Hi,

Some questions, based on draft-05:

(1) Is there going to be a DNS-based protocol for retrieving audit proofs?

(2) Why are the RFC 5878 / RFC 4680 Authorization Extension and
SupplementalData mechanisms used to convey the SCT, instead of
defining a new TLS Extension?  (RFC 5878 is an Experimental-track TLS
Extension; CT adds a new extension value to it to signal that an SCT
is included in an RFC 4680 SupplementalData handshake message; this
seems more complex than just putting the SCT directly in a TLS
Extension).

(3) Some things about "precertificates" are unclear to me, in draft-05:
 - If the precert is signed by the "CA certificate that will sign the
final certificate", as described in the second bullet in 3.1, does
this CA cert also need to contain the "Certificate Transparency" EKU
extension from the first bullet?
 - In the SCT for a precertificate, what exactly does the log sign?
Is it the TBSCertificate including the poison extension, or is the log
expected to remove the poison extension prior to signing?
 - How exactly does a TLS client verify an SCT for a precert?  Does
the client need to remove the SCTs and recalculate the original
TBSCertificate's ASN.1 to verify?
 - Related to previous: why is it necessary for SCTs and
MerkleTreeLeafs to have different cases for precerts and certs?  Could
the signature be calculated on a "normalized" form of the
TBSCertificate which is the same for certs and precerts (i.e. the
TBSCertificate with poison and SCT extensions removed?)

(4) Why is the SCT's timestamp and CtExtensions included in the
MerkleTreeLeaf?  If the Merkle Tree was built directly on hash(cert)
leaves instead of hash(SCT fields), then the audit path mechanism
could be deployed earlier / independently from SCTs, i.e. browsers
could retrieve and check audit paths for certs regardless of whether
the TLS server had presented an SCT.  Perhaps CT doesn't envision that
use case, but it seems potentially useful.  So I'm wondering if it
might be worth decoupling the SCTs from the merkle trees to provide
more deployment flexibility.


Trevor
_______________________________________________
therightkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey

Reply via email to