Re: [websec] handling STS header field extendability

Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg> Sat, 11 August 2012 14:42 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@ritter.vg>
X-Original-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BA1C21F857D for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 07:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 YF47lz9+8o1j for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 07:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9271721F8569 for <websec@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 07:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so2593012vbb.31 for <websec@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 07:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ritter.vg; s=vg; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=bcVTcevosZzRIAdlo7dIYmXIPxPA4BTgtdE7o9lQSB0=; b=lBjb/eNm3D0UgcViw6pamTWO61Y1DYONwoJkUka4nHLDQwJMsXidte6MQctKAXPsFo P+4Pgk9znsD/cSv1o0xeu0iKYhVInfevo0HzhvTQ2vYt3i8A25XFJIbiroZbmH8KMvEU 3io8YnEb06hC9BPLyGFBXaK+rdFIS3Cu1fcIU=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=bcVTcevosZzRIAdlo7dIYmXIPxPA4BTgtdE7o9lQSB0=; b=KKrpgl5Mf+qTyGCH1eeQ4qBE5S//AfvvCxvx5Lsdr4Oeai6LxVS3mCrbJW6eojD5rn oDYwhHS2KRbnRPZ2rcw6al+rBbSoDgddzI1HRsf8BsEAJGIE1d90QYLit/a+xz9nwvZe jgu2z/G1k+LEsb8WZYzp5xm1AqR2ezuPJ4O+1oY9zg1azDQhPed85cDoeqHs4gnc69kL 8I1c8McDK3ZVmIcMvicMWFU7OKHPyEp7ZgbuSb2/uZfTpCvego3lVhqM6awAxGadcVyf AmUDjSdYOqZ5c65UJP+aRkK0PBIqRSmdMNpkx/bbVauUf7oOzVf2BO/N7S+AC4fGsg/P a7PQ==
Received: by 10.220.116.11 with SMTP id k11mr1920713vcq.74.1344696170762; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 07:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.58.145.163 with HTTP; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 07:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOuvq23dxoKyV2No55WEYePhVj+Fcab5cF65C1FsiqgtmEkXMA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5024352D.4040604@KingsMountain.com> <CAOuvq23dxoKyV2No55WEYePhVj+Fcab5cF65C1FsiqgtmEkXMA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:42:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+cU71kx4Ck2aMeSHhnpb--aZ+mRmszQdojepM4aapVn2TsR=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlZb7AZ7T9vtFBzdjMpUnZ+cEYPnulsiFFHL9BJswlQXmQW6rUyz/i3X4D5hGo8hjoBuOve
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, IETF WebSec WG <websec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [websec] handling STS header field extendability
X-BeenThere: websec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Web Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport <websec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec>
List-Post: <mailto:websec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:42:52 -0000

On 10 August 2012 17:52, Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com> wrote:
> Please forgive my ignorance, but do LockCA and/or LockEV offer any
> functionality that you can't already get with public key pinning as
> currently specified? You can pin to a given CA's public key(s), and
> you can pin to any given EV issuers' public keys.

I can't think of one for Lock CA; but LockEV could be useful for sites
that want to deploy some additional measure, but can't/don't want to
a) commit to a CA or b) enumerate all possible EV authorities.  It
should be ('should be', not 'is') more difficult to get a fraudulent
EV certificate through trickery or treachery than a DV certificate.

I don't think browsers differentiate between OV and DV in any
meaningful way, but I could be wrong.

-tom