IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [websec] Re-litigating Key-Pinning

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 28 August 2014 12:40 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 981FA1A03DF for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 05:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 TJSlixgCcO8r for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 05:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B07E11A03D8 for <websec@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 05:40:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.26] ([217.91.35.233]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MK17F-1XLbxC37vp-001S6X; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 14:40:23 +0200
Message-ID: <53FF2333.9080804@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 14:40:19 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <6CAA88AE-1A98-4FF1-B994-A43A0AD3930D@gmail.com> <53FEC72A.7010605@greenbytes.de> <6CA0E2AF-C758-4EFF-9506-E2E545FB4EBA@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6CA0E2AF-C758-4EFF-9506-E2E545FB4EBA@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:wN47xn+XPPIYe3KI50fclnUYLOKga/TLr17zKnQs0OiSv1c5tGh uWnX0tRm0dljHxaK+vHhNEvRWuLtXY/xcFzqvAinvIPVy4cCmAh8PjMci91KPNRPxKct+sm Z74oJi52PFxPYvl9v56036JOB26wEfYhjya3oOoD96wl0KSwuZcUEvHI/XjdPMtImm4ySLm ggmdRA3GUzbEhFtXCPW9g==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/websec/1p9MD9_RyQFm2Q4pPdafFlXzdik
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "<websec@ietf.org>" <websec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [websec] Re-litigating Key-Pinning
X-BeenThere: websec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 12:40:30 -0000

On 2014-08-28 10:01, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
> On Aug 28, 2014, at 9:07 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-08-27 07:44, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Fixing editorial issues like Julians’ comments about references is fine, and could even be done *after* IESG review. ...
>>> ...
>>
>> FWIW, I believe the ABNF issues (which are *not* editorial) absolutely need to be fixed as well.
>>
>
> Hi, Julian
>
> I don’t want to nit-pick the meaning of the word “editorial”. But anyone who’s read the draft knows what a PKP header looks like. I don’t think there’s any controversy about what is and is not a valid PKP header. So changing the ABNF to reflect this existing understanding, is something that I don’t think requires polling the group.
> ...

The issue is that the ABNF is ambiguous about whether

      Public-Key-Pins: max-age=3000;
        pin-xyz=abc;

is syntactically valid or not. I believe it should be, because otherwise 
parsers would need to special-case the "pin-*" parameters when parsing.

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email