Re: [TLS] Consensus call for certificate URL extension

[Mike <mike-list at pobox.com>]

> > We need to close this open issue.  I think there are two basic options
> > that address the security issues that have been raised:
> >
> > A) Deprecate the current extension and create a similar new extension
> > with the hash mandatory.
> >
> > B) Make the hash mandatory in the current extension.  This should not
> > cause deployment problems because there are no known deployments that
> > make the hash optional.

The problem with either of these options is that it gives the impression
that adding the hash improves security.  As I mentioned before, if all a
client does to determine the hash is download the certificate and compute
its value, then it may just be validating a bogus certificate.

Making the hash mandatory prevents a client from effectively saying, "I
have no idea if the certificate you are about to download is valid."  It
would be much better to leave the hash as optional and to add that a
client MUST NOT send a hash unless it has been configured with it by some
other means.

Mike
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls