On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 1:41 PM Adam Roach <a...@nostrum.com> wrote:

> [as an individual]
>
> On 10/5/18 11:21 AM, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote:
>
> In the rounds of reviews on https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/445,
> I missed an addition: the suggestion to use capability URLs for access
> control on certificate URLs. We should definitely not introduce this into
> the spec: ACME has one authentication model, based on JWS signing. We
> shouldn't introduce another, weaker authentication model. I pointed this
> out way back in 2015:
> https://github.com/letsencrypt/acme-spec/pull/48#issuecomment-70169712.
>
> At the time, the WG decision was to split resources into sensitive ones
> (authenticated) and non-sensitive ones (unauthenticated). The recent round
> of POST-as-GET changes consolidates things so nearly everything is
> authenticated. I don't think there's a strong case to introduce a new,
> halfway level of authentication based on capability URLs. If we want
> certificates to be authenticated, let's authenticate them the same way as
> everything else, and let the STAR group define an extension for
> unauthenticated URLs. Here's my PR backing out the change:
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-acme/acme/pull/457
>
>
> I oppose this change. The removed language is a non-normative statement
> of fact for the benefit of implementors. Removing it does not change the
> fact that capability URLs can be used in this context; it simply hides this
> fact from the reader.
>
I think Adam is on the right track here.

Jacob: The change you're proposing makes security worse.  The security
properties of GET-without-capability-URLs are strictly worse than
GET-with-capability-URLs.  It seems like you're trying to get rid of a
better option to maintain the appearance architectural purity.

--Richard


/a
> _______________________________________________
> Acme mailing list
> Acme@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
>
_______________________________________________
Acme mailing list
Acme@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme

Reply via email to