IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [websec] HPKP & different encodings of the same public key

Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> Sun, 15 May 2016 23:04 UTC

Return-Path: <noloader@gmail.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 4364512D517 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 May 2016 16:04:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 4078Qrib2sKR for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 May 2016 16:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22d.google.com (mail-ig0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EB3212D15D for <websec@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 May 2016 16:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id qe5so40517751igc.1 for <websec@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 May 2016 16:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc; bh=EmQoob6YZHaxRbuTMYw+W/zfEIOdh5CxUYb8LVeVBJI=; b=foxAjPyokErFcXPQQb3gSKTz/RXzyu4LmlgfqTzG9CNflXV5ORP4LZ/rv0DFzvsOCx /ncQDzUvlQYPeIoEdxufbuhEur+cRCpaULs9Z9IpO+SMSVG+g1HwBiSOHHUrZMDXd7Fe oybVqE+hwqAs6QlxTnwAxQdHwSzdtxMwDxnWjNu6KHGMBlAn9e0NBdfWt+66m9mkkR7F /jy9VnpSqhhUZVk0DjOFn8Ic6+TpdSQ5AiSK5EaWT9RzJMAu+Q1zaIuW/ZBrqHXaJUss oHp7Esc1Y+nL+Ya2mHMCslW8Jihx9TZrmnG1kE/EcpoRmZq93TRG0EjZJwh0luISin3O BAvA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=EmQoob6YZHaxRbuTMYw+W/zfEIOdh5CxUYb8LVeVBJI=; b=kOh/kpg+l12QLG6qeGSLVqfGwtjIRWV03R4nW61FQosfCQDJ6k3zb1CC1TBWZ9z2vH oCHkxKwUIvO92KC8LbHsSpYLFWNLz7M2z+laOQ8QXN+Q5DH5LVvBWs8x9InqhcHbQ50T YyR7m3wIMQiJa9p0PsshtyHxLqx5PQ8yn18xxDJKcMBl90f2vfdDlFgSwPNg4umfuCvY tkm8HF1Svzxv3DjzwyZKO8+wXEVjUbNFp23MjUNQ6xMtO50xm8UgebW7LKm5m9/qBKHf uQXD7h98pgEKpuB2AnpZxzPSMVQw2Ge3SF9iyGLakdVqaFo+fcNW5Rf9NYwhhbWiGnMP kG7Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXfk18BYNMLENKxY18Ay7TG1BbYmypUnKP82fy+fC0ZWtIH2Nwt47ejlZ74Yyvvo3Al+uKPfd01LVyB7Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.69.66 with SMTP id c2mr8179911igu.30.1463353451864; Sun, 15 May 2016 16:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.126.67 with HTTP; Sun, 15 May 2016 16:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAFewVt6=sTdUKSXznjyy7WHH=MVsyWkBANF2_PJqvwkQyerwsg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAME=j1=QZTFdxaMQ=_Egy296zhAiL--2hcW0_nc-3BLgz7z9XA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFewVt7u2e6184T_XP7VFJRbz4XJyrxUf2VK8XtZg3FQCquZ3g@mail.gmail.com> <CAME=j1=PimfS=rA3MBAY_8YwsvYzg1x8+FvkgzMEw-qBR9PTyw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH8yC8kuaBsmjJy673k+qYfo-_BbEQZFmLKGSYGQ11MMT+6LfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFewVt6=sTdUKSXznjyy7WHH=MVsyWkBANF2_PJqvwkQyerwsg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 19:04:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CAH8yC8n27O7wNkktPYddkyepwn=+UhgQndXv8o_w5DVFOhwTQA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com>
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/websec/jOPZ5Sioo_pxvlWMiALr-7xlT_s>
Cc: IETF WebSec WG <websec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [websec] HPKP & different encodings of the same public key
X-BeenThere: websec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: noloader@gmail.com
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 15 May 2016 23:04:14 -0000

>> > can petition to get fixed), rather than spec bug (that we all have to
>> > workaround).
>>
>> It depends on the issuing policies.
>>
>> The IETF has no way to specify that a certificate was created or
>> issued under PKIX, so its a moot point. (It creates a vaccum like the
>> EV mess, except for standard certificates rather than EV
>> certificates).
>
>
> HPKP is specified in terms of RFC 5280, so we can assume only PKIX
> certificates are used for HPKP....

In that case, the IETF provides a document on path building and
validation (RFC 4158), but not certificate validation (modulo RFC
6125). As far as I can tell, its still the wild, wild west with no
guidance on end-entity certificate validation.

Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email