Hi Kathleen & Co,
I have now actually used ACME as well :)

Anyway, I see a slight disconnect between ACME and how Open Banking CAs work 
today.

That is, open banking application developers typically create an account using 
a Web application provided by the bank (or external CA). From this account they 
can retrieve application IDs as well as getting certificates and private keys 
supplied as ZIP or P12 files.

The latter is of course not ideal so the question is how this could be enhanced 
using ACME.

I'm thinking about a process where you:
- Locally create an account key-pair
- Register the public key using the aforementioned Web application
After that you have everything needed to perform automated certification 
requests using ACME or similar.

This may look similar to what many commercial CAs already do but it is actually 
quite different; account keys are long-lived keys, distinct from the keys that 
the CA is supposed to certify.

It obvious that these applications could benefit from attestations as well 
since security is highly dependent on the account keys.  Since attestations 
would be a part of every certification request, it should be sufficient to 
provide the attestation certificate during registration.

WDYT?

Anders



On 2021-11-04 21:50, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
Hi Anders,

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 2:08 PM Anders Rundgren <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    On 2021-10-19 19:00, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
     > Hello Anders,
     >
     > The draft extends ACME to add client challenge methods that might be 
helpful. This could be for several use cases including code signing automation or 
client certificate management.  Does the draft contain what you need? The use case 
from your message is not clear to me.

    Hello Kathleen,
    The client is not a person, it is a regulated entity like a payment 
processor.  These entities need client certificates for calling banks.

    Currently CAs distribute encrypted private key + certificate chain for 
installation in servers.  Both the initial part and possible updates could 
benefit from a more automated scheme which is why I find your draft interesting.

OK, so the automation via already distributed credentials, and those 
pre-existing credentials may have been supported by a manual identity proofing 
process.


    The scheme could be further strengthened by (in some way...) locking cert 
requests to the entity's domain as well.


Sure, for code signing certificates, there is a tie to the organization and the 
credentials may require a bigger process for issuance outside of ACME.

    For updates it would be cool if key container attestations also was a part 
of the plot because requests signed by the original key does not guarantee that 
the new key is in the same container.  Newer HSMs support attestations.


What are you proposing? Do you have text? I'm not clear on this part.

Thank you,
Kathleen


    Does that make sense?

    Thanx,
    Anders

     >
     > Thank you,
     > Kathleen
     >
     >
     > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 8:42 AM Anders Rundgren <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
     >
     >     After some research I found https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-client/ 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-client/> 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-client/ 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-acme-client/>> which almost fills the bill.  
What would the preferred procedure be, including challenge?
     >
     >     Attestations like offered by FIDO is not a part of ACME, right?
     >
     >     thanx,
     >     Anders
     >
     >     On 2021-10-11 9:03, Anders Rundgren wrote:
     >      > Dear ACME experts,
     >      >
     >      > I haven't kept track of ACME so please pardon my somewhat naive 
question:
     >      >
     >      > In Open Banking, service providers (TPPs) are equipped with TLS 
client certificates as well as signature certificates.  Currently the certificates 
(including associated private keys), are distributed by the CA as encrypted files.  
This makes updates fairly difficult and not entirely compatible with the highly 
regulated nature of these providers.
     >      >
     >      > Question: does ACME support this scenario?
     >      >
     >      > thanx,
     >      > Anders
     >      >
     >
     >
     >
     > --
     >
     > Best regards,
     > Kathleen



--

Best regards,
Kathleen

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

Reply via email to