Re: [websec] the (old) LockFoo ideas: LockCA, LockEV (was: handling STS header field extendability)

=JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com> Sat, 11 August 2012 02:53 UTC

Message-ID: <5025C902.3060609@KingsMountain.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 19:52:50 -0700
From: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF WebSec WG <websec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [websec] the (old) LockFoo ideas: LockCA, LockEV (was: handling STS header field extendability)
Precedence: list

 > 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,

no worries, these were nascent ideas we discussed in the past in the context of 
HSTS, mostly just at past websec wg sessions.

 > but do LockCA and/or LockEV offer any
 > functionality that you can't already get with public key pinning as
 > currently specified?

probably not (they were mostly off-the-cuff ideas)


 > You can pin to a given CA's public key(s),

Yes, which provides essentially what we were imagining as LockCA functionality

 >  and you can pin to any given EV issuers' public keys.

yep.

I didn't mean to imply that these LockFoo notions would necessarily pose new use 
cases for draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning -- the latter I-D probably already 
addresses them.


HTH,

=JeffH

Re: [websec] the (old) LockFoo ideas: LockCA, Loc… =JeffH