Re: [websec] FYI: related drafts on securing TSL and certificates
Adam Langley <agl@google.com> Thu, 15 December 2011 20:13 UTC
Return-Path: <agl@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 5819821F8483 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:13:36 -0800 (PST)
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 m7j86HdKIjNm for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:13:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF02521F8481 for <websec@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:13:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ghrr16 with SMTP id r16so2162473ghr.31 for <websec@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:13:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:x-system-of-record:content-type; bh=ZTd4yf0vmBuH+WVsh6cZkstsqQM2R7KtlbBz2Gf4fRQ=; b=PU0aGWRt0BmWxblQzw0uuFURKtHdk1X4KuO5Yg8AB7kd9waK2kfjbb+bQprOEeK7HI yT5K0RpG3KxiL/zstKOA==
Received: by 10.50.208.72 with SMTP id mc8mr4169626igc.19.1323980013535; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:13:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.208.72 with SMTP id mc8mr4169621igc.19.1323980013448; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:13:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.231.122.69 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:13:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAOuvq233ADfb8wTJC5R1Epo=OF6wGqgphveDVybAwfAKxsxrXQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4EE98A18.3010101@gondrom.org> <CAOuvq233ADfb8wTJC5R1Epo=OF6wGqgphveDVybAwfAKxsxrXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:13:33 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL9PXLxzJKR4JpUifyzkxk0H6HBQ9FKrwpMUgPDV7U88jkfOOg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
To: Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com>
X-System-Of-Record: true
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: websec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [websec] FYI: related drafts on securing TSL and certificates
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: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 20:13:36 -0000
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com> wrote: > I *think* I speak for > all of us when I say that we regard public key pinning as a useful > short-term mitigation, but that some kind of public log system is The > Real Solution. I don't believe that there is any conflict between HSTS, pinning and Certificate Transparency. Cheers AGL
- [websec] FYI: related drafts on securing TSL and … Tobias Gondrom
- Re: [websec] FYI: related drafts on securing TSL … Chris Palmer
- Re: [websec] FYI: related drafts on securing TSL … Adam Langley