Re: [websec] Issue #41 add parameter indicating whether to hardfail or not

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Fri, 29 June 2012 20:10 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@adambarth.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 6A1A221F8895 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 NcpG8Ug80L3u for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B80A321F859E for <websec@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yenq13 with SMTP id q13so3468917yen.31 for <websec@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.181.229 with SMTP id l65mr4871890yhm.116.1341000649307; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com (mail-qc0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c13sm4199744anm.13.2012.06.29.13.10.47 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:10:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qcac10 with SMTP id c10so1045131qca.31 for <websec@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.205.195 with SMTP id fr3mr6440625qab.68.1341000646724; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.94.75 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:10:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4FEDF5F3.7020403@isode.com>
References: <4FD6E91B.2000602@KingsMountain.com> <CABcZeBM_PLDaU_MPYad9sEtKpTsR8V2naT5WjDOEccu6eyKGMg@mail.gmail.com> <1DFCCAFE421024488073B74EEA0173E1170859@DEN-EXDDA-S12.corp.ebay.com> <4FEDD6D6.3070803@isode.com> <1DFCCAFE421024488073B74EEA0173E1171F86@DEN-EXDDA-S12.corp.ebay.com> <4FEDF5F3.7020403@isode.com>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:10:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE5ia-C31Tytjb+1tz8C-zfNyFZ9QgmCJO=KAxsU7x_2eis5A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: IETF WebSec WG <websec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [websec] Issue #41 add parameter indicating whether to hardfail or not
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: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 20:10:50 -0000

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Alexey Melnikov
<alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:
> On 29/06/2012 17:45, Steingruebl, Andy wrote:
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:alexey.melnikov@isode.com]
>>>
>>> Maybe this is not a good example, but I am thinking that something like
>>> OCSP retrieval failing on the client side is not something that would
>>> show up in the webserver logs.
>>
>> Sure, but doesn't the OCSP site know whether it has set HSTS?
>
> You might be thinking of a different usage of OCSP.
>
> I was thinking about: a browsers gets certificate from TLS. It tries to
> verify it using OCSP against a third party OCSP server. The OCSP server is
> down. Now the website the browser is trying to access is effectively down
> with HSTS enabled.

Right, this is why browsers don't use OCSP.  The problem here is OCSP, not HSTS.

Adam