IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [VIPR] Identity certificate segregation for VIPR

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Tue, 07 February 2012 17:51 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: vipr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vipr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 407FF21F8895 for <vipr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:51:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rXJ-ic2HyOEE for <vipr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:51:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13AD821F8894 for <vipr@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:51:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vcbfk14 with SMTP id fk14so5300896vcb.31 for <vipr@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:51:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.38.10 with SMTP id c10mr11060029vdk.58.1328637108296; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:51:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.71.19 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:51:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [74.95.2.173]
In-Reply-To: <4F315AA1.9030703@acm.org>
References: <4F315AA1.9030703@acm.org>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:51:08 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPqqo9WoFfT7N8GrwWDyE20_Jk=rNSFwuBaZLgny4skNg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "vipr@ietf.org" <vipr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [VIPR] Identity certificate segregation for VIPR
X-BeenThere: vipr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Verification Involving PSTN Reachability working group <vipr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/vipr>, <mailto:vipr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vipr>
List-Post: <mailto:vipr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vipr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vipr>, <mailto:vipr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:51:50 -0000

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> The current version of RELOAD requires that the certificates used contain one
> or more Node-IDs and one username.  This username plays no role in VIPR, so it
> is not only useless, but can also be a source of privacy leak.
>
> A proposal was made in the p2psip WG some time ago for Identity certificate
> segregation[1] (see also [2]), but the author is waiting for the final version
> of RELOAD to publish a draft about this.
>
> My proposal is to say in the RELOAD usage document that VIPR must not use
> certificates with username, and to put a placeholder for the reference to the
> upcoming draft about Identity certificate segregation.

Or, you could just use a dummy (random) username, e.g., a hash of the node-id.

-Ekr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email