Re: [TLS] Certificate Transparency for Client certificate in MTLS handshake
Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietftls@sleevi.com> Mon, 10 May 2021 15:42 UTC
Return-Path: <ryan.sleevi@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 41E4D3A1C69 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 May 2021 08:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.248, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 MevWIYuGqH7u for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 May 2021 08:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-f50.google.com (mail-pj1-f50.google.com [209.85.216.50]) (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 76D293A1A48 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 May 2021 08:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-f50.google.com with SMTP id gq14-20020a17090b104eb029015be008ab0fso10293460pjb.1 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 May 2021 08:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
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=ERVz+FmsHOCO9zB/8KIQOQEsDLJJm4jYK1BBLrRy4hc=; b=fKL4oFFoR+w8wpTDihnTJtJV4n4jA83cxECKRFQPQcBU4FZaViZI7k2bBjizK8i8s9 oZku85lAflsrMZz0VCC1XqIWLmUjlbz7l2aq6O+Z0Pr36iIvHGK9matloJgZfmUM7+ui XJAZCE+ZQ9kOhrJCUocBEx3x13XDXkxit6pNWVXHFjse+VV8lN7dj63wTKEQhZTO7saZ Btfw29jYQ8Rg9X0Y5XCPmTSHq0QiFfNM0CbdCm2b/7eNIfXHI0bT+86EpdBULGwtMd7D 1cgJ1scfnATIkTuE0CRk5KvhEfqQvYxJPppoNKtaoyn6wl2jOO9txQ5zJy0xCWgG1Ox+ re+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532wzp9+hewQoLFL7/R1yXQ4YWlq7Rl5W6WRtd2xDo6TTPNyd/IY 6MIbHqn8utooHXFCvVXCONt87V0qDRU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw3qdmjp9n3AKHo+DNGLXHbzPFjO+yG7iFIs3ety5Or/QuLTCiEM4y1keVug+cn/g3WXJrbTw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b616:b029:ee:c73b:163d with SMTP id b22-20020a170902b616b02900eec73b163dmr25489370pls.30.1620661318710; Mon, 10 May 2021 08:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-f45.google.com (mail-pj1-f45.google.com. [209.85.216.45]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s8sm11340701pfe.112.2021.05.10.08.41.58 for <tls@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 10 May 2021 08:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-f45.google.com with SMTP id g24so9998244pji.4 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 May 2021 08:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:4d08:: with SMTP id mw8mr41530429pjb.202.1620661318238; Mon, 10 May 2021 08:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAEpwuw2tBLn-7b1YBXf3YfS4WXM-JrKbfHsQPt=_H4FYKYdmVQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAErg=HHmM649hqqb2xrqnE2YM2Ks88dOT-FRkmGmMcyjL88Fxw@mail.gmail.com> <CAEpwuw3mzdGt7UWJF7o4Z+ShgPJ4_0todsV56QENBZOv2hwJqQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEpwuw3mzdGt7UWJF7o4Z+ShgPJ4_0todsV56QENBZOv2hwJqQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietftls@sleevi.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 11:41:47 -0400
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAErg=HHUGXJv0kEj5cNUWsxfBT745o9zWpt5MOUcdDddwOxbag@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAErg=HHUGXJv0kEj5cNUWsxfBT745o9zWpt5MOUcdDddwOxbag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mohit Sahni <mohit06jan@gmail.com>
Cc: Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietftls@sleevi.com>, "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002cc7f805c1fb9e4a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/cPIvYzbSaKZ8llrQWuRA2oCdYgY>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Certificate Transparency for Client certificate in MTLS handshake
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: Mon, 10 May 2021 15:42:04 -0000
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:43 AM Mohit Sahni <mohit06jan@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Ryan, > Thanks for answering my question in a lot of detail. I asked this > question in the context of a private PKI for client certificates. You > can assume a scenario where the client certificates are issued to > users/devices in an organization from a self service portal by the > organization's existing private PKI for 1000s of users under different > domains (multiple CAs). > > What I get from your answer is that using CT for client certificates > makes sense when: > > 1) There is an existing private PKI. > 2) There are multiple CAs issuing the client certificates. > 3) The PKI uses non Web PKI (non public) CT log servers and auditors. > > I don't agree with your comment about following the same priority > preferences that exist for server certificates, the [2] and [3] makes > more sense when reversed or kept at an equal priority in the context > of client certificates. Here is my reasoning: > In the server PKI, it is practically easier to make changes in the web > servers to support [2] (i.e. sending the SCT extension by pre > fetching the data from the CA) but it may not be that easier to > implement it on 100s of thousands of client devices. Imagine a large > cell phone manufacturer implementing [2] for all the devices that they > have sold in the last 10 years. > Right, I can understand the temptation to consider OCSP Stapling as a more attractive solution, because it relies on the CA taking the requisite action, and thus avoids the need for client implementation, in theory. But the problem is that it's largely "in theory" - that is, robust OCSP stapling is just as hard for clients to implement as obtaining SCTs directly. Nearly 6 years ago, I wrote up [1] to discuss what robust OCSP stapling looks like, from the server side, which captures some of the challenges here. Few servers robustly support this (I believe Microsoft IIS and the Caddy web server are the two notable exceptions), and so the idea of pushing that all to clients is roughly the same challenge as having clients obtain SCTs directly. The main argument for OCSP-embedding over TLS-embedding is not one of simplicity, but of centralized control and communication: the idea being that you can have all your clients contact a single point of contact (the CA's OCSP responder) to obtain the policy. For servers, in the context of the Web PKI, it's quite appealing to swap priority for OCSP-embedding over TLS-embedding because of this. It equally gives Web PKI CT Logs a single point of contact for purposes like rate limiting and abuse detection, which can make it easier to address any concerns. However, in the threat model of "Unreliable CA", where CAs continue to fail to implement CT correctly [2][3], that seems to be missing the operational lessons. Given the assumption that the model here was private PKI with private CT logs, then you're likely better off with a (privately expressed) policy mechanism on the client versus trying to robustly support OCSP stapling on clients, since the failure mode here impacts not only CT, but the revocation processing. [1] https://gist.github.com/sleevi/5efe9ef98961ecfb4da8 [2] https://sslmate.com/blog/post/apples_new_ct_policy [3] https://www.hardenize.com/blog/certificate-transparency-policies-diverge-with-apples-update
- [TLS] Certificate Transparency for Client certifi… Mohit Sahni
- Re: [TLS] Certificate Transparency for Client cer… Melinda Shore
- Re: [TLS] Certificate Transparency for Client cer… Ryan Sleevi
- Re: [TLS] Certificate Transparency for Client cer… Salz, Rich
- Re: [TLS] Certificate Transparency for Client cer… Mohit Sahni
- Re: [TLS] Certificate Transparency for Client cer… Mohit Sahni
- Re: [TLS] [Trans] Certificate Transparency for Cl… Avamander
- Re: [TLS] Certificate Transparency for Client cer… Ryan Sleevi
- Re: [TLS] Certificate Transparency for Client cer… David Benjamin
- Re: [TLS] Certificate Transparency for Client cer… Mohit Sahni
- Re: [TLS] Certificate Transparency for Client cer… Ryan Sleevi
- Re: [TLS] Certificate Transparency for Client cer… Mohit Sahni
- Re: [TLS] Certificate Transparency for Client cer… Mohit Sahni
- Re: [TLS] Certificate Transparency for Client cer… Ash Wilson
- Re: [TLS] Certificate Transparency for Client cer… Mohit Sahni