IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] Review comment from the AD

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Wed, 27 September 2017 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.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 C0996135145 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:04:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=augustcellars.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 8TNEjv3WZgUU for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail4.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E912113513B for <spasm@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:04:26 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-us
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=augustcellars.com; s=winery; c=simple/simple; t=1506549816; h=from:subject:to:date:message-id; bh=Le8Lqc6knQS8xSucrdaTTDUVqWlgvffjkd+OW+OG8Sk=; b=Hy8qTJkr7CVnvJpoPdoZZo0CXo1vt9I7pWwQuKZlna2TfaTcpHoCucC1H9RxFUxabj7YlT4nY0x MLfSimA3MFts300Hg3BsHFjEHjnouhnA9vT0X7RMoSX8XOY7Z2nFWo5yeOsCYflOYSAw8RRVaCNmn k8oQykck1SMN06sRTMypQwKEVEoTp3TzxhezT3MSpKc6XtcfhBNp81Cj4FB6Z0c/CjmVJmDQOA0lU vPhRuC9wdbESVhKrvnrRRR6Xpnd8jlhsShmQ+I/vBsZULKr59zx2iNVkVXPb9T61MkcZh3NlGI3qV dxSupj4aBCNykAnBUxg7AHfQE6Ed2YsepIZw==
Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.1.201) by mail4.augustcellars.com (192.168.1.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:03:35 -0700
Received: from Hebrews (192.168.1.162) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.1.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:03:33 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: 'Russ Housley' <housley@vigilsec.com>
CC: 'SPASM' <spasm@ietf.org>
References: <024101d337c0$2069f5e0$613de1a0$@augustcellars.com> <6EC17286-BCA3-4C56-80A6-EEA8279ED5D6@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <6EC17286-BCA3-4C56-80A6-EEA8279ED5D6@vigilsec.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:04:16 -0700
Message-ID: <025901d337dc$917e6970$b47b3c50$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQFqoV8vTefs2ccFBFEHtScvSvY/6QIgZvajo4ly8GA=
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.162]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/VMeSflodXI7MrQQuRZ8WXmEaGo8>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Review comment from the AD
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 22:04:29 -0000

Yes, but if the time-stamp authority has been compromised, then it is no
longer a good authority.  So perhaps some extra guidance is needed about
doing two checks or something.

Jim



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 11:56 AM
> To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
> Cc: SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [lamps] Review comment from the AD
> 
> I think this text was supposed to say that SigningTime is the clock value
of the
> signer, which might be very wrong.  One might rely on a time-stamp
> authority [RFC3161], if there is a valid attribute from one in the
message.
> Otherwise, the time that the message arrived in your mailbox is the best
> guess that you have.
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
> > On Sep 27, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have one review comment from EKR on rfc5750bis that I am not sure
> > what to do with.
> >
> > The following paragraph from Section 6 - Security Considerations
> >
> >  When determining the time for a certificate validity check, agents
> >   have to be careful to use a reliable time.  Unless it is from a
> >   trusted agent, this time MUST NOT be the SigningTime attribute found
> >   in an S/MIME message.  For most sending agents, the SigningTime
> >   attribute could be deliberately set to direct the receiving agent to
> >   check a CRL that could have out-of-date revocation status for a
> >   certificate, or cause an improper result when checking the Validity
> >   field of a certificate.
> >
> > The problem is two-fold:
> > 1. Should the definition of trusted agent be expanded to be more
> > clear, and 2. Should that sentence just be deleted because, even if it
> > is a trusted agent, a compromised key is going to be able to lie about
the
> time anyway.
> >
> > My memory was that this text was supposed to deal with things like
> > time-stamp agents where the time was significant, but it could be wrong.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Spasm mailing list
> > Spasm@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email