Re: [Trans] Call for adoption: draft-strad-trans-redaction-00

"Ryan Sleevi" <> Wed, 21 September 2016 22:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F63012BA91 for <>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.501
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YrO-IWqMV0mH for <>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F338212B440 for <>; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFCBAC009F41; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=message-id :in-reply-to:references:date:subject:from:to:cc:reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=; bh=++TTY40GsAYJzX5SS7HqngZRWTA=; b=UeOi4rKxSPsuoBsPa +aPFZ6omD/ouT4mke9LWGa7y07KY5z0GiriIempk7wmHYAvYLiv9HXH0VLC5eTYp bpjEObUN+XjPIDnz07H6F+2r1TTUX8zqgkqYx1jKdl/yROEmuU6B9pqSRuDD7BSN DaG9Nj8ri8PGwSghEnarRtkzf0=
Received: from ( []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 855B8C0026B2; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (SquirrelMail authenticated user by with HTTP; Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:00:52 -0700
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:00:52 -0700
From: Ryan Sleevi <>
To: Melinda Shore <>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Tarah Wheeler <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Trans] Call for adoption: draft-strad-trans-redaction-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 22:00:57 -0000

On Wed, September 21, 2016 11:15 am, Melinda Shore wrote:
>  On 9/21/16 5:23 AM, Tarah Wheeler wrote:
> > Hi, I'm Tarah, and I'm new at Symantec. I'll be reviewing and responding
> > to the CT redaction thread, and actively involved in proposals.
>  A few months ago Symantec had stated that they'll be publishing
>  redacted labels - is that still the case?

Symantec has stood up an RFC 6962-like log that supports an earlier
version of the redaction scheme, which reflects the thinking from 6962-bis
Draft 14.

It is not trusted by any CT client widely deployed, because it does not
implement RFC 6962 (which, as we know, does not support redaction).

Symantec has also had trouble, both with first-party and third-party
integrations (such as Venafi), with logging redacted certificates,
resulting in what might be described as 'over-redacted' certificates. That
is, certificates which are redacted even though their domains are public
and widely known, which is at conflict with Symantec's stated need for the
use case of redaction.

This has been summarized at for example, but
reflects redaction occurring for widely used, publicly disclosed domain
names - which seems at direct odds with the stated use cases.

Such previous explanations of Symantec's redaction policies can be found
, however, the evidence since these posts indicate an inconsistency in the
actual use case and policies.

This is perhaps a useful study into the utility, and the risk, of redaction.