Re: [websec] draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning

Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com> Tue, 26 August 2014 21:20 UTC

Return-Path: <palmer@google.com>
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 DDA7A1A887C for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.047
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, 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 1WI7fLgAudgu for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x236.google.com (mail-qg0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47AC61A88CD for <websec@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:20:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id j5so12687783qga.27 for <websec@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=scdgMkDB7V6OJXym2nq8uVZQBQuP/jIC+5FfT9wICYM=; b=a3OH59rpslBcFGZK3Faf8DAPnbG6MHURc3jKD1SeU4meLYpNbsv10Fk6WbE+dLyEAb Gpyr/ZS9EdaJSlM7AsBUoPIAo5YikXMba77nlWYCTVHWJdUlS9Ex3MoO1Ow5isiALVB6 v5IkXe4poFkJ/OEZsag3r6/RGWTbCtrtLeto7ie7w7q7bzOBCiiytOUeSCqbfUAy6JIr ofQy5+2ELEFjJKFukvX/58zSqeHxiC08pSud7YFL7AJ/d+j9GAuATjUkA2y2eU9ryNY6 J0CQdz6oWKS++FRbPmkZfI1SckXtSce439IEav3gV7RTlR8OJLLiQpVc6FXPUlJrCtiB LBjA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=scdgMkDB7V6OJXym2nq8uVZQBQuP/jIC+5FfT9wICYM=; b=ByY8TRWyPH6R6pEW4/dLuUzVDtuNKekU4RgqOKW3eV7egwsSJoowFjABK9pDjoMHPR tXs/1Uqjn4Vp7zdpeMZ//vLRNmZsyJY7zEJKCOzA/YzT9XkzSrlNzK59rNAQP2NM6Ibd jQFt28l5agWaQ3nCuryfuj5D0uBzoKa1NZRyJSpB5wTdNKat8uB+M+4NseKt/aCGvnKo bxMfnLOwaMpA1wVM7ftuX5Cp7agrpZvDddfzAtn7nUvkq/zkQOrUeUZJm+dOgt6l9vdS rhcByVO9Tmd5I3d29P2BqUGb+dJEp3LdARXiWlndDygJhddSOnMpBrAdAneTNZ8YnKs1 zfig==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmUPQv1uTFRoxhaBBMCePpqTp/brn7znEM3IQ7PTGQd1V3MgWmi8kDTsHvAIpMut+GBty85
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.79.13 with SMTP id n13mr51132743qak.79.1409088038411; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.165.2 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+cU71kitObiZM2Lpc1c8f7waY5u2c5YW787w4xqpJNpbc3ENg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BAY169-DS62B5941BF0A9024964BB0AEEE0@phx.gbl> <CACvaWvYHAmpX0f9_m-sckhWz9tcyWA-sxVR4vP-A5UcAQmnYXA@mail.gmail.com> <BAY169-DS45F1C5036AB09CA44D0BC7AEDF0@phx.gbl> <CA+cU71k-pLD315dzfd_c74QM51c7V2VQkZ26PiXUTqntmESD=A@mail.gmail.com> <CAOuvq20mZkScvPDKjsa1eZ6rdoHxf_+oF=gpaOcvkOTaYhyj6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CA+cU71mW47OvqRNTbw-H7u-F_k6hMv4xr0XcMYAS_V6eE8brwA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOuvq20C+T9Ejf_KUsfPRtUWL7ggCF0UWJZkGr5xGBEkERXeRQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+cU71kitObiZM2Lpc1c8f7waY5u2c5YW787w4xqpJNpbc3ENg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:20:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOuvq21pYzK3cik7k3BXMoC08aTJKk4Y4RO2cn9XY_8CEYm=tQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com>
To: Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/websec/DDY3ltfyz_5hUZaJiVN03IMIek0
Cc: "draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning@tools.ietf.org>, Eric Lawrence <ericlaw1979@hotmail.com>, IETF WebSec WG <websec@ietf.org>, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
Subject: Re: [websec] draft-ietf-websec-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: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:20:42 -0000

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg> wrote:

> The foot-gun potential is very high with HPKP, we all know that.  It's
> high enough to the point that many organizations, who have someone
> maintaining a website part time (or outsource it) may forgoe PKP
> entirely because it makes them nervous - but they would be happy to
> deploy a no-risk PKP-RO.  But the benefit of doing so if it is not
> being cached is extraordinarily low, to the point it's probably not
> worth doing.

3 full years ago, HPKP was conceived as a single new directive to
piggyback on HSTS. Now it's a design-by-committee extravaganza with
knobs and bells and whistles all over the place. It also has a jaunty
cap. The cap is not a protective helmet, but hey — it *is* jaunty as
all get-out. :)

I just want to get something published, even if it's imperfect, so we
can move on. This process is taking my time away from other important
tasks, and I can't let that happen much longer.