On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 1:50 PM Brian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>
>> Given that CAs have struggled with the relevant encodings, both for the
>> signatureAlgorithm and the subjectPublicKeyInfo field, I’m curious if
>> you’d
>> be open to instead enumerating the allowed (canonical) encodings for both.
>> This would address open Mozilla Problematic Practices as well - namely,
>> the
>> encoding of NULL parameters with respect to certain signature algorithms.
>>
>
>
I would be happy with that approach if it makes our requirements clearer -
I'm just not convinced that doing so will eliminate the confusion I
attempted to describe.

I agree with Ryan. It would be much better to list more precisely what
> algorithm combinations are allowed, and how exactly they should be encoded.
> From my experience in implementing webpki [1], knowing the exact allowed
> encodings makes it much easier to write software that deals with
> certificates and also makes it easier to validate that certificates conform
> to the requirements.
>
> These kinds of details are things that CAs need to delegate to their
> technical staff for enforcement, and IMO it would make more sense to ask a
> programmer in this space to draft the requirements, and then have other
> programmers verify the requirements are accurate. In particular, it is
> hugely inefficient for non-programmers to try to attempt to draft these
> technical requirements and then ask programmers and others to check them
> because it's unreasonable to expect people who are not programmers to be
> able to see which details are important and which aren't.
>
>
 Agreed - is someone willing to take on this task?

You can find all the encodings of the algorithm identifiers at [2].
>
> [1] https://github.com/briansmith/webpki
> [2] https://github.com/briansmith/webpki/tree/master/src/data
>
> Cheers,
> Brian
> --
> https://briansmith.org/
>
>
_______________________________________________
dev-security-policy mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy

Reply via email to