At 13:04 21/01/2020  Tuesday, Ryan Sleevi wrote:

>On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 7:14 AM Owen Friel (ofriel) 
><<mailto:ofr...@cisco.com>ofr...@cisco.com> wrote:
>> Also, the linked document states:
>> 
>>Â  Â  The call flow illustrates the DNS-based proof of ownership mechanism,
>>Â  Â  but the subdomain workflow is equally valid for HTTP based proof of
>>Â  Â  ownership.
>> 
>> Can’t I have HTTP access to a base domain’s website without having 
>> access to a
>> subdomain’s, though? 

err yes you can (easily)
I as a website provider, have access to the http base domains of many customers 
(how we obtain/refresh the SAN certs that keep their websites available) I do 
not (and do not want/need access to create wildcard certs for their other sites 
elsewhere)
and customers do not assume their web host provider needs a lot of trust



I (separate hat) as a dns provider (separate set of customers some overlap) can 
access their basedomain to create wildcards, but as i could also repoint their 
other sites elsewhere (here for long enough to http authenticate them too, or 
to a reverse proxy to mitm them etc) this risk is omnipresent (why you should 
ensure your dns hoster is above reproach and has a small staff, here its 2 ppl 
with access to the dns servers)
and why dns hoster is usually seriously considered as largest risk in terms of 
Internet vulnerability



>I thought that was the reason why ACME limits wildcard
>> authz to DNS.
>
>[ofriel] Daniel has clarified this already. Its a Lets Encrypt, not an ACME 
>limitation.
>
>
>Although the CA/Browser Forum / Browser Stores have repeatedly discussed 
>forbidding it. That is, allowing the HTTP and TLS methods of validation to 
>only be scoped for the host in question (and potentially the service in 
>question, if we can work out the safe SRVName transition, due to the 
>interaction of nameConstraints and policy)
>
>Would it be simpler to remove the statement from the draft, rather than try to 
>clarify equally valid refers to the technology without commenting on the 
>policy?
>
>_______________________________________________
>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