Re: [lamps] Renewing (short lived) certs with EST (RFC7030) [was: Re: Sean: Permissibility of expired cert renewal]

Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> Thu, 30 August 2018 01:43 UTC

Return-Path: <sean@sn3rd.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 1CD24130EE0 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 18:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.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 wZ8B88oUraOH for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 18:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x235.google.com (mail-qt0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::235]) (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 AF8AF130E28 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 18:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x235.google.com with SMTP id r37-v6so8130779qtc.0 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 18:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=O7MVRVM+5xZWYBZg98yD+Dr5o8ZJy4SQOAM3AozD0pg=; b=SCc5zHw8CRDYyI/jwP7I+XfjAD3JZg5TDJxWzhtt87TE3Kda7EAlsXfrWLujtITy/g 8lrff0jNr1OHbujabDq98u6OCBmUj5or0AB3cCIRiNpiYGVHcmq5MlpkcLvMoWnjBPR0 IvicLd+Bn4jQg5JNytOoMKh0LHPz3U1lU30pg=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=O7MVRVM+5xZWYBZg98yD+Dr5o8ZJy4SQOAM3AozD0pg=; b=Ke6LU3bVIZovFd/aOhdkDh6X0JgXErIlqlO960q4B4sLoYIqtuyjAbEFR8gva1biWK vTWtVPFBp+lStfLO5eJ6GnucBNXU2Ea7Q2ElyxvtsoMjVqI7lZg91XFF8yg5gSXPNll4 pJovhHrSPR96t/6zQHW8NYEWC7SVKhT8GOWg13Etl1lcSX0jp6seNhQCuRwQpZ/LcFet VXdTrMAjsr03dWDn531KEsLsZBsidGk1sNwf0isb4jNVQRqMzBaCjBkgTM7iVqYrCsyI Eljv2d7VrO5VWkHqN7T8NyoXMbDUL1Owpy1vPvr4FyViRG70pzkljJZyFOr0CeUMJnc4 UOog==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51BpbBB2LGEi0pd4LUcySTc5GdJUN+jcbhFKAWCud5sKnEHgB1GX ZaH88EH40TQWCWMASieng11l5IJDiFs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0Vda7/yZepoSdx0tEUGSjrkKK3FJEfgHZn7WTAp7XdWLCkIes4+gqluJiuqf1n3V7qKbJFDV+Fw==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:48cf:: with SMTP id l15-v6mr9708166qtr.15.1535593388877; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 18:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.0.18] ([96.231.225.148]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p57-v6sm3645057qtj.42.2018.08.29.18.43.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Aug 2018 18:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180723194623.7niwhsz4tnigwern@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 21:43:07 -0400
Cc: spasm@ietf.org, draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <471854EE-449A-453A-84B7-911365A4F56F@sn3rd.com>
References: <20180719212936.mroidiansyiurjra@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <FE5CF951-6501-4751-8C3B-AB414A14A930@sn3rd.com> <20180723194623.7niwhsz4tnigwern@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/QVFoirlKHJiLmMeNmcd_u2qxJP4>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Renewing (short lived) certs with EST (RFC7030) [was: Re: Sean: Permissibility of expired cert renewal]
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 30 Aug 2018 01:43:11 -0000


> On Jul 23, 2018, at 15:46, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> 
>> I do not believe there is any prohibition against the use of expired or even revoked certificates for renew/rekey in the PKIX suite of RFCs.
> 
> That wold be great.
> 
>> The path validation algorithm in 5280 does consider whether the certificate is revoked/expired, but does hard fail on that status.
> 
> But that would contradict your above statement, would it not ? With RFC7030
> 3.3.2 requiring RFC5280, it would have to fail for expired certificates. No ?

I mixed a couple up a couple of things here.  The path validation will return a fail if the certificate validity period does not include the current time.  Most applications I know of throw a warning and don’t hard fall on this, e.g., the signed message is still displayed to the user.

spt