IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [websec] "This site is testing HSTS" directive (was Issue #41 add parameter indicating whether to hardfail or not)

Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com> Tue, 10 July 2012 23:55 UTC

Return-Path: <palmer@google.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 40C3E21F85FC for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 L8bmwLJEjds5 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6342211E8087 for <websec@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbbgo11 with SMTP id go11so1004114lbb.31 for <websec@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:56:07 -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:x-system-of-record; bh=hTxJHOyCuBz1ZsNv4h4AdAltSKmUAwee9vdzKkBv+dE=; b=SVzGuOck70iKtRtZGywQl0bU0auGtd9XJ/fqzhqhsRuwg3uhboeu6q3LxZ8b2fykLv VZBa99wTllOFGFuvj7J5B2I3rpHp/XBBZ86wsnZzY7fY053OJlFDyDR6d2q++B0u12lN vf3ctYoCDrjyS7h3SRk/NlExvk1BxyY7JVjyzhjiie9gB2s6LIAt4B6w1u2RspUb/Qp5 uADalyx93zd6Uf7ZftNrkFMqgxveRfyEv4KZzqjvoNl9hnheaElda27Ac7q2xx7BimVY +69iphX8J/xrsYz6i2vU7jXYsdm2K16ARpkY7jEXRg6aPhN3wgpIh3wIFKKfw3bThAY+ /0mA==
X-Google-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:x-system-of-record:x-gm-message-state; bh=hTxJHOyCuBz1ZsNv4h4AdAltSKmUAwee9vdzKkBv+dE=; b=eahmmchwZB42J53I8Ur7ibDcWCgLcbB2ak9kr6YYrXotlYDj3YCvWOG4WEsB3omeGy f3Um0xCssbM3huYNsl2HP743GUTV7wO29ARE/lmGV/HE77lPcCX6uvg8+mr5LqP4srT/ aGBKN5uf6MrX/TBs5PYOAWN6Lwgzh5/bCGrOeVw6Z8MrI4ykjVhlwt3Ldhr5zLxuPZLV eqa3xX3QnfdCQEX6EPLL85EQvEhau8VRL3aj8dKqd94eYACwxE8eqVPw8satE0tkGBRO jhw6NixxZ3TtbzWArPHPbEwwKA4WmrL99F8UqQHqkFfGmjziif6I9FzLxUmt8DeNIsUQ ZpVw==
Received: by 10.152.114.3 with SMTP id jc3mr47049696lab.11.1341964566944; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.114.3 with SMTP id jc3mr47049686lab.11.1341964566829; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.81.230 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4FF36FBE.1030009@stpeter.im>
References: <4FEE166B.3070007@KingsMountain.com> <4FEF19BF.9050203@gondrom.org> <4FF36FBE.1030009@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:56:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOuvq22BWEvfz2TcQFUFbiJ=o74jqT+yXcMa8M7DgYszTyqzWQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-System-Of-Record: true
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmDgR4ppSv4l/O61kwsyKvNrQIVZRX9vqWJpo31mVKbZ2S60MMwo3GseVYLYDsNQPXwNGNb1MShud/YhDDJYXBN8JwwnkMQO24jp+a+W15vYYqR+TtDBBpU7Kkist1e1mNlHuce5gX8EdFzW5cj2N9HPQVKKuNNzOJRxD2/s9N1FgaGb/0=
Cc: websec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [websec] "This site is testing HSTS" directive (was 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: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 23:55:41 -0000

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:

> more testing before you deploy interesting architectures". Eric is right
> that the negative consequences of getting it wrong here are more
> significant than with DNS because the TTL of a pinned cert is much
> longer than the TTL of a DNS record. Thus if you want to use HSTS, you
> need to be more careful. Certainly it seems that an implementation note
> would be warranted. I tend to agree with Jeff that if people feel a
> strong need for this, they can do so in a separate I-D (I don't
> particularly see a need for it to go into the core spec, but I might be
> missing something).

(HSTS is not the same as pinning, fwiw.)

In my pinning draft (as it currently stands), you can set any TTL
(max-age) you want; in TACK, you can revoke a pin any time you want.

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status