice :D The proposed approach can be used to (a) limit the amount of data that needs to be generated, stored, and transferred when pre-computing responses, and (b) to compute all responses and serve them from memory - even small instances without any hardware acceleration could achieve reasonable performances (also for shorter validity periods in responses).
> 
> This proposal implies a middle-ground PKI deployment that has enough revocations for CRL to be inefficient but not enough to cause the negative space of the serial number to be of the same order as the number of certificates. It would be great to see examples of PKIs that motivate this optimization, which is why I suggested that data could help.
> Technically, you are correct. If we could predict the size of CRLs, we could potentially try to understand what that threshold is. However, as I explained in the presentation, the size is fairly unpredictable. That is why we primarily use OCSP today.
>  
> I should also note that while this proposal reduces the number of OCSP signatures (which can be on the order of 104 signatures for 2-year certs), the impact is less dramatic for CAs that issue shorter-lived certs. For example, Let's Encrypt only signs around 13 OCSP responses for each of their 3-month certificates.
> That is correct, the impact is less with short-lived certificates because in those environment, the population of active certificates is usually smaller. If the population is still large, you still have the same problem.
> You mention that your OCSP responses have a 7 days validity, correct ? My question is: which considerations went into deciding such a large validity period for the OCSP responses (7 days) ? Maybe costs considerations drove the decision ? From a security standpoint, such long validity periods blinds clients from detecting revocation that might happen during the 7-days validity period (the problem is worse now with the deployment of OCSP stapling because clients do not fetch fresh responses at connect time, AFAIK, if stapling is supported). I would expect that few minutes validity windows or maybe few hours would be a better choice - but how much does that cost to Let's Encrypt ?
> The Cable industry has used certificates, for few decades now, for different purposes - as a hardware certification tool and to secure our networks - in this environment, the typical life-span of a certificate is many years (up to 20) and it is tied to the envisioned life-span of the device (no renewal). As you can see, in our environment, CRLs will never be an option and OCSP simply costs too much (for an infrastructure that, over all, has an active population of several hundreds million of active certificates - we might be even beyond that with just the three OpenCable, PacketCable, and DOCSIS).
> Ultimately, we need to work on the solution so that we can have our vendors to integrate it in their products, like CableModes, that are going to be deployed (and provide internet connectivity) for hundreds of millions of households for the next 10 to 20 years. We need to lower the security risks associated with the infrastructures that brings Internet to many of us - revocation is important to prevent possible compromises to go undetected. I think that everybody who has Cable should support this work that is going to directly impact them for many years. 
> Cheers,
> Max
> P.S.: I also have other personal motivations for this work. I think that this is also the right thing to do for non-technical reasons - I come from the OpenSource world that so much has give for the success of the Internet but where there is no money. More efficient technologies could be leveraged by communities around the world who deserve good security but costs get in the way. I know it is not a technical detail, but I think we shall always try to have these considerations in our minds - making the world a better place and less wasteful (energy) is an amendable goal in general and emerging communities could really benefit from our work.
>  
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 9:11 PM Dr. Pala <madwolf@openca.org <mailto:madwolf@openca.org>> wrote:
> Hi Nick, all,
> at the end of the second presentation on lowering the costs of revocation, if I am not mistaken, your question/comment (Nick) was about the fact that Cloudflare hosts / serve most of the cached OCSP responses and that the system does not have issues.
> I am not sure if this comment is pertinent to what we are trying to solve here... let me elaborate a bit more.
> The work we have been doing around the proposed topic of work is aimed at lowering the cost of generating and distributing these large volumes of signed data when there is actually no need for that. By optimizing the protocol to provide range responses (or other methods, if we decide to go with a different approaches), we can reduce the number of signatures needed from a CA and their distribution - very expensive operations.
> In other words, the proposal is not aimed at fixing any caching issues because, as you noticed in your comment, that works just fine. The proposal at hand, instead, is about fixing a problem that CAs are facing today - high costs of deploying and running such systems.
> On the other hand, your comment made me think about the caching service you mentioned and its associated costs. 
> Is it a service for which your company charge CAs ? If so, would you be able to share what are currently the costs incurred by CAs to leverage your service ? (I totally understand if you are not willing to - after all, this is usually the secret sauce :D)
> Last but not least, I also would like to point out that optimizing the revocation can also help open-source communities, small companies, universities, non-profit, etc. by enabling them to deploy cost-efficient systems that can provide good quality of service using less resources (computational, storage, network).
> Please let me know,
> Cheers,
> Max
> P.S.: If we could combine this idea with OCSP over DNS, we could really provide access to revocation technology for everybody, not just who can afford the price. Unfortunately we know how that discussion went, and I still think it is a very evident mistake not doing it  (I am still working on this in my spare time - I think it is of enormous value for emerging countries to have access to cheap secure technologies and, in my opinion, IETF is dropping / has dropped the ball on this for not-so-honorable reasons, I suspect...). I hope We can fix it in the open-source community.
> -- 
> Best Regards,
> Massimiliano Pala, Ph.D.
> OpenCA Labs Director
> <dhmacjdifkefaoin.png>
> -- 
> Best Regards,
> Massimiliano Pala, Ph.D.
> OpenCA Labs Director
> <ijeffbhlgncflbab.png>
> _______________________________________________
> Secdispatch mailing list
> Secdispatch@ietf.org <mailto:Secdispatch@ietf.org>
> https://www..ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Secdispatch mailing list
> Secdispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch