On Thu, 20 Mar 2014, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Do you, Mr. System Administrator defining the local policy for the
> *client*, want:
>
> A) Accept any published hashing algorithm out of my "unordered set"
> to validate the remotely presented certificate. [Ordering it
> doesn't buy you anything since you'll simply accept a match and it
> doesn't matter which you try first, since any success in any
> algorithm will equally indicate "ok"; in fact in an implementation
> aiming for speed, it might be best to choose the order based on
> how fast you can execute the algorithm]. If the server fails to
> publish a perfect record set, as long as one matches I'm ok with that.
>
> B) Believe that the server will always publish perfect records, and
> if my "ordered set" of algorithms is [SHA512, SHA256] and they
> publish SHA512, then I never want to accept SHA256 because I fear
> an attack more than I fear a server administrator blowing their
> configuration.
> But the real question, is what is the *default* that we should suggest
> an implementation do?
> II) what should we do in SMTP? This is where Viktor, considering case
> #2 above, is wanting to do B ("accept just the 'best' in an ordered set
> of algorithms) instead of A. The arguments, though, from both sides
> are probably talking about different cases (generic vs SMTP) and I
> think that is ending up with some of the confusion.
I'd like to see the SMTP draft suggest B. (All the others should do B
too, but that's a different story).
Aloha,
--
| .''`. ** Debian **
Peter Palfrader | : :' : The universal
http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `' Operating System
| `- http://www.debian.org/
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
