Re: [TLS] [pkix] Possible revocation delay issue with TLS stapling

"Santosh Chokhani" <SChokhani@cygnacom.com> Fri, 26 March 2010 14:35 UTC

Return-Path: <SChokhani@cygnacom.com>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99C193A6826; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 07:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.469
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vjEmuoPRaFHq; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 07:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail151.messagelabs.com (mail151.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 678693A6823; Fri, 26 Mar 2010 07:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: SChokhani@cygnacom.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-15.tower-151.messagelabs.com!1269614164!21036422!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [65.242.48.13]
Received: (qmail 7268 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2010 14:36:05 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO scygexch1.cygnacom.com) (65.242.48.13) by server-15.tower-151.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 26 Mar 2010 14:36:05 -0000
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:36:04 -0400
Message-ID: <FAD1CF17F2A45B43ADE04E140BA83D48F360D4@scygexch1.cygnacom.com>
In-Reply-To: <201003261339.o2QDd0SF024038@stingray.missi.ncsc.mil>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [pkix] Possible revocation delay issue with TLS stapling
Thread-Index: AcrMyHqeKDRxzsoGSJO7c3zXF/Y8WgAHGlDAAAMoDJA=
References: <op.u95kjftmkvaitl@lessa-ii> <4BAC5C33.8020509@seantek.com><4BAC80FD.4060603@free.fr> <201003261339.o2QDd0SF024038@stingray.missi.ncsc.mil>
From: "Santosh Chokhani" <SChokhani@cygnacom.com>
To: <pkix@ietf.org>, <tls@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 07:39:19 -0700
Subject: Re: [TLS] [pkix] Possible revocation delay issue with TLS stapling
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:35:43 -0000

The clients should nonce or should use the next update as a guideline.

This problem is not related to TLS alone.  Every relying party has to
deal with the freshness of revocation information. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pkix-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pkix-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Kemp, David P.
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 9:38 AM
> To: pkix@ietf.org; tls@ietf.org
> Cc: dev+ietf@seantek.com
> Subject: Re: [pkix] Possible revocation delay issue with TLS stapling
> 
> Another proof that the law of unintended consequences is 
> operating in full force.  Some time ago, guidance for how CRL 
> nextUpdate should be populated was discussed here.  One camp 
> suggested that nextUpdate should actually say when the next 
> CRL would be issued; the other camp suggested that because 
> some applications treat nextUpdate as an expiration, CRL 
> issuers should, for example, put nextUpdate 7 days in the 
> future for CRLs that are actually issued every 24 hours, 
> thereby treating scheduled CRLs as unscheduled.
> 
> Rather than defining a new "suggested expiration" CRL 
> extension for applications to use as a default, the WG by 
> inaction ratified the treatment of nextUpdate as a de-facto 
> expiration date.  The resulting confusing consequences were 
> predictable.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Marc Desperrier
> 
> One thing I can confirm is that, as often the next CRL is 
> generated earlier that the next update in the CRL, I've seen 
> one actual CA case where the policy is such that getting the 
> latest CRL *could* get you a fresher info than getting an OCSP token.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pkix mailing list
> pkix@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix
>