Re: [lamps] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5280 (5997)

Thanks. You're absolutely right, that was an oversight on my part.

I think the higher-order question is what the syntax is "meant" to be, as
the use of an illustrative example alone has lead to confusion. Even if a
future revision retroactively 'blesses' ".example.com" as an ambiguity
within 5280, the semantics of that are also ambiguous.

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 1:39 PM Russ Housley <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ryan:
>
> I see the point you are trying to make, but the exact substitution that
> you propose breaks the sentence that follows.
>
> OLD
>
>    DNS name restrictions are expressed as host.example.com.  Any DNS
>    name that can be constructed by simply adding zero or more labels to
>    the left-hand side of the name satisfies the name constraint.  For
>    example, www.host.example.com would satisfy the constraint but
>    host1.example.com would not.
>
> NEW
>
>    For DNS names, restrictions MUST use the dNSName syntax in
>    Section 4.2.1.6.  Any DNS name that can be constructed by simply
>    adding zero or more labels to the left-hand side of the name satisfies
>    the name constraint.  For example, if the constraint contains
>    host.example.com, then www.host.example.com would satisfy the
>    constraint but host1.example.com would not.
>
> On Feb 28, 2020, at 1:03 PM, Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I've heard word that this may not have gone out to the PKIX list, but I
> did want to pass this along with LAMPS.
>
> As both the current syntax and semantics are ambiguous, judging by
> implementation behaviour, I'm totally appreciative that the suggested
> change might be rejected or might be held for a hypothetical document
> update in the future.
>
> However, I did want to bring to broader attention and document the fact
> that the ambiguity has lead to different levels of guarantees. It was
> recently pointed out to me that Apple adopted the "URI-like" syntax, as
> discussed at
> https://cabforum.org/pipermail/servercert-wg/2020-February/001676.html ,
> while as mentioned in the Errata, Go and OpenSSL seem to have adopted the
> "PEBKAC" syntax of assuming it's an encoding error.
>
> Within the Web PKI, tools like Amazon's certlint treats this as an error,
> while tools like ZLint inherit Golang's permissiveness. As a consequence,
> unless the CA applies both checks (which is strongly recommended, due to
> certlint attempting to compile the ASN.1 modules to offer stricter
> validation), it's possible that such certificates might continue to
> proliferate. As discussed within the linked Golang issue, there's
> unfortunately a number of documentation examples that use the leading
> period example, and so RFC 5280 CAs that don't participate exclusively in
> the Web PKI are even more at risk of the varying interpretations.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: RFC Errata System <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 5:54 PM
> Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5280 (5997)
> To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <
> [email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <
> [email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
> <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
>
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5280,
> "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate
> Revocation List (CRL) Profile".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5997
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]>
>
> Section: 4.2.1.10
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> DNS name restrictions are expressed as host.example.com.  Any DNS
> name that can be constructed by simply adding zero or more labels to
> the left-hand side of the name satisfies the name constraint.
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> The syntax of dNSName MUST be as described in Section 4.2.1.6.  Any DNS
> name that can be constructed by simply adding zero or more labels to
> the left-hand side of the name satisfies the name constraint.
>
> Notes
> -----
> Currently, the syntax for a dNSName nameConstraint is left implicit, and
> thus has resulted in ambiguities in encoding and processing that have
> resulted in ineroperability issues.
>
> One interpretation is that the dNSName nameConstraint must be a valid
> "host name" (as discussed in RFC 8499), which is to say must be a
> Fully-Qualified Domain Name in the preferred name syntax. This
> interpretation is supported by Section 4.2.1.6, which explicitly states
> that for the subjectAltName. As 4.2.1.10 does not define an exception to
> this (as discussed in Appendix B), the interpretation, along with the
> existing example, would conclude that this field uses preferred name
> syntax, and that "DNS name" here matches the "host name" interpretation
> from RFC 8499
>
> A different interpretation is that the dNSName nameConstraint uses the
> modified syntax similar to the URI nameConstraint. That is, it explicitly
> permits a leading period to indicate that one or more labels preceding is
> required in order to satisfy the constraint. This allows subdomains, but
> does not allow the base domain to match. While the language for the DNS
> name constraint makes it clear that a host name with no preceding period
> matches both that host and sub-domains, the existence of a preceding period
> would constraint it to only subdomains.
>
> Aligning with Section 4.2.1.6 would prohibit the latter interpretation, as
> the preferred name syntax does not permit leading periods. Alternatively,
> if the latter interpretation is intended, this section would benefit from
> making that explicit.
>
> This has been a source of interoperability issues, with additional
> information and discussion captured at:
> - https://github.com/golang/go/issues/16347
> - https://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=3562
>
> While "running code" has aligned in being permissive with a leading
> period, implementations have gone and seemingly aligned on a third
> interpretation:
>
> The syntax of a dNSName MUST be as described in Section 4.2.1.6, with the
> exception that it MAY contain a leading period. Any DNS name that can be
> constructed by simply adding zero or more labels to the left-hand side of
> the name, ignoring any leading period, satisfies the name constraint.
>
> This seems to support implementations expecting the first interpretation
> in the certificates they receive, and seeing leading period as an encoding
> mistake, not an explicit desire for the second interpretation.
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC5280 (draft-ietf-pkix-rfc3280bis-11)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate
> and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile
> Publication Date    : May 2008
> Author(s)           : D. Cooper, S. Santesson, S. Farrell, S. Boeyen, R.
> Housley, W. Polk
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509)
> Area                : Security
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm
>
>
>

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