Re: [websec] Issue 56 - specify includeSubDomains for key pinning

Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg> Wed, 06 March 2013 02:55 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@ritter.vg>
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 4FD1321F8615 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 18:55:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, J_CHICKENPOX_17=0.6, 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 8tn6cLuq9pfj for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 18:55:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-f170.google.com (mail-vc0-f170.google.com [209.85.220.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2DC21F8501 for <websec@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 18:55:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f170.google.com with SMTP id p16so4667657vcq.29 for <websec@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 18:55:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ritter.vg; s=vg; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=jp4Bx/p3cMJV965GVjBFTWnXWfRM61CG8oTgcq0HktM=; b=MGOiuZwgGQOWjGcmus/hmmnUaAKeMDxmR8gZvqpqDZk4jc4ibaR+O2zPdbJLKi7G7/ 0D+ToEhXdwvzx9GnkJxsnEF//nnwigVW/kOUv9Q1D0OqKNmG54g9yyENn8GuV2/yEm/U 5vRVuXOMvJsqSvR217Vp+CzObgWquVBqj7AZc=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=jp4Bx/p3cMJV965GVjBFTWnXWfRM61CG8oTgcq0HktM=; b=D1YYoUF9/Dcb0p4+F3cgPItpitDs328ZT7zqxO8t2f53UwirdMz/rr0EXKCv85OYO1 hbtqfRlEev0acIsA1m+Baw3Pwxfc3gl0D6lIVsBXQt8G0s4YauAYRcvW34bhGDT79cqc BLHz+eQ8Mags4K184ArSN89lC9fcqRb9oOAwvK2ogdyFiKI1bii9EoAWKcwxviCLCsar dM3YLxg5YUaqDjwRlhIN5g54W56xpVoZ+yPGVHtnoceUuVIrmrMRRYNx7oXQ4vE5f5nO TTMIbYl569BDfZd/wUnuxyUQsORl224UgzZUpBb4RzHjsSo2M/3afe50mDO92DHz2Ct5 wE1w==
X-Received: by 10.220.116.5 with SMTP id k5mr10629156vcq.55.1362538547498; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 18:55:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.58.182.169 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 18:55:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <7c236f42fda755021433a4fd0ee04721.squirrel@webmail.dreamhost.com>
References: <7c236f42fda755021433a4fd0ee04721.squirrel@webmail.dreamhost.com>
From: Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 21:55:27 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+cU71kJ9+aSk0u5Tk8Q3e0ryqv1yL+HQC=wYYukw3iKWfb=fw@mail.gmail.com>
To: ryan-ietfhasmat@sleevi.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmN/G71a9sJOVvT7wMXogiPmAddbaEXb3Xsztmh5E8/cghyaHn6S/xZS7M11Ti79Tz6XZj1
Cc: websec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [websec] Issue 56 - specify includeSubDomains for key pinning
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: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 02:55:49 -0000

On 4 March 2013 19:58, Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietfhasmat@sleevi.com> wrote:
> Is the added language acceptable? Are there any concerns with the
> validation/processing model that would prevent us from closing out this
> issue?

It took me a while to get it (so maybe a clarification appendix would
be good?), but I think I do and I think it works.

Although, I suppose there's no real support for a mechanism where
exmaple.com has includeSubdomains that applies to a, b, c.example but
d.example says "max-age=0".  D will wind up being pinned regardless.
I think that's okay, just noting it.



As an aside, Section 2.3.1 says
"Note the host as a Known HSTS Host if it is not already so noted"

I think that should be "Known Pinned Host"?  I thought we were
separating Require-SSL from Require-These-Keys.

-tom