Re: [websec] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning-03.txt

"Ryan Sleevi" <> Wed, 17 October 2012 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC5521F84DE for <>; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WVKU3rdfomfd for <>; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:33:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EFA621F8504 for <>; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:33:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7088D598060; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=message-id :in-reply-to:references:date:subject:from:to:cc:reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=; bh=E9Ey9NFiTyKt2D8pp2MzS+c2Vic=; b=vE3GkP5Cdt1/ZwW/E HUCU8crTVHJukhjhd+ZT/7vJmyUCUxZApnMSgrYg5HoBRh42AoDEU0k7fPkizX5A 7WfcgWFTjQPb2gns4LPSSmS3TWaKj7qQ8fCP57mKSbGn2Oqo8CjIWMs7Ao7Pe3Ah bEDyT/y1Pddh6ZFRDQaFR1s8K8=
Received: from ( []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 102A359807B; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (proxying for (SquirrelMail authenticated user by with HTTP; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:33:34 -0700
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:33:34 -0700
From: Ryan Sleevi <>
To: Carl Wallace <>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: IETF WebSec WG <>
Subject: Re: [websec] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning-03.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Web Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 18:33:47 -0000

On Wed, October 17, 2012 11:07 am, Carl Wallace wrote:
>  I don't doubt any of this, but still think a crawler tool would be
>  sufficient in many (if not most) cases.  It'd probably be instructive to
>  run for the site operators in the worst case.  Note, I did not suggest
>  that a user report feature was not a good or necessary thing, only that a
>  builder tool for the site operator to run without bothering any users
>  would be nice to have in the toolbox too.  Thinking about it, they may
>  well be the same tool if the user reporting tool is aggressive enough.

Ah, I misunderstood your point to be suggesting that a crawler would be
sufficient, and reporting would be unnecessary.

I'm a big fan of the crawler - both for purposes of pinning and for
purposes of generally understanding the nature of the web PKI. Public
datasets such as the EFF SSL Observatory data [1], along with private
datasets such as those that inform tools such as Qualys' SSL Labs [2] or
the Google's Certificate Catalog [3], would go a good deal to establish
what the known-possible certificate hierarchies are. I just thing there
will be a tail of oddities and legacy that are only picked up by