[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [secdir] Please review draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification's use of certificates
I don't believe that 802.1AR uses the MAC address in the CN field. I
believe it makes use of the SerialNumber field and does not mandate that
the identity must be a MAC address (it doesn't prevent it either). The
current text from draft 1.2 on SubjectName is
"The DevID subject field shall uniquely identify the particular DevID
credential within the issuer's domain of significance. The formatting of
this field shall contain a unique X.500 distinguished name (DN). This
may include the manufacturer's serial number, manufacturer's factory
programmed MAC address, issuer's or user's node name or any other
suitable unique string that the issuer prefers.
It is recommended that the subject field's DN encoding include the
'serialNumber' attribute with the device's unique serial number. "
The current editor of the document, Max Pritikin, is copied on this
message.
Joe
> -----Original Message-----
> From: secdir-bounces@xxxxxxx [mailto:secdir-bounces@xxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 8:00 PM
> To: Scott G. Kelly; Stephen Kent; Sam Hartman
> Cc: capwap-chairs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx; secdir@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [secdir] Please review
> draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification's use of certificates
>
>
> Although I agree with Steve that a MAC address would best be
> placed within the SerialNumber attribute, the cat is long out
> of the bag. WiMAX Forum, IEEE 802.1ar and DOCSIS have all
> specified inclusion of a MAC address within a CN. So the
> issue is no longer whether this is done, but rather, whether
> it is done in a uniform way.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:54:45 -0500
> > From: s.kelly@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > To: kent@xxxxxxx; hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx
> > CC: capwap-chairs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx; secdir@xxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [secdir] Please review
> > draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification's use of certificates
> >
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > Thanks for taking a look at this. Regarding placement of
> the MAC in the CN, I would offer two observations:
> >
> > 1) this is what is specified in the DOCSIS and PacketCable cert
> > profiles, and it was on this basis that device certs for LWAPP were
> > originally designed in this way. You can see the DOCSIS profile at
> > www.drizzle.com/~aboba/CPW/DOCSIS.ppt
> >
> > 2) I don't see anything in the X.520 language that
> explicitly precludes this usage, so assuming that the
> docsis/packetcable designers reviewed that spec, I can see
> how they could reasonably conclude that this is acceptable.
> Arguably, the string representation of the MAC address is "a
> string chosen [by the] organization responsible for the
> object it describes for devices and application entities".
> >
> > Please don't misunderstand: I'm not trying to be difficult,
> and I have a very healthy respect for the depth of your
> knowledge in this area. However, there are a *lot* of devices
> deployed that already use this convention. It might be more
> pragmatic to interpret X.520 a little less restrictively.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >>From: Stephen Kent
> >>Sent: Dec 21, 2007 3:00 PM
> >>To: Sam Hartman
> >>Cc: capwap-chairs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx, secdir@xxxxxxx
> >>Subject: Re: [secdir] Please review
> >>draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification's use of certificates
> >>
> >>At 9:23 PM -0500 12/20/07, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>Hi, folks. The capwap working group is preparing to last
> call their
> >>>protocol specification draft.
> >>>
> >>>I'd appreciate review from the pkix community of section
> 2.4.4.3 and
> >>>12.6 of this draft. These sections specify certificate validation
> >>>and certificate usage for the protocol. Scott Kelly and Charles
> >>>Clancy are security advisors for the working group and have been
> >>>heavily involved.
> >>>
> >>>The capwap certificate profile assumes that the CN in the
> certificate
> >>>has structure and contains an ethernet MAC address. The capwap
> >>>certificate profile also assumes that parts of the subject
> name such
> >>>as the organization and organizational unit will be important to
> >>>certificate matching.
> >>>
> >>>I'd appreciate review and comments.
> >>>
> >>>--Sam
> >>
> >>It would be preferable to get an allocated name space for MAC
> >>addresses, under the OtherName or, better yet, under registeredID.
> >>
> >>I'd argue that it is inappropriate to put a MAC address into a CN.
> >>The text from X.520 makes this clear:
> >>
> >>The Common Name attribute type specifies an identifier of
> an object.
> >>A Common Name is not a directory name; it is a (possibly ambiguous)
> >>name by which the object is commonly known in some limited
> scope (such
> >>as an organization) and conforms to the naming conventions of the
> >>country or culture with which it is associated.
> >>
> >>An attribute value for common name is a string chosen either by the
> >>person or organization it describes or the organization responsible
> >>for the object it describes for devices and application
> entities. For
> >>example, a typical name of a person in an English-speaking country
> >>comprises a personal title (e.g., Mr., Ms., Rd, Professor,
> Sir, Lord),
> >>a first name, middle name(s), last name, generation
> qualifier (if any,
> >>e.g., Jr.) and decorations and awards (if any e.g., QC).
> >>
> >>Examples
> >>CN = "Mr. Robin Lachlan McLeod BSc(Hons) CEng MIEE"
> >>CN = "Divisional Coordination Committee"
> >>CN = "High Speed Modem".
> >>
> >>If there is a very strong desire to make use of an existing
> attribute
> >>in the X.502 space, the SerialNumber attribute makes more sense. So
> >>long as we are talking about long, term, stable MAC
> addresses assigned
> >>to devices by manufacturers, this is consistent with the
> semantics of
> >>that attribute. Moreover, we have advised folks to use
> SerialNumber
> >>to represent data such as employee/student IDs in the past, so one
> >>might expect to see support for this attribute in many CAs and
> >>clients.
> >>
> >>Steve
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > secdir mailing list
> > secdir@xxxxxxx
> > https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/secdir
>
> _______________________________________________
> secdir mailing list
> secdir@xxxxxxx
> https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/secdir
>