On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 4:46 PM Ben Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:

> We are thinking of removing the reference to the "crt.sh ID" and
> clarifying the instructions on providing the certificate fingerprints.
> Instead of the crt.sh database ID, for instance, crt.sh currently supports
> a lookup based on the SHA256 hash (https://crt.sh/?q=[sha256 hash]).
>

Currently, requiring a crt.sh ID implicitly ensures the full certificate
data is actually available from a CT log. I find the portability and
future-proofing argument for SHA256 fingerprints compelling, but I'm a bit
concerned that in the rush to put an incident report together it'd be easy
for a CA to copy-paste a fingerprint from an internal system into a crt.sh
URL without ensuring the cert is actually logged and the URL actually
works.

This would primarily be an issue for CAs that only log precertificates and
not final certificates to CT upon issuance. Without the final certificate's
full data there's no way to map its fingerprint back to the corresponding
precertificate, so other user agents' CT logging requirements do not
mitigate this issue.

Should it instead say, "The recommended way to provide this is to ensure
> each certificate is logged to CT and then list the crt.sh fingerprint URL
> for each certificate in the format 'https://crt.sh/?q=[sha256 hash]',
> ...."?
>

It might be useful to clarify "logged to CT" - does it mean "logged to the
CT log behind my sofa"? "logged to a CT log that crt.sh monitors"? "logged
to a CT log trusted by $OTHER_USER_AGENT"? "viewable on crt.sh"?

Like others, I can think of no compelling reason not to standardize on
SHA256 fingerprints.

Alex

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"[email protected]" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/CAN3-_m6V0sM09tWXu67-PErg52vfVbyyLHxw9NXe-AU9%2BuC_UA%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to