- From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 07:54:37 -0800
- To: Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, Mountie Lee <mountie.lee@mw2.or.kr>, public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CABcZeBNrhg_=t46fN=HM0aYaf9ABXvUfEV5B2D1+OCHx8=pedA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com>wrote: > I don't know what examples were given before and your replies, but the > two last examples I gave have nothing to do with double-checking > certificates against browser's checks, we just need to retrieve them for > other checks. > The example you provide in your previous message: "A common point is that you might not trust the browser's checks and/or (are not using)/(can not) use valid certificates and/or do not trust a site, but there might be some other uses, I have seen on the web some posts from people requesting it and it was put in your Use cases chart far before I mentioned it." Appears to be exactly double-checking the browser. Do you have a concise description (i.e., not a link to a paper) of some use case that doesn't have the property that it simultaneously trusts and distrusts the browser's cert checking? -Ekr > Regards > > Le 31/01/2013 16:37, Eric Rescorla a écrit : > > FWIW, I agree with Ryan. > > There no doubt are scenarios in which certificate processing functionality > is useful in JS on the client, but I don't believe that double-checking > that the browser has correctly evaluated the certificate chain is one of > them, for the security reasons Ryan and I have both argued before. > (Of course, whether that means that the processing needs to be in > the browser is yet another story). > > At this time, I don't see sufficient use cases to add a new pile of > complexity > to a draft which is already quite complex. Moreover, certificate > verification > is conceptually quite different, so deserves to be in a separate spec in > any case. > > -Ekr > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:29 AM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> wrote: > >> Harry, >> >> Surely when you said "put in the spec" you meant "put in a spec" - that >> is, some other spec entirely. Right? >> >> Because I absolutely positively do not see anything like this making it >> in to our current work - both for reasons of interest (I have explained >> several times the problems with what is being asked) and for reasons of >> complexity. >> On Jan 31, 2013 5:46 AM, "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> On 01/31/2013 01:57 PM, Aymeric Vitte wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think it's not in your list, then I would add : >>> >>> "Exposing the server certificate (possibly structured, if not we'll need >>> a bullet-proof, signed, X.509 library) and path of the TLS connection as >>> JavaScript objects." ( >>> http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/wiki/Use_Cases#Miscellaneous) >>> >>> I have given examples already why it's needed [1], see another use case >>> here [2] chapter 4.2 (and [3] for more details - the client identifies the >>> server by checking that the pub_key used in the TLS handshake matches the >>> certified_key received from the server in CERTS messages, where the >>> certified_key is the pub_key signed with the id_priv_key of the server and >>> therefore verified with its public id_pub_key) >>> >>> >>> What is missing from these proposals is concrete, well-specified >>> proposals. In other words, WebIDLs that we could put in the spec. Also, >>> implementers would have to agree its reasonable to implement this >>> functionality within the current WG's timeframe. >>> >>> So, please specify some example code! >>> >>> cheers, >>> harry >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> [1] >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto-comments/2012Nov/0037.html >>> [2] >>> https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git?a=blob_plain;hb=HEAD;f=tor-spec.txt >>> [3] http://archives.seul.org/or/dev/Jan-2011/msg00052.html >>> >>> Le 31/01/2013 02:17, Mountie Lee a écrit : >>> >>> Hi. >>> at WebCrypto WG Charter ( >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/11/webcryptography-charter.html) >>> following secondary features are listed. >>> >>> - control of TLS session login/logout >>> - derivation of keys from TLS sessions >>> - a simplified data protection function >>> - multiple key containers >>> - key import/export >>> - a common method for accessing and defining properties of keys >>> - the lifecycle control of credentials such enrollment, selection, >>> and revocation of credentials with a focus enabling the selection of >>> certificates for signing and encryption >>> >>> as discussed in previous concall, >>> we need to set priority for secondary features. >>> >>> I feel certificate related features has more priority than others. >>> also TLS related features also have relationship with certificates. >>> so with my view, I listed following certificate related secondary >>> features >>> >>> - certificate enrollment >>> - this is different from key generation >>> - CMP can be considered. >>> - certificate validation >>> - certificate chain validation >>> - CRL or OCSP validation >>> - certificate selection with binded private key >>> - has UI related requirement >>> - access certificate extension fields >>> - including optional fields >>> - multi-origin crypto operation with certificate associated. >>> - control of TLS session login/logout >>> - derivation of keys from TLS sessions. >>> >>> any comments? >>> >>> regards >>> mountie. >>> >>> -- >>> Mountie Lee >>> >>> PayGate >>> CTO, CISSP >>> Tel : +82 2 2140 2700 >>> E-Mail : mountie@paygate.net >>> >>> ======================================= >>> PayGate Inc. >>> THE STANDARD FOR ONLINE PAYMENT >>> for Korea, Japan, China, and the World >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> jCore >>> Email : avitte@jcore.fr >>> iAnonym : http://www.ianonym.com >>> node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor >>> GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms >>> Web : www.jcore.fr >>> Webble : www.webble.it >>> Extract Widget Mobile : www.extractwidget.com >>> BlimpMe! : www.blimpme.com >>> >>> >>> > > -- > jCore > Email : avitte@jcore.fr > iAnonym : http://www.ianonym.com > node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor > GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms > Web : www.jcore.fr > Webble : www.webble.it > Extract Widget Mobile : www.extractwidget.com > BlimpMe! : www.blimpme.com > >
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 15:55:49 UTC