Re: [lamps] Advertising S/MIME capabilities in a certificate?

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 19 December 2019 23:19 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00C40120089 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 15:19:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 t2RYLuqXQUcE for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 15:19:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5398312001A for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 15:19:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2C1B300B30 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 18:19:19 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id ZBwGP1MwxhAg for <spasm@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 18:19:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-108-51-198-163.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.51.198.163]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E9BC63001CC; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 18:19:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Message-Id: <A08AE988-177C-42CD-AFE2-A646B362DEB9@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_63095490-DAF0-4D5B-B31A-BE0D53E98A07"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 18:19:18 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87blt4i2ye.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
Cc: LAMPS WG <spasm@ietf.org>
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
References: <87blt4i2ye.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/DhBUZ7FsykWtLH1XRcu3jBVwAR4>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Advertising S/MIME capabilities in a certificate?
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 23:19:23 -0000

DKG:

This seems very similar  to the attribute specified in RFC 5751 that indicates binary message bodies can be handled:

   Implementations MAY "know" that recipient implementations are capable
   of handling inner binary MIME entities either by interpreting the
   id-cap-preferBinaryInside SMIMECapabilities attribute ...

Russ

> On Nov 22, 2019, at 6:07 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi folks--
> 
> It occurs to me that i'd like at least one of the certificates in
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-dkg-lamps-samples-01.html to announce some
> SMIMECapabilities.  For example, maybe it could advertise that it is
> capable of handling a PKCS#7 Compression layer?  Or that it is capable
> of processing authEnveloped-data?
> 
> However, reading RFC 8551 and related specs i realize how rusty my ASN.1
> is (and my knowledge of CMS is so paltry that there was never even
> enough of it to rust).
> 
> It looks to me like S/MIME capabilities are never advertised in the cert
> itself, but rather expected to be included as a signedAttribute in a
> signedData object.  Is that right?  Is there no way that the
> advertisement can be included in the certificate?
> 
> I suppose if the advertisement could be included in both the signedData
> object *and* the certificate itself then the algorithm in §2.7.1 of RFC
> 8551 would need to be much more complicated.
> 
> Any pointers or examples would be welcome,
> 
>              --dkg