Fwd: [POSH] What's the point of using JWKs in POSH?
Matt Miller <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.xmpp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 [ Forwarding to the [email protected] mailing list on behalf of Thjis Alkemade ] Hello, Today, I've spent some time on trying to implement POSH-checking for xmpp.net. My implementation aimed to do two things: doing the validation as described and showing someone how they could set up their .well-known file by converting their X509 certificates to JSON Web Keys. The latter part was a lot more work than the former and made me wonder why it is defined the way it is. - From draft-ietf-xmpp-posh: Each included JWK object MUST possess the following information: o The "kty" field set to the appropriate key type used for TLS connections (e.g., "RSA" for a certificate using an RSA key). o The required public parameters for the key type (e.g., "n" and "e" for a certificate using an RSA key). o The "x5t" field set to the certificate thumbprint, as described in section 3.6 of [JOSE-JWK]. Yet the data that is required in the first and second bullet is never used. It doesn't specify if and how clients should verify it. Verification only uses the x5t field and optionally x5c. There are good arguments for "pinning" just the public key. draft-ietf-websec-key-pinning only uses the SPKI field, DANE can use either the full cert or its SPKI field (and optionally hashed). But the way it is specified here won't allow that: the x5t field always needs to be present and clients should verify it. So the public parameters of the key are useless here, but they make a key >10x as large is they have to be. Generating them is also not as easy: most certificate viewers show a SHA1 fingerprint and it's really easy to do with the openssl cli tool, but extracting n and e and base64-encoding them is a lot more work. I wouldn't even know what to do for ECDSA keys. Are there any interoperability reasons for using JWKs that I'm not aware of? Couldn't it just use a list of SHA1 hashes? Best regards, Thijs -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTj5sMAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1ZikH/ijVFWOIJg/9i2sYQu/5q7/g nmCpcMtt3U703/gYlZp7uCGGPhBJZ6bzfreTEHy10SVYeGJw5+IwWdix3R2ED+sz LBKJWPFMBKICgyl2VgGo+xliznITozSXamA817Ti4boGGuZcOyf2GI233XeRtyAE H3Ac0tyT7ZkEH0kbL1qVpux/MLlYOwIjpxJsFYWuR072+Li/wpnyAM136h9A/lSe Ej5+xJtNCsec0Vqa7OHEGN1cDy0FRiPB2IWIcChGJqAX/nXSeBIHjajxbnLbNtaJ ULe4pbYn2JjBPtYEA1usK35ktYg0f5lN+iUOIK1a4v3GJTWcxyWwb3nzeu+g3x8= =IQfu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----