IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Question to TLS 1.3 and certificate revocation checks in long lasting connections

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Sun, 07 March 2021 22:35 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 DC89A3A1E18 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Mar 2021 14:35:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 PbgWrftrn85O for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Mar 2021 14:35:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from buffalo.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (buffalo.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2F603A1E19 for <tls@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Mar 2021 14:35:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE4431E182E; Sun, 7 Mar 2021 22:35:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a60.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-16-22.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.16.22]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2FA2B1E16BD; Sun, 7 Mar 2021 22:35:41 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a60.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 100.96.16.22 (trex/6.0.2); Sun, 07 Mar 2021 22:35:41 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Sponge-Tank: 163a6a3534014a9d_1615156541604_1913291414
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1615156541604:3995193587
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1615156541604
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a60.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a60.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCD447EF8E; Sun, 7 Mar 2021 14:35:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=GchSNzkLvq5GIZ 1ggwFXK9WdP6Q=; b=Pbo7IZUcF5ikV/1ZQWwTYNyyH+aIUF5WWjtP14ucg6+wjW 8KOiO4eVeKvRZNxN18SifCZhk1J6sUnq2yMNummK7zaYYkrLmFzih9RQ5nm8Jqz6 q/vtfGg050sCvXbikt9axpXPS7E2Z5JCeSk5PhRkXkzHlzojZRH4IJEYPaJ1w=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a60.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB5EB7F41C; Sun, 7 Mar 2021 14:35:37 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2021 16:35:35 -0600
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a60
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, John Mattsson <john.mattsson=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, TLS List <tls@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20210307223534.GB30153@localhost>
References: <DE27E5E0-4AB9-4B53-92F6-1057015A8F6C@ericsson.com> <20210305173516.GV30153@localhost> <701E874C-EA40-47FD-A4E4-C4C595E96337@ericsson.com> <CACsn0cmmKdR0-82DjrYZD5_CaF2bqwHnj07dM+Bnd-2aupU5QQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBP8wdmbO8DQPZ8e5CDZ76ioe3vzaJ+7YtQ74XZzcuxHmg@mail.gmail.com> <20210306061124.GY30153@localhost> <1615013752661.15146@cs.auckland.ac.nz> <20210306211036.GZ30153@localhost> <1615111060736.9067@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1615111060736.9067@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/btFgKZ5jodJ-4OCeGBPtvJQdYEE>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Question to TLS 1.3 and certificate revocation checks in long lasting connections
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: Sun, 07 Mar 2021 22:35:44 -0000

On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 09:57:40AM +0000, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> writes:
> > When expirations are short, you will not forget to renew.  That's
> > part of the point of short-lived certificates.
> 
> So instead of getting one chance a year for your control system to break
> itself if the renewal fails, you get hundreds of them?

Yes.  Exactly.  It's a human factors problem.  And this solution works.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email