Re: [Trans] defining "mis-issuance"

Ben Laurie <benl@google.com> Mon, 06 October 2014 12:13 UTC

Return-Path: <benl@google.com>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E4311A6EDA for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 05:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.651
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.514] autolearn=ham
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 gkKdWfsp1MIq for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 05:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x231.google.com (mail-qg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDB4A1A6ED8 for <trans@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 05:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id a108so3534380qge.22 for <trans@ietf.org>; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 05:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=IHzFh/3DP08rQech4NpZ7NrytT4gbFj94v7CbPJ46fc=; b=P8M/4b5L4Ymh5GvvFSGpJ4foV73XEBIxdcMko5WmpGWecxr/kllZV64fgxFDTRGYsG n2yO389P6FiiRzePrYo1Xyhmm2ZSucWc3M7vOZpxPCECPCyuYN0b/ifHh/EWZj6hKcd2 BMPQBPz5bWNY9EQfGJi6ybE2EV6nZUq4Z63H0ceJtAB5jog9O1RWpLTwH8axOaQl0IzH R/y5Ssa5SHTefkkMMuZFPwU2w8DgchCNwux8Z2TZl06bWb9E4PHzXaRXJwnsmBmb55Yp QyPIPyO7+g4VHoYalpLrYEBAjzGTJIlox8qWE1f2Sg8LLjIOiK5WSoEmm9u/OGNni2X/ xHpg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=IHzFh/3DP08rQech4NpZ7NrytT4gbFj94v7CbPJ46fc=; b=MWmZXnp8qKhuGkKUUSREE1akMpxhl/ElX0NM4QMt1gU+9G5fI3D4kfxJjnNoNY+NYJ MocYFpxZ5Q0XirazxWDCO/7qtsUuFcd36y4wreExADRnzRyzF+sYo2O59lqWj0wdGg/w +OVWosoKL8b3CukXtt6w5nFDBUjqvUqqCkrChTBBEGsRsna0r+0tfryWqvTKJbuDLmrk r8Q7fGLcJBC2WT3tJRo3Ug/p7YwCZ+XsbdyU4k3L67RcI0oDw7qxeeLnD8SKIZbpCVjO C4gH3ZE/bJktNaRxTgR7Hxq+pD/palPrf/48MHIN8EJyCjMStezsYCNTP633yuYC9SrO sfDg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl7qvZKlywwoWn8fcMDRvnR1QjExsjCUD1U5nwq08kWiblDpPjbLsZJfpfXFtlOzJ01AElZ
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.137.3 with SMTP id u3mr9583878qat.82.1412597605904; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 05:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.247.198 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 05:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <542EF80D.8040802@bbn.com>
References: <542477E3.8070304@bbn.com> <544B0DD62A64C1448B2DA253C011414607D1628D70@TUS1XCHEVSPIN33.SYMC.SYMANTEC.COM> <542971A7.7030700@bbn.com> <544B0DD62A64C1448B2DA253C011414607D174DEB1@TUS1XCHEVSPIN33.SYMC.SYMANTEC.COM> <542C1846.7060303@bbn.com> <542C1EA6.8050106@comodo.com> <542D79B5.7080508@bbn.com> <CABrd9SR7imHk2cvYswHbvvMvQgwV2PcMdhiWqP-4pY7UBuaQ7A@mail.gmail.com> <542EF80D.8040802@bbn.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 13:13:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CABrd9SSkH8-MLpzKJ6=OZ56kk+UJp5_o9jGaptaivOq7pxf7qg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/MntVu2NumAuS7n7msGo3tU1g_WM
Cc: "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Trans] defining "mis-issuance"
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list <trans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trans/>
List-Post: <mailto:trans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 12:13:31 -0000

On 3 October 2014 20:25, Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> wrote:
> Ben,
>
>> ...
>> I have a suggested solution:
>>
>>      - require a CA submitting a pre-cert to assert one of the following:
>>          1. no assertion is made wrt syntactic conformance to CABF
>> guudelines
>>          2. the cert conforms to DV Guidelines <insert guideline version>
>>          3. the cert conforms to EV guidelines <insert guideline version>
>>
>>      - require a log to include the CA assertion in its SCT, along with
>> one
>> of the following:
>>          1. this log does not check cert syntax
>>          2. this log cannot check the specified CABF Guidelne version
>> asserted by the CA
>>          3. this log checked the cert against the CA's assertion and it
>> passed
>>          4. this log checked the cert against the CA's assertion and it
>> failed
>> Presumably this would apply to certs as well as precerts, which is the
>> other reason rejecting isn't particularly helpful (certs are already
>> issued by the time they're logged!).
>
> I'm confused by your comment. There is no "rejection" of a cert in the text
> above.
> That was the change I made to address the valid concerns that Rob and Rick
> raised.

I was adding another valid concern to Rob and Rick's, it was not meant
to be a criticism of the above proposal.

> If the cert failed checking it would still be logged, and an SCT issued,
> but the fact that the syntax failed the checks would be noted in the SCT and
> the log entry.

Sure, but the language proposed does not cover certs - they may not be
submitted by a CA and obviously they are not pre-certs.

> Steve
>
> p.s. I realize that one more log-assigned value is needed, i.e., the
> CA asserted #1, so the log didn't perform any check in this case

Right.