IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com> Tue, 26 August 2014 19:36 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 A7D581A029C for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:36:08 -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 jKyBgm9wB26A for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-x232.google.com (mail-qa0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC59B1A0290 for <websec@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:36:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id s7so13984800qap.23 for <websec@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:36:06 -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; bh=REdnzFdlFYJBSfIhcQMHVasBLAdHI2gbiC1r4vvoy3Y=; b=JSCTpTQgCuYuEwk7dOE/bQPlgZueGnUrMjWwKa/gY0gTSWK51pjXHFLdLrwHaTJlk9 1Rebc6T46oY3IBzz99KLlh1ccvKmojwX55EZIRLSj4tlR32TAcXf3CIuIuF4RUc6PUrA 7acpCM6q4rtnteKi1HFANEFJ1QKw+jzmOdf2HatsuGojB+5mTZYGy8zD9kgggo+aH89o STsQRUn2plzBsvKPU6c6JMxK46Zn50kLdu5j8viM7JPd4mSB4mkoSi89D72xeBhEazjn S3pTjbm/2Tb49h99j8wVn2TSE46YTo9KxmpzwnYubMv0fpRwhpGAjOPZu/W6QP/CdJb7 o/nA==
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; bh=REdnzFdlFYJBSfIhcQMHVasBLAdHI2gbiC1r4vvoy3Y=; b=GPVy1gTY/LrWp/WQjx70PgBLPtcbNbMRU02RnBOePnJ04ws2xC1QDV8HjmQkgb2Zpm v31WW1GRDK6YC3EoqJ2k3NzJq1hhY3GSMkQQzMZ+gJEfEuDD1kvwxVbJALPfasReIpSZ DXxeNwKCVl4wKsBzTkEdI1BmBJTIFDaMmvB71Jf/wStG3MuKNIx/rxX6QW9PQ8zLkKlA o53RvlRQQ104c71Rs8/c3sFEbNTG00G9oqqp72HoTCZ9gP991MIYs96aPHml4l7Xn8eO wvwhVG5C9aTq0jGOSWgNeorYcutEFuFxuVcqB472qTCjLCO0VxySHzlIdQIDFYIOrlq/ Tpzg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl0kC4TVb9W3PQmRloxbLTW17cdztXoCnQY3c4Kh9P29zAVuW9P46DcqwrSSuWceP0kSKGI
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.137.65 with SMTP id v1mr49257166qat.53.1409081766114; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:36:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.165.2 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:36:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+cU71k-pLD315dzfd_c74QM51c7V2VQkZ26PiXUTqntmESD=A@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>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:36:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOuvq20mZkScvPDKjsa1eZ6rdoHxf_+oF=gpaOcvkOTaYhyj6Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com>
To: Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/websec/tyT6V9KZsst_nAOnQgaN6QNormw
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 19:36:08 -0000

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg> wrote:

>>> No, PKP-RO is not meant to be cached. In this respect, it behaves similar
>>> to Content-Security-Policy's reporting mechanism.
>>
>> Ah, interesting. I'm curious why not? Is there no use-case for allowing
>> "report-only" pins to be persisted?
>
> I think there definitely are, and I and most organizations I advise
> would like that option.

What would they get from it that they would not get from just
consistently serving the PKP-RO header?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email