Re: [websec] A few comments on draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning

Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com> Mon, 12 December 2011 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <marsh@extendedsubset.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 69D7921F8B55 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 07:52:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 0Vrz5V8Mi5pp for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 07:52:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-03-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B99B021F8B0C for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 07:52:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xs01.extendedsubset.com ([69.164.193.58]) by mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <marsh@extendedsubset.com>) id 1Ra8BA-000Me2-AW; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:52:36 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.15] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xs01.extendedsubset.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F041C63C1; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:52:34 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS
X-Originating-IP: 69.164.193.58
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX19km9KDYvsFzlgdB8RJXfKaT0yTH27E3AI=
Message-ID: <4EE62342.9030303@extendedsubset.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 09:52:34 -0600
From: Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110921 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
References: <7C746AD7-9448-4883-9A30-85A2E72C8AF5@gmail.com> <32ED4792-4720-471A-A074-ECDAA172CC47@vpnc.org> <39133E20-4136-4AA4-B7C6-48DC1299109E@checkpoint.com> <430F2576-C8CB-4F2C-A3A3-BADDE4600A06@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <430F2576-C8CB-4F2C-A3A3-BADDE4600A06@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF WebSec WG <websec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [websec] A few comments on draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning
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: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:52:37 -0000

On 12/12/2011 09:06 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> On Dec 12, 2011, at 6:57 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> A year from now, "sha-256" is going to be ambiguous. Better to say
>> "sha2-256".
>
> Good point, and one that might be made on the SAAG list as well.

It's already somewhat ambiguous now that NIST has
defined SHA[-2]-512/256.

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsDrafts.html#fips-180-4

- Marsh