- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 08:03:09 +0200
- To: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
- Cc: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <FD51C915-D4E5-480B-A59B-F7982B0E8C09@bblfish.net>
On 21 Oct 2012, at 18:12, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>
> On 21 Oct 2012, at 15:26, David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Hi Henry
>>
>> On 20/10/2012 22:47, Henry Story wrote:
>>> Here is my rough proposal now for ISSUE-59: "Filtering & Versioning WebID
>>> Certificates" [1]
>>>
>>> A WebID Client Certificate chain's root MUST be signed by the agent with
>>> DN "CN=WebID,O=∅" - the O= values is the utf-8 character U+2205 know as
>>> "Empty Set".
>>
>> I dont like the O=∅ for several reasons
>> i) it may confuse users
>> ii) it may break some implementations
>> iii) its not based on a valid DNS name
>>
>> I prefer O=W3C.org or O=W3.org because then you can be sure that no-one else can take the DN as W3C is responsible for the name space.
>
> I don't really mind. If we agree already with the general solution then
> this is good.
>
> The issue with W3.org is that it may confuse users, admins and others that
> the W3 is signing. One could replace ø by {} for potentially breaking
> applications.
Another option is just to have CN=WebID and nothing else. Would that be ok?
>
> What other options are there? Is there a special DN for standards? Perhaps IANA is the
> place to look? Other ideas?
>
>>
>>>
>>> ( We could put O=W3C but people would tend to think the W3C was going
>>> to be responsible for the signature, whereas here it is clear that
>>> there is NO organisation at all. )
>>> ( I chose a very short DN, so as to minimise the traffic on the TLS layer )
>>
>> alternatively you could have O=webID.w3.org without a CN then it is clear that "webID" is going to sign the cert.
>>
>> What are the requirements?
>> i) a short DN to minimise traffic
>> ii) a fixed DN to signify its a WebID CA/certificate
>> iii) a DN that cannot righfully be used by any other CA or cert issuer
>>
>> It is for this last reason that I propose using a DN based on an Org name that is based on a DNS name of W3C.
>
> Those are also good reasons, but they can create a confusion too. This is going
> to be an arbitrary choice. I am open to other ideas.
>
>
>>
>> regards
>>
>> David
>>
>>>
>>> Anyone can have the root of his certificate signed by that agent by making up
>>> a public/private key pair and signing a certificate with the generated private
>>> key. In particular for services generating the equivalent of self signed
>>> certificates they can give the user a certificate signed directly by that agent.
>>>
>>> This will then allow servers to ask browsers for certificates from DN's
>>> they know and trust as well as WebID based Certificates the user may have.
>>> This should help reduce the size of certificates appearing in the selection
>>> box shown to the user.
>>>
>>> A server that wants to ask the user for all client certificates can still
>>> make the null request. This is useful for testing servers for example.
>>>
>>> I don't expect us all to make requests for those DN immediately, but I think
>>> we should work on agreeing on the WebID DN and make sure all certificates
>>> created are generated with it, so that in the future we can allow servers to
>>> select WebID certificates easily.
>>>
>>> I'll be demonstrating this at TPAC. If we find that this works ok, I propose
>>> we add language to the spec describing this requirement.
>>>
>>> ----------------
>>>
>>> I have tested this with my read-write-web server
>>> https://github.com/read-write-web/rww-play
>>>
>>> which I'll be putting online in the next few weeks hopefully.
>>>
>>> For example the following class builds client certificates:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/read-write-web/rww-play/blob/0f10d65ffc5048ae8a911b1b05896f5c55832b0d/app/controllers/ClientCertificateApp.scala
>>>
>>> at line 134 on every VM startup the server creates a new public/private key with
>>> which to sign the certificates it creates which will be signed by CN=WebID,O=∅"
>>>
>>> When I then start my server with
>>>
>>>> run -Dhttps.port=8443 -Dhttps.trustStore=webid.WebIDTrustManager
>>>
>>> and I go to a service such as
>>>
>>> https://localhost:8443/test/webid/eg
>>>
>>> then I am only asked for my WebID Certificates (now considered to be those
>>> signed by "CN=WebID,O=∅"
>>>
>>> This solves one of Ben Laurie's problems of being asked for too
>>> many certificates, especially certificates that don't have WebIDs signed
>>> by institutions the user knows nothing of.
>>>
>>> I have not yet tried this on longer certificate chains.
>>> Also I am looking to see if I can ask for the null resource depending on
>>> the certificate
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/track/issues/59
>>>
>>> On 12 Oct 2012, at 19:22, David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Henry
>>>>
>>>> the first point to note is that signing CA public keys by the WebID root
>>>> CA is not signifying any trust in the CA per se. It is merely signalling
>>>> that this is the public key of this CA. Right? And because the root CA
>>>> has already done this for you, then we can be sure it is correct, or else the root CA is a fraudster. But given that the root CAs' certs are already built into our browsers by MS, Apple, Mozilla et al then they have already done the validation for you. Right?
>>>>
>>>> The second point to note is that it is not the root CAs' keys which the
>>>> WebID CA is signing, but rather the subordinate CAs of these CAs. This
>>>> is because signature chain verification may not wont work if it comes
>>>> across a self signed root CA key which is not the WebID CA (the root of
>>>> trust). So by signing the keys of subordinate CAs of the root CAs built
>>>> into browsers, we create an alternative path to the trusted root CA. Of course this makes the work load even greater than you imagined, since each root CA may have 3 or 4 subordinate CAs. But your proposal below will probably handle this.
>>>>
>>>> More comments below
>>>
>>> Thanks for the feedback, but I think you did not quite see the radicality of
>>> what I was proposing. I am not proposing that an institution have any keys it
>>> can sign root CAs with, I am proposing anyone can create those keys and sign them :-)
>>>
>>>
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 06:03:48 UTC