Re: [Secdispatch] Updating/Replacing RFC 2660 ? (was Re: [dispatch] HTTP Request Signing)

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Mon, 04 November 2019 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 98CA11200FE for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 10:33:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 NCRPDVwrfCAe for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 10:33:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x134.google.com (mail-lf1-x134.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F52A12091D for <secdispatch@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 10:33:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x134.google.com with SMTP id v8so12981802lfa.12 for <secdispatch@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Nov 2019 10:33:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Qlz9PbOhJzcTY1MPYLC/NVtgyosKY2suxArYDYw7Xg4=; b=xIr65xJN6rl7gjrNn2RxfR+ocVTHBGE+xUM0WgvHK3dK5GTFuaUwra8cVHnfvkHJXI /WG8MbGQkGyWHBbS0R14XlYzH0nI6TfiV2R49bkqwikqDOAxunhtBaomsUE4x7oEnKHn XDXR3z0L642zzg8ELaQgsz84b9bry3ZFvRevGcgfu9Quz5bojCVEkokOf4SQHt1Wp0zh 5cX8EfgYhsxrRflPFFY07cM5ajOkga/lfnmm9mYKDT61eHCh9KEhAQk50f4C9zyb1UPZ 3ZjK3UEurNeTwCfjRKtwxIwW7pL2LcQsgD1Ily8KwBxz376GZr92Gy+/jhr0d+Cp4mRg BPmg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Qlz9PbOhJzcTY1MPYLC/NVtgyosKY2suxArYDYw7Xg4=; b=nNu/W+/SZ7QOIJdULZssJ9oFLv2c3z1egMw0Tf9p/i2SGXxV2lnUvWAul2ikI2eRLO Qhf4lUdVaoJEdHf1ZMy4OLgNNhh5SmBVW7HsTaMgCHqID1Jh7tgaIp9xcP3EUvRS7fyM ArioD0ak6OwVBIQeJyYvnVQ1m6txNyPRK22V9wq8Ah6sBfwEsj9UUT6rLUVtMHILxYwf auG/jZ1Uk0GXqDIIaaWKfcQdDdWSivzFsSjGNG3f14m/E0pDLGaU4ykRcziD1uGTBiQQ VJf5pz+gZVNM5IyDUik/XrwTKaoMwrJp5vcXOida2pGocFVQD7aYQW37ohD5l6zAky+Q y/QQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW3UWOtAMieVxWhk5drsJrP8UDQRlwJdWaw/bPnk2S9iRrV4zk9 O1Gl0qaPUjXaNMpgLnrlUFPlioZTQ20PAXgOu4bgmKfq
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyrvVwFf50cXMvhRTo/kzch9+6rq5Or6EVdUPsG5gXGktcesGEF+jTZyLpJfivy4S8Uyo/r7gl4pD1gAVNkqf8=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4248:: with SMTP id m8mr17545677lfl.94.1572892421540; Mon, 04 Nov 2019 10:33:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <E53D0610-2A30-483E-9BF5-BC83E7BC2CBF@mit.edu> <AE0333E9-651F-4362-9BC2-5B24DDBB531A@mnot.net> <2AC5BD50-53E3-41CE-A2C3-C25D310A89ED@mit.edu> <CANh-dXnFQy+-s4LH6eL1fvEoFOVvhSY+jj-cAv2kuyx+JwC9_Q@mail.gmail.com> <400abd10-3bbc-2288-b357-f36ad721cebf@openca.org>
In-Reply-To: <400abd10-3bbc-2288-b357-f36ad721cebf@openca.org>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 10:33:04 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBN25BaXCFeJGysQ2jhggwgjYGq1dZyGE3grbL5rcwbxvA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dr. Pala" <madwolf@openca.org>
Cc: IETF SecDispatch <secdispatch@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="0000000000000f100b0596898e61"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/rawq_2uRhzE3X3l-X4RZH-hHXUc>
Subject: Re: [Secdispatch] Updating/Replacing RFC 2660 ? (was Re: [dispatch] HTTP Request Signing)
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, 04 Nov 2019 18:33:47 -0000

Speaking as one of the authors of 2660, if we want to attack these
problems, I don't think it is really a suitable starting point, though
perhaps there are ideas we could steal.

-Ekr


On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 10:20 AM Dr. Pala <madwolf@openca.org> wrote:

> Hi Jeffrey, Justin, Mark, all,
>
> I have not had the time to read the proposals, but are you familiar with
> RFC 2660 ?
>
> Would that provide the authentication you are talking about for both
> requests and responses ?
>
> Is the proposal to update / replace the RFC or do you see it as something
> completely different ?
>
> Cheers,
> Max
>
> On 11/2/19 9:18 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
>
> That's roughly what I was going to say. :) I'd like to avoid the scope
> creep of having WPACK take on request signing in addition to, effectively,
> response signing. It's *possible* that we could define an HTTP header in a
> general enough way that it would work for both purposes, and
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cavage-http-signatures-12#section-4 attempts
> to do that, but the problem spaces seem to be different enough that we
> should have separate groups write down the requirements for each side's
> signatures before deciding that a single header will work. It's not even
> clear to me that WPACK is going to end up defining an HTTP header, even
> though my draft currently does so.
>
> I'll be sure to attend the request-signing sessions in case they
> establish that I'm wrong about this.
>
> Jeffrey
>
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 3:39 PM Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the pointer to the BoF, I hadn’t seen that one. I am familiar
>> with the draft you linked though: The main difference is that the draft in
>> question is for a signed response, whereas the draft(s) I’ve pointed at are
>> for a signed request. Yes, they ought to be aligned, but the WG in question
>> seems to be much more focused on packaging responses together than dealing
>> with requests. If that new group also wants to take on request signing,
>> then by all means let’s do it there. But it’s not as clean a match as it
>> might seem on the surface, I think.
>>
>>  — Justin
>>
>> > On Nov 2, 2019, at 12:26 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Justin,
>> >
>> > It's worth noting that there's a Working Group forming BoF, wpack,
>> being held in Singapore about a draft with similar goals:
>> >
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yasskin-http-origin-signed-responses-07
>> >
>> > In particular, both this draft and Jeffrey's propose the Signature HTTP
>> header field, and seem to have at least partially overlapping use cases.
>> >
>> > If possible, it'd be good to avoid duplication of effort -- especially
>> in terms of evaluating security properties and "fit" into HTTP by the
>> security and HTTP communities, respectively. So, I'd suggest bringing it up
>> there instead.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> >
>> >> On 2 Nov 2019, at 8:59 am, Justin Richer <jricher@mit.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I would like to present and discuss HTTP Request signing at both the
>> DISPATCH and SECDISPATCH meetings at IETF106 in Singapore. This I-D has
>> been floating around for years now and has been adopted by a number of
>> different external groups and efforts:
>> >>
>> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cavage-http-signatures
>> >>
>> >> I’ve spoken with the authors of the draft and we’d like to find out
>> how to bring this forward to publication within the IETF. I’m targeting
>> both dispatch groups because this represents the intersection of both
>> areas, and I think we’d get different perspectives from each side that we
>> should consider.
>> >>
>> >> There have been a number of other drafts that have approached HTTP
>> request signing as well (I’ve written two of them myself), but none has
>> caught on to date and none have made it to RFC. Lately, though, I’ve been
>> seeing a lot of renewed effort in different sectors, and in particular the
>> financial sector and cloud services, to have a general purpose HTTP message
>> signing capability. As such, I think it’s time to push something forward.
>> >>
>> >> I’ve reached out to the chairs for both DISPATCH and SECDISPATCH to
>> request a presentation slot.
>> >>
>> >> Thank you, and I’ll see you all in Singapore!
>> >> — Justin
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> dispatch mailing list
>> >> dispatch@ietf.org
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>> >
>> > --
>> > Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dispatch mailing list
>> dispatch@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Secdispatch mailing listSecdispatch@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Massimiliano Pala, Ph.D.
> OpenCA Labs Director
> [image: OpenCA Logo]
> _______________________________________________
> Secdispatch mailing list
> Secdispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch
>