On 02/27/2014 03:31 PM, Trevor Perrin wrote: > 1) PKP-RO implements the full PKP semantics (i.e. is stored for max-age, > is applied to includeSubdomains), but only generates reports instead of > hard fails. The browser would store PKP and PKP-RO pins in > separate/parallel stores, for example setting max-age=0 for a PKP pin would > not clear PKP-RO pins, and vice versa. > > 2) PKP-RO is removed from the spec. > > 3) Your suggestion - have PKP-RO implement a reduced set of PKP semantics > (only check current connection). I'm not sure about the usefulness of > that, and I worry site operators would be mislead by it.
As someone who sometimes helps to operate and plan the operation of web
sites, i don't think the semantics of (3) are misleading, but they're
not particularly confidence-inspiring either.
What is the goal of PKP-RO? Is the goal to encourage adoption by giving
site operators confidence in a proposed configuration or organizational
workflow?
The real footgunnery with PKP will come during key transition/rollover
(or switching CAs), as clients who have cached pins cope with the
changes. Using (3)-style PKP-RO to build confidence in an
organizational workflow around this kind of transition event doesn't
seem possible.
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ websec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
