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

Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net> Tue, 26 August 2014 21:38 UTC

Return-Path: <trevp@trevp.net>
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 ACB4F1A0049 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:38:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 GcGEZ_5N83JA for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-f171.google.com (mail-ig0-f171.google.com [209.85.213.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74D671A0048 for <websec@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-f171.google.com with SMTP id l13so5249544iga.4 for <websec@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
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=ILgQyNrGBx6I+XtHhN4gKvOxrkHsCAoaioPrqM4bXok=; b=RrOVOAtfbFurtLj+9eP1DNHnffO1Ix2NGkVzmIwaE+LcrIikirrU3OHgBn9Fc+y+vu cZmXGzMZnLglGIKAGVl0brfyZwzf0ueR9tG73DSStNkGtjp3NBpSzzqpO2Pe5llIatZ3 Nt6MhTWKHRbubl9ZWf/tQrQr1cVv8gFesIYQf9HnzjwagC4oqbe9VWyvZA3CxRjfkkHf CdcPG9pb8jNyfdpeXdmqrVI7jWvl6zq5d3xudOInlUu4VrzaaBS2AwVidcUKw9eAku6e KxUoLsUOH9ze81dES/ntUzNWDvHTRxvVKnS8c8Kj8mxUo079HLYi/pXpwg6rdbG9GToZ TkSQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkGAEzQAc1DrTcrm8YvXyCJ7tvrpglpJJJJUxB9eTdF4jyDPMCBFiAGaRD4/7CsG+695TVt
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.51.17.2 with SMTP id ga2mr25664526igd.2.1409089089793; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.133.154 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [50.1.57.236]
In-Reply-To: <CAOuvq20kCKk=jcXsy_d8C-4Fn-f0zshP6YUPn5N8hsKt7KO7dw@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> <BAY169-DS45D73636AA204DEEABC876AEDC0@phx.gbl> <CAOuvq20kCKk=jcXsy_d8C-4Fn-f0zshP6YUPn5N8hsKt7KO7dw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:38:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGZ8ZG3KUPAbePp-_GCztj4RSLd8MuNo1iDz=ua+BEjQVzJc7Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Trevor Perrin <trevp@trevp.net>
To: Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/websec/wcHhaiZjlm-_Xjj9y5AJFmC7-KM
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 21:38:11 -0000

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Eric Lawrence <ericlaw1979@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As a site operator, I'd think of PKP-RO as a debugging aid more along the
>> lines of: "If I turn this thing on, will anything break for anyone?"
>>
>> If PKP-RO doesn't have the same semantics as PKP, its utility for answering
>> that question declines.
>
> PKP-RO has the same semantics as PKP, at the time of Pin Validation,
> which is what matters.

That's not completely true, because PKP affects Pin Validation of
other connections, and PKP-RO doesn't.

So turning on PKP-RO tests "do browsers construct the certificate path
I expect".  It doesn't test "does my site return the correct
certificate for all connections".

So Eric's point is valid: PKP-RO doesn't provide an administrator much
confidence that their site is ready for PKP, and might even mislead
them.


Trevor