Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Fri, 05 August 2011 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: woes@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: woes@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85A7E21F8AFE for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 07:18:51 -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=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YL9hvZB3QNjf for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 07:18:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF33921F8ABE for <woes@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 07:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwe5 with SMTP id 5so2004131wwe.13 for <woes@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 07:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.172.73 with SMTP id k9mr1967304wbz.30.1312553947713; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 07:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.63.11 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 07:07:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA60EB18.D5CF%joe.hildebrand@webex.com>
References: <b9332337-4efa-4355-93a9-7866a5506bb5@default> <CA60EB18.D5CF%joe.hildebrand@webex.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 07:07:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPWj8GC4nK7qZ_uypk+4uAPtGYhQu3rAdz+xr9AuP13rg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Hildebrand <joe.hildebrand@webex.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "woes@ietf.org" <woes@ietf.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Subject: Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition
X-BeenThere: woes@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Web Object Encryption and Signing \(woes\) BOF discussion list" <woes.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/woes>, <mailto:woes-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/woes>
List-Post: <mailto:woes@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:woes-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes>, <mailto:woes-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:18:51 -0000

On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Joe Hildebrand <joe.hildebrand@webex.com> wrote:
> On 8/4/11 4:48 PM, "Hal Lockhart" <hal.lockhart@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>>> 3) A Standards Track document specifying how to encode public
>>> keys as JSON-structured objects.
>>>
>>
>> I would like to push back on the idea of only supporting naked public keys. It
>> is my understanding that common cryto libraries, e.g. OpenSSL, expect public
>> keys to be in certificates and the coding to get them to accept a naked key as
>> input is ugly. I don't think they care if the cert is self signed or even
>> signed at all, its just a format issue.
>
> Just doing the math yourself, from scratch, is pretty easy if you have the
> bare key.  It's nigh-on trivial if you have a bigint library.  Solution:
> don't use OpenSSL.  I propose we don't get bogged down in the certificate
> problem for the moment.

Cryptographer's warning: do not do this. Hard hat area ahead.

-Ekr