Rick,
Thanks for reading the doc and providing comments.
Stephen,
2.2.2. Certificate not logged
Because the CA is presumed malicious, it may choose to not submit a
(pre-)certificate to a log. This means there is no SCT for the
certificate.
...
2.2.2.1. Self-monitoring Subject
A Subject performing self-monitoring will be able to detect the lack
of SCT and notify the CA about the bogus certificate and request
revocation.
[Rick] Since the certificate is not logged, how will the self-monitoring
Subject detect the lack of SCT? The CA could mis-issue the cert but not send
it to the Subject. You need a Careful Browser detecting the lack of SCTs and
notifying the Subject for the Subject to be aware of this case. Likewise, I
think this sentence in 2.2.2.2 is incorrect: "If, when an SCT is not
provided, clients do not reject certificates and do not notify the CA or the
Subject, this form of mis-issuance will succeed unless the Subject is
self-monitoring (See 2.2.2.1 and Note 3.)"
You're right. A self-monitoring Subject can detect a cert issued to it by
lacking an SCT, and complain to the CA, even if the cert is not logged.
(The Subject received the cert from the CA, so it has a copy and thus can
detect the absence of an SCT). But, a bogus cert would not be delivered
to the (legitimate) Subject, and thus the text above is wrong. Sorry
'bout that.
3.1. Non-malicious Web PKI CA context
This section analyzes the scenario in which the CA has no intent to
issue a syntactically incorrect certificate. Throughout the
remainder of this document we refer to a syntactically incorrect
certificate as ''erroneous''.
[Rick] In the sections below, you also refer to certificates as "malformed".
I think "erroneous" could/should be used in those cases instead of
"malformed".
Good catch. We'll make that change.
3.1.1.1. Benign log
...
. If a (pre-)certificate is submitted by a third party, that party
might contact the Subject or the issuing CA, but because the
party is not the Subject of the certificate it is not clear how
the CA will respond.
[Rick] I think you should remove "(pre-)", because pre-certificates cannot
be submitted by third parties, only by the CA.
OK, we'll remove "(pre-)".
3.1.2. Certificate not logged
If a CA does not submit a certificate to a log, there can be no
syntactic checking by the log. Detection of syntactic errors will
depend on Subjects or Monitors performing the requisite checks.
[Rick] Detection could also be done by Careful Browsers (though I agree with
your caveat in 3.1.1.4). If you think that Careful Browsers should be added
to this Section, then they should also be added to 3.2.1.3. But I'm guessing
you intentionally didn't add Careful Browsers because to date, any checking
they have performed generally did not result in notification to Subjects or
Issuing CAs. So I'm ok if you leave them out of both Sections.
Your interpretation is right, but I should probably include more
explicit text here.
Steve
_______________________________________________
Trans mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
