IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] [OPSEC] Call For Adoption: draft-wang-opsec-tls-proxy-bp

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Thu, 30 July 2020 00:48 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81F913A0B00; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 17:48:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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=gmail.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 LjPq3-Rb05Tc; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 17:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd29.google.com (mail-io1-xd29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d29]) (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 8A6863A0AFE; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 17:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd29.google.com with SMTP id a5so11289041ioa.13; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 17:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=GWFzlXlHBhRtQEGEjms8HjFvHiHbBVluW9WoF2P7DJ8=; b=qGW9b7ZsN3si4jb79ocwdnYZfCgjaFaVXByduR7POkN52C3tOSzy8LmwDjtcjqHG7v BHQZ7I4VHXZGV3Z83wHqkUHE3EzVIUgWWpWx73p7bmxf3TEaYcEtX0/ND9jLzRhMeRIb AK6YBT+a4uUKb8PB/RgJuzv0R6KB2TwaMoS9lTYADT3ygJXchEjhFX73wgzl4hgR0rpw 5q7uwsejZ5lvgphuPqCSor0zWhYY5XjueSWc70eHfDO/vHN6ijnzHlDMCp0w8p460dqO xQ8YgCEqpwktSlpSMQv+uMQHwF/5jT4H8njYHfVpTxSp2Ksv45NOhEBrcaiGcgi2ioYy a+uw==
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=GWFzlXlHBhRtQEGEjms8HjFvHiHbBVluW9WoF2P7DJ8=; b=oArTuRNqr0RJ0ilxXrDpVy9fOshLMyOvs0e3J9rQRt3MxcFtWHi7Y9dQ0f2LR6hH9n jK95mcmefJ4Qi4jDB00Ne8xkcrxtC2Qkh0oUAZrc+gJwYxD2rE5osGHHaGQA0MJcRmp3 vO0WP1uHamjaNenIuNOwsAR1KAaWJAfrvKtnvRCMZsjDkBQqmvxdNcPjh5yOVf3MSkjT OHNJtVggxw8Q99OJx+yBYnWnJIM96mD50U1d6NkLNDyZJpf4bfJnABdPFw0UWpclvkEQ W7AkucnvPCxMyjo97kSuWFSkcxkyumBKk1PFmJylBcQyUV/mWIFtTafd7xCy18gN+sc+ a2zg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531FpNa1DnxZtYoUJXVIYxaCLpdcW8XhY3+Uuou4Xy/GJuJy8hRe OCnzHaKpSnG+Mj0JW0dp/aFyOsJboIuRaEu0Nqs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw48JmRORP13IlK3WRrV1CPIWrszub9eDnXYr+3+BEKjlGgILvbgDpeqVes0oqrKJWKYJP2oJUOOMAsYZMeanI=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:108a:: with SMTP id 132mr766594jay.131.1596070097755; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 17:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DM6PR05MB634890A51C4AF3CB1A03DA0BAE7A0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <d9a9ea94-4c4a-40eb-8841-7a92fa31103e@www.fastmail.com> <34226646-93F3-4592-A972-A55B160D5B78@cisco.com> <CACdeXi+7oQgcg=-vFqxLnEFtg__6AehWXyE5ey8CBFiw9Vh8PQ@mail.gmail.com> <F40B9423-B0D5-4993-8A3D-D875C62951E4@cisco.com> <9e413fb1-da38-6a1f-8fca-a0dd5a6b6ebd@cs.tcd.ie> <CABcZeBNyFBaHfKf5JGXb7BBc+pcwkLoSx2wYA63AZs0O-WRtug@mail.gmail.com> <32561228-08fc-79ea-1b2e-f5de87b9c8fe@cs.tcd.ie> <CABcZeBOfVxoyds+vntEs+7ttrVkd2ppEvX+TdshS=AxA3kUQ7Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBOfVxoyds+vntEs+7ttrVkd2ppEvX+TdshS=AxA3kUQ7Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 17:48:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6Sz56pqP-XgqYV=92F6bT4FvF6mxkcfte28JTcFAWiJiAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, OPSEC <opsec@ietf.org>, Nick Harper <nharper=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>, "Eric Wang (ejwang)" <ejwang=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000036a58f05ab9e07f9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/J6t_dnoBdG6ou2mWkQVrvDqgCsI>
Subject: Re: [TLS] [OPSEC] Call For Adoption: draft-wang-opsec-tls-proxy-bp
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 00:48:21 -0000

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 5:36 PM Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

> I'm by no means denying the fact that MITM boxen
>> are deployed, but the idea that some of them are
>> "conformant" and some are not seems bogus.
>>
>
> Well, they are either conformant with the text of 8446 S 9.3 or they are
> not (and just to be clear, being conformant with 9.3 does not make them
> good for the reason indicated above).
>

This argument doesn't seem baseless, but I think these MITM documents also
presume IETF consensus on the current PKI system, and I am not sure that
has ever been tested.

thanks,
Rob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email