Thanks, Mike. I cleared. On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Mike Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Richard, > > > > The normative security considerations text for “alg”:“none” has been moved > into the algorithm definition in the -36 draft, per our agreement below. I > also added additional text referencing RFC 3447 in Section 6.3. Your other > DISCUSSes were addressed in previous drafts, including making > RSAES-PKCS1-V1_5 “Recommended-”, per our agreement. I believe that these > changes should enable you to clear your remaining DISCUSSes. > > > > Thanks again, > > -- Mike > > > > *From:* Richard Barnes [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2014 8:49 AM > *To:* Mike Jones > *Cc:* The IESG; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [jose] Richard Barnes' Discuss on > draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-33: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Mike Jones <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Section 3.6. > > > > I'm not going to object to "none", even though I think it's a very > dangerous > > > > feature because of the risk of confusion between Secured and > Unsecured JWS. > > > > But there needs to be stronger guidance: > > > > 1. An implementation SHOULD NOT support "none" unless the implementer > > > > knows that it will be used in application context s that require it. > > > > 2. If an implementation does support "none", then it MUST NOT accept > it as part > > > > of generic JWS validation. Instead, it should require the > application to explicitly > > > > signal that an Unsecured JWS is expected for a given validation > operation. > > > > > > As discussed in the working group, your concern about applications > inappropriately allowing the use of "none" actually is an instance of a > more general concern that applications not allow *any* algorithms to be > used that are not appropriate in their application contexts. This concern > is already addressed in the specification at the end of Section 5.2 as > follows: > > > > > > "Finally, note that it is an application decision which algorithms are > acceptable in a given context. Even if a JWS can be successfully validated, > unless the algorithm(s) used in the JWS are acceptable to the application, > it SHOULD reject the JWS." > > > > > > Since your specific concern is already handled in a more general way, > I would like to request that you withdraw this DISCUSS on that basis. > Also, you were one of the contributing authors to the security > considerations on this topic in Section 8.5 of JWA (Unsecured JWS Security > Considerations), so it's not clear that there's any cause for you to come > back with additional wording change requests on this topic at this point. > > > > > > Thanks for reminding me about Section 8.5. I think I would be > satisfied here if the contents of Section 8.5 were just moved up to this > section. That way all of the requirements for implementing "none" will be > together. > > > > Section 3.6 does end with the sentence "See Section 8.5 for security > considerations associated with using this algorithm" so implementers are > reminded to also pay attention to the security considerations. If we were > to do what you requested, this would be the only algorithm for which the > security considerations were included in the algorithm description, rather > than in the security considerations section, which would be fairly weird > and non-parallel, editorially. > > > > Actually, "none" is the only algorithm for which there are additional > normative requirements in the Security Considerations. So it actually > seems more sensible to move those requirements up. > > I'm really just asking for a copy/paste here, shouldn't be invasive. > But I do think the level of indirection creates security risk. > > I'm OK moving up the three sentences that actually do contain normative > requirements. Those are: > > Implementations that support Unsecured JWS objects MUST NOT accept > such objects as valid unless the application specifies that it is > acceptable for a specific object to not be integrity-protected. > Implementations MUST NOT accept Unsecured JWS objects by default. > In order to mitigate downgrade attacks, applications MUST NOT signal > acceptance of Unsecured JWS objects at a global level, and SHOULD > signal acceptance on a per-object basis. > > I'm not OK cluttering up the normative description of the algorithm with > the discussion text. Assuming you're OK leaving the discussion text and > "for example" text in 8.5, I think we have a way forward on this one. > Please let me know if that works for you. > > > > Sounds fine to me. Thanks for the compromise. > > --Richard > > > > > > Again, given that you were an author of 8.5 and seemed fine with the > resolution after the extensive discussion then, I'd ask you to clear the > DISCUSS on that basis and not request that it be reworked again. > > -- Mike > > >
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
