Re: [websec] handling STS header field extendability

Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com> Fri, 10 August 2012 21:52 UTC

Return-Path: <palmer@google.com>
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 C062F21F8645 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 qslHFyUJGpMP for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C217C21F853B for <websec@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:52:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lahm15 with SMTP id m15so1150892lah.31 for <websec@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:52:23 -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:x-system-of-record; bh=WGDzmQViYNxFQdE9OvmOw2o2HnNnuupOwkoI5xItsrc=; b=R603AD4nQkFdfAFbf42nv4WtvcFpmVf5+7+I0LVdPaN9OlTFECH6EJjVeY9E939qj3 gxeYRJajMVWipm0KoVMiNuEP9aHLnnKbercO6X5FEvC+q4tjs7YVSgKXvXiSMAXBJFhG fofCSm/R+ROfT+FMPCR6EafcUryI2e3danYeiXROjhz2NrjXs+/iBxW83sebb5cnYR4L b7rY1q/OXZCL8LgTJLYICp78Iw9ay1U0vun0bUpeR1e8LCiZRcwl6OCjJXy2GvDJDsN5 YpNkxUBkn4FTsNgpIBDcdATK1F7ULfXLx04nVDz5xIR4A9TwlbDO87B29UZWo8HQFH+b oEYw==
X-Google-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:x-system-of-record:x-gm-message-state; bh=WGDzmQViYNxFQdE9OvmOw2o2HnNnuupOwkoI5xItsrc=; b=KO9tT2HTTbQyj/19kcPOz79v8b+GSgF7GIz+9Hw832xFeiUu4oq8dylUZqPUPvIPxk QlBJVpWtGTCkFiSThphf1bh7m+oV0Ty4FHPuL7b/rk9HFXGb5mKzh9yADLc7Y2YlC2mH GvJLoXV76hiZoaO5UQzsM5OkC6gh+6FvqicakkstAjPWesu/wN2ClUS50EaVpjj+WCV7 qk8VFl70VojeDDFLah+/SttETuZNOT2QL41HnHS9iEPo8xCOPSheCrH4ireubjvoebQv eI2uA4UuIhcTXndOMzMhh5suRgtOyfCkNrW9JJPIEb0uX733ihfFQLfhZigwDp/jIkwk l8lQ==
Received: by 10.112.43.98 with SMTP id v2mr3004553lbl.1.1344635543631; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.43.98 with SMTP id v2mr3004536lbl.1.1344635543443; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.77.4 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5024352D.4040604@KingsMountain.com>
References: <5024352D.4040604@KingsMountain.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:52:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOuvq23dxoKyV2No55WEYePhVj+Fcab5cF65C1FsiqgtmEkXMA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com>
To: "=JeffH" <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-System-Of-Record: true
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkL1u3Do6FjQS4kHdfFmfY1TYnHSguc06VzLtmFKv82FpfN0xzWpEE97w/NiXmQvIw5dcUJH0YEDgAxKSyl6l24cjBpAIFLxf6RclqG75rMhIm99KzbscEm3gEMp7pqtznQXVWUqY3qy4ss3DryXg6SIQ0MgfTAOlvs6Ul+kzf/Z5Z5MsLZatF6oCe0SXOYAVwRAV18
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: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 21:52:26 -0000

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM, =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com> wrote:

> The only extensions we'd discussed in the past were the CertPinning, LockCA,
> LockEV.  We've decided that cert pinning is an intersecting but orthogonal
> policy to HSTS, and thus best handled at this point via a separate header
> field.
> Also, the various LockFoo notions should be addressed in a cert pinning
> policy
> context (i mentioned this in the WG session at IETF-82 Taipei).

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.