Great example incident to use in

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bormann-t2trg-deref-id-04.html

We’ll put it in when we release the next revision!

Grüße, Carsten


> On 2024-12-03, at 13:51, Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> Could I bring to this group the attached erratum?  I am thinking that one of 
> the reasons to change the text of an RFC would be to ensure that links to 
> sites don't create security problems for the readers.
> 
> Thanks to Jean Mahoney and Alfonso Alongi for the report.
> 
> Eliot
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:      [Errata Verified] RFC8409 (8196)
> Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:49:41 -0800 (PST)
> From: RFC Errata System <[email protected]>
> To:   [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
> CC:   [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], 
> [email protected]
> 
> 
> The following errata report has been verified for RFC8409,
> "The Entity Category Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) Attribute 
> Types". 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8196
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Status: Verified
> Type: Technical
> 
> Reported by: Jean Mahoney <[email protected]>
> Date Reported: 2024-12-02
> Verified by: Eliot Lear (ISE & Editorial Board)
> 
> Section: GLOBAL
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> http://macedir.org/entity-category
> http://macedir.org/entity-category-support
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> (see notes)
> 
> Notes
> -----
> (Reported on behalf of Alfonso Alongi <[email protected]>. While 
> errata reports normally shouldn't cover currently broken URLs that worked at 
> the time of publication, the domain is used as an attribute namespace and is 
> specified by normative text.)
> 
> These URLs are no longer valid and now redirect to a casino sponsorship 
> website. This change in ownership renders these references irrelevant and 
> misleading for implementations relying on this RFC.
> 
> Use of Non-Secure HTTP Scheme:
> The URLs use the http:// scheme instead of https://, which does not guarantee 
> transport-layer security. This poses risks, especially in contexts where 
> trust and integrity are critical.
> 
> Relevance of Hardcoding References:
> The functionality described in RFC 8409 (Entity Category Attribute and Entity 
> Category Support Attribute) can be implemented using SAML's existing support 
> for custom attributes, without reliance on these specific URLs.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC8409 (draft-young-entity-category-07)
> --------------------------------------
> Title : The Entity Category Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) 
> Attribute Types
> Publication Date : August 2018
> Author(s) : I. Young, Ed., L. Johansson, S. Cantor
> Category : INFORMATIONAL
> Source : INDEPENDENT
> Stream : INDEPENDENT
> Verifying Party : ISE & Editorial Board
> <OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc>
> 
> 

-- 
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to