Hi, At the last interim Ben asked me to make a first attempt at summarizing the discussion and conclusions in the issue tracker, the list, and during the interim. I just made a pull request (PR) doing that.
https://github.com/cose-wg/X509/pull/35 The PR aims to aims to address issues #29 #30 #31 #33 based on the dicussion on the list and during the last interim. The solution is to use x5t together with the other parameters as suggested by Russ: - Added to x5bag, x5chain, and x5u that integrity protection in COSE is requiured unless it is known that the CA did proof-of-possession. - Added that integrity protection can be achieved by combining x5t with x5bag, x5chain, or x5u. - Added explanation that sending x5bag or x5cahing in unprotected allows an intermediary to remove or add certificates. - Added clarification that x5t refer to an end-entity certificate. - Added media type application/cbor for a COSE_X509 chain. - Added that when the end-entity certificate is intergrity protected by COSE, URI protection is not needed. - Security consideration on why integrity protection of the end-entity certificate is required is there was no proof-of-possession. - Security consideration on identity protection. I think this addresses all the related use case and security issues. - If the requirement are followed, it is secure. - No changes required to existing secure deployments. - It is still possible to send x5bag and x5chain in uprotected. - No extra overhead is required when used in EDHOC. - When used in EDHOC, plain unprotected CoAP can be used. I tried to make the changnes so that no existing secure deployment need to change their implementation. Could otherwise discussed if integrity protection should be a MUST, but that would change existing implementaions (which is they do proof-of-possession are already secure). Cheers, John _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
