IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uta] "webby" STS and DANE/DNSSEC co-existence

Aaron Zauner <azet@azet.org> Thu, 14 April 2016 12:44 UTC

Return-Path: <azet@azet.org>
X-Original-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B50FC12D0C0 for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 05:44:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=azet.org
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 6O5lYDlRT2uA for <uta@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 05:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22d.google.com (mail-pa0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22d]) (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 C793412E066 for <uta@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 05:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id zm5so44768804pac.0 for <uta@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 05:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=azet.org; s=gmail; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=DlZ0zbGkwwCnn40c9GZUO/GjP0LlcUzRt7l/nlcMSUo=; b=QMVTI8UkxQrFd/HJdDRtCyrJga3qWiqXUtlkD338oDwMAJSCnGUwJNLOJclLDo/L38 T6utRa2ATANDmt1d3sABkBV6Q5MNUdHtIg1FrkIBMqRZWPEWBo6EOYKmlDOR5U4ZGcf4 dEb7JVpuGvUiMFr7JVLyv72D4F84bLTBjJUWQ=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=DlZ0zbGkwwCnn40c9GZUO/GjP0LlcUzRt7l/nlcMSUo=; b=WwcxxHQdeRgVGPifFSJ9Kxrmf3cz5DNHrBp4nrSZuGz71IgTdu2gvoK3t+/UsRho9u zjX1KrPQoyoPUStIRmGmJ9qGTjhQs2bYAeAJz9A0cPvOPcSJAwp43Sc7bYTPOQmnZclS 3cuaa3qoYzmA57NK7NCqIlNaw5dDn0LJx34MOt5HijkzXcChHRR1I8OPVUu51kVPkqY8 t/oC70892zfVpwNZr6tZpmbDJnuQnMsMa9UbJXZj609VsnCIQdWCTLEIK4JXodRMC+6K 3a7sfHWPyhd/eXQUMe0FwaF3iTZqWaj6le1T8o6b3pjCrDhiPHdE1vMC5vYO8ENQFC70 i6/Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXeffGAsOOaO7bCi34i/4zQ1f/7fIunwF1aKB1elAp20x6q5Lk28kWWyyE764itgA==
X-Received: by 10.67.23.202 with SMTP id ic10mr20277639pad.127.1460637837386; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 05:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.128] (node-278.pool-180-180.dynamic.totbb.net. [180.180.11.36]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y27sm57855657pfi.11.2016.04.14.05.43.54 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Apr 2016 05:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3C2DC737-880F-4CFD-B559-14694D53DBB6"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2
From: Aaron Zauner <azet@azet.org>
In-Reply-To: <28DE8B5E-C588-48C3-A6ED-790C45A5B103@azet.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:44:30 +0700
Message-Id: <F1A7EE24-DDCA-4D06-A696-6BAF0DCF4B94@azet.org>
References: <20160413191405.GF26423@mournblade.imrryr.org> <542002133.1160.1460581138072.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <20160414063807.GB17212@mournblade.imrryr.org> <CANtKdUdT+Lf89-EiJQ9rCvv=ph+z2AJEjSM7KUDcs85ztgRPEw@mail.gmail.com> <28DE8B5E-C588-48C3-A6ED-790C45A5B103@azet.org>
To: Daniel Margolis <dmargolis@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/eYpx5SgSX34RhmdEk3q0X_e-Utk>
Cc: uta@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Uta] "webby" STS and DANE/DNSSEC co-existence
X-BeenThere: uta@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: UTA working group mailing list <uta.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uta>, <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/uta/>
List-Post: <mailto:uta@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta>, <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:44:01 -0000

Post-scriptum:

> On 14 Apr 2016, at 19:19, Aaron Zauner <azet@azet.org> wrote:
> [0] http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2016/03/30/http-public-key-pinning-youre-doing-it-wrong.html (current)
> [1] https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/01_4_0.pdf (about a year old)

These two studies outline something very well: while tech. invented and used at Google like HPKP works very well between their servers and client software they distribute, update and maintain themselves, it has been a failure for the broader internet community. I initially had big hopes for HPKP as it   effectively by-passed the TLS working group to become a standard. TACK had been the (earlier, far better) alternative, but got stuck in TLS-WG due to a more general discussion on the CA eco-system, mostly ignoring the superior features, some of which the HPKP authors re-used as I'm sure you're all aware. The end result after standardisation and people trying to write proper deployment automation scripts is just bad. HSTS had it's difficulties but it's a far better protocol if you ask me. I also feel the feedback mechanism in HPKP is rather poorly designed.

Aaron

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email