[cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 169: Revised Validation Requirements

Tim Hollebeek THollebeek at trustwave.com
Tue May 3 23:21:39 UTC 2016

Given the goal of this ballot is to remove "any other method", and we explicitly agreed at the start of this process to simply enumerate existing practice (unless egregiously wrong), I'm not going to hold things up over my concerns.  I'd like to see any other method go away ASAP.

That said, this language allows "Tim's Zero Fuss Certificate Authority", which uses Random Value + "ZFCA" as the challenge, and "Tim's Zero Fuss Web Server" which simply parrots back Request + "ZFCA" for all requests for any file under .well_known/pki-validation.

I predict my product will be extremely popular, as issuance will always succeed without any configuration or manual steps.  Once my web server achieves ubiquity, it will succeed even if you accidentally use the wrong domain name in your CSR!

Basically, I don't see anywhere in the proposed text where there is a requirement that the validation method must include the essential security that account_key_thumbprint might provide.


From: public-bounces at cabforum.org <public-bounces at cabforum.org> on behalf of Ryan Sleevi <sleevi at google.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2016 6:07:23 PM
To: Richard Barnes
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Pre-Ballot 169: Revised Validation Requirements

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Richard Barnes <rbarnes at mozilla.com<mailto:rbarnes at mozilla.com>> wrote:
Hey Ryan,

I'm confused about where you're going here.

It seems like the property that we need to remedy the flaw that Peter exposed is that the server's response cannot be generated based on the request from the CA.  It seems to me that the right response is just to make that requirement explicitly.  As I think JC's text does, though perhaps it could be made clearer.

Do you agree with that approach, and we're just arguing about wording?  Or do you think the HTTP validation method needs to be even more prescriptive?

Well, the wording is to make the HTTP validation method more prescriptive ;)

To be clear: We're discussing wording. Tim proposed some more restrictive changes, and J.C. raised the concern that ACME relies on the lax language. The question is fundamentally trying to find out what options we have to tweak wording or implementation - to try to close the gap so that everyone is happy.


This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160503/ad4053b8/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list