[TLS] Re: [External⚠️] Re: Certificate Update in TLS

Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Fri, 20 June 2025 22:29 UTC

Return-Path: <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tls@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: tls@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C786D37929E2 for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ydLngxdkZ4az for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x336.google.com (mail-wm1-x336.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::336]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C79437929DD for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x336.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-451d41e1ad1so17051325e9.1 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1750458595; x=1751063395; darn=ietf.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=ZMF2w/2Ngjh64B9b5/FPWproxJadd3R7grgJSi46Ryg=; b=JfMosytFzn1ruSyHdwCBOorfyBCgvTfpb8kADLRigXY/CiLAzQ/wQCrpVTUBOAkNLj XPRPTLA3Y7J8oJ/LqmiIgf/eySSwOVNW7wAQxUt2UkQy/hX5uj4g9MEx7LT74JRYTIeF 3eX/L0ATE2BXq+7+DRKIZszWBAePnsE1OGtA7i8WYKMOd/+Q/+q4XaL89EpWn3wymot1 wn7IzGwDfojmkTRVVchxe38N9DXRp3ch63gNHQa4dyMxUdIqR9/mfWnp+DgUPcWK81fR ogXGk0Trfxjs9pvUifHdvMcUp5uaMHJBjxhC/hM/BfLoeAmlC+FFthWggC/S14J0Lfb3 bWYA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1750458595; x=1751063395; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ZMF2w/2Ngjh64B9b5/FPWproxJadd3R7grgJSi46Ryg=; b=ubk8cqFjXLzkGfvg2SzzFCI2DBrvgvYpFOig52kcrYmI/0aUx0+j9ivk70yIDKKZtX tZEKittBEsvnofJr1IhLoRU91V+SUQE0qiN+gn/jKVHE9IG+iQ9OKyU7k9NllFo/kNRd /NURzRlOkc8+n0tBDaYQOafC6waEeoHYeE8QLekFpShns9jdKbJ/sfXLmUqyNiThHuhT Aj6oPzuFLR9Tl3JmxWxHt+JC2Nvgl++KR78qUFZw+CpcxUmK9xjLCuMy+DKbwEofoAI5 OPN7DSI/sTP9nWb3x8Oh00oEroDRF+TM/fzfqksZ05UKGL1dVbqjNKnY3qigo/IZm2Tg YUfg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxrqLECkGwEAU+WdIM9ID7pa5fvG4NH+NPd+CbfqXW9V9b/8wAG fljQPQAtXpRbyD/9gv0cgY4xaFYiO1lT5ZwwqGlm5Eut3un+Kcw9tK3THQKSp0NlHJTHBgDGmN0 R7FLo92AURvebQUKDWrfBsbOLeDCLJNyhCA==
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncuSptA5UpdqpvciI2OAP1IrgvyPfGvvkuz+x8Dm0UhhPrFd1+5Phgz5RvdjueM l6SbuHQDNYdquc5wC7bYBXKYCGdQSB0itb9aexla56blyj+378+88H7l2L3eBsvu1LJVoxdKsNy x7R7yu8OK4YoMb4epMwGBiMwlx658ld8pdaoBLsqKMwY6i7k4BocQaidoLauZ839yyn7bcZfTnc x1Q
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEfiOwF14KoJXAJ1twt7xio/h3mdJ/GqQ+ePxuYKZCsBpWm/bpHVcDv4fNMhxmVswLI8QGL2MEJjgc63K5Wp58=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:228a:b0:3a5:2653:7322 with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-3a6d119410dmr3908649f8f.3.1750458595237; Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:29:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMtubr3CGwYZ49KQQ93Y5+g8a_t_+pZtXFP0eqYYOJdEedLDPw@mail.gmail.com> <CACsn0cnmvVXzkEidafOgV7rDWW95g3yLxYvXnLXdEYg=vfaP-g@mail.gmail.com> <CAMtubr17Sv3HmokvF6DmqjqQDMO+xiZEbyhzn9_RMmgEXPiNfQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMtubr17Sv3HmokvF6DmqjqQDMO+xiZEbyhzn9_RMmgEXPiNfQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:29:43 -0700
X-Gm-Features: Ac12FXz-4Pbickg-ni3TKUNLfmPj2iIbJRdgKf4XTIeb2YBz3qQlGKFNupJ7Fho
Message-ID: <CACsn0c=9w=_EmqTx0WkNSna_zCyfUsriKjXn2ixb1J+=SBQHMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yaroslav Rosomakho <yrosomakho@zscaler.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID-Hash: NDG6KBXB3RW7ZMPPKKMBG7FJRQB7A626
X-Message-ID-Hash: NDG6KBXB3RW7ZMPPKKMBG7FJRQB7A626
X-MailFrom: watsonbladd@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tls.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [TLS] Re: [External⚠️] Re: Certificate Update in TLS
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/L99K5JoxXKtyQ8-wuIOv7zMIiKE>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tls-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tls-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tls-leave@ietf.org>

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 3:20 PM Yaroslav Rosomakho
<yrosomakho@zscaler.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Watson,
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 10:50 PM Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> What exactly is the rationale here? Do we expect that identies
>> actually change when a certificate expires?
>
>
> Certificate confirms identity information for a certain period of validity as long as it is not revoked. Communication with an endpoint that produces a revoked or expired certificate is deemed to have unacceptable risk and typically denied. However, this risk applies to established sessions in exactly the same way as it applies to new sessions. The rationale is to ensure that the peer identity is still valid by the time the original certificate expired or got revoked.

Certificate expiry is in some sense driven by the risk of key
compromise. If the key is compromised it fails to provide assurance as
to the identity of the counterparty. But that compromise could also
happen to the keys protecting the session over that length of time
(yes, there are some differences in threat model depending on how they
are stored). In that case this draft doesn't actually protect
anything: an attacker with those keys is able to see the traffic going
through and continue to exploit the session.

This isn't really a problem of identities expering (how could they)
but rather risk limitation.

The reason I belabor this point is the conclusion: we have to rekey
the connection as well to get the assurances we want. The mechanism
here doesn't do that.

>
> TLS 1.2 and prior could perform re-key and re-authentication through rehandshake. As the very generic rehandshake carried unacceptable security risks it was removed in TLS 1.3. Extended Key Update brings back re-key in a secure way. Similarly, Certificate Update proposal is intended to bring back re-authentication in a very limited controlled fashion.
>
> Best Regards,
> Yaroslav
>
>
> This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential, non-public, and/or privileged material. Use, distribution, or reproduction of this communication by unintended recipients is not authorized. If you received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and then delete all copies of this communication from your system.



-- 
Astra mortemque praestare gradatim