MHonArc v2.4.5 -->
















ebxml-msg message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: [ebxml-msg] RE: [ebxml-cppa-comment] A "Trivial" Secure e-businessQuestion




From: Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>
To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren@telia.com>,ebxml-msg-comment@lists.oasis-open.org, ebxml-cppa-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 09:46:07 -0700






Title: Message



 

  

  

  
Hi 
  Anders,
  
 
  
Thanks for your question. I will be adding it to the 
  CPPA agenda at our upcoming face to face in San Diego Mar 10 to 
  14.
  
 
  
Actually this issue was raised during the ebXML 
  TA Risk and Security analysis 
  group. 
  
 
  
The 
  possibility exists for multiple partyIds being used in both Messaging and 
  CPPA. The systems for identification of a subject are varied and 
  CPPA has a draft discussing some of the alternatives. Then system 
  configurations can add the Distinguished Name (DN) system of 
  X.509 as one "type" of PartyId, and use the IETF's string serialization 
  of DN  to carry values. In that way we can convey multiple IDs for 
  the party (=subject) , without imposing constraints on the DN in the 
  certificate itself. 


  
I t might, however, be 
  worthwhile exploring conventions for how users of one 
  PartyID naming scheme make use of, say, DUNS numbers in a 
  DN
  
 
  
Like you,  I am not certain either how to obtain 
  a consensus for such a convention or how to gain sanction for that 
  convention-- that is, what standards body approval would be appropriate. Also 
  would the same DN be used in the possibly distinct certificates involved in 
  SSL/TLS, digital signature on a message, application security and so on? 
  


  
T he DNS name is one 
  that is now used within SSL/TLS, to identify a server. That keypair is 
  usually under tight control of the server and it can be a job to make it 
  available to other applications unless they both support pkcs12 export/import 
  (and even then it can be a job!!). 


  
S o it is definitely worth 
  considering at the face to face, and I will also try to raise the 
  issue during the joint meetings next Wednesday with 
  Messaging.
  
 
  
Dale 
  Moberg 


  

  

  
  
Question:  How should the identity as 
  expressed in a business document relate to the identity as expressed by 
  the signer's certificate?

  

  
  

Among the complications we find
  

    
The PKI-identity is presumably "strong" as it is 
    vouched for by a CA, while the identity in the business document is 
    only "claimed" by the entity itself.  ==> The PKI identity is 
    governing?

    
The hierarchical naming system used by PKI 
    (X.500) is completely different to the various naming schemes used 
    in businesses.

    
Some PKI-folks claim that signatures should be 
    tied to individuals.  Does this mean that the signer's certificate in 
    the sample should identify John Doe of Big Buyer Corp.?

    
The receivers (relying parties) are 
    automated processes supposed to securely handle similar messages from 
    numerous business parties.

    
Current e-commerce standards like ebXML and Web 
    Services does not address this basic question.
  
One can note that the only PKIs working on a 
  global scale, are building on a one-to-one identity mapping between the 
  entity's perceived identity and the identity as expressed in the 
  certificate.  Yes, I of course refer to e-mail and web-server 
  certificates.   Other aspiring users of PKI, like e-commerce, 
  have not even begun to look into this issue as apparently 
  nobody feels that it is "their business".  Who are we wainting 
  for?  The IETF, OASIS, W3C, EU, or the UN?  Or are we maybe waiting 
  for Microsoft and VeriSign?.

A LONG-TERM REMEDY

To create a foundation for a 
  more robust and "frictionless" PKI-secured e-business, I strongly believe 
  that there long-term should be a one-to-one mapping between 
  [basic] business message identities and certificate identities.  As the 
  business community is never going to adopt X.500 naming, as well as having 
  their own naming problems, this will likely require changes on both 
  sides.  A possible scheme using the currently only globally 
  functioning naming system (DNS/URIs), is that entities are uniquely defined by 
  two elements:

- A naming domain (name space) based on a URI like: 
  "http://www.visa.com/cc"
- A local 
  identifier in that domain like: 4555-5555-2244-8888

Although the 
  example identified a credit-card, the scheme works for just about any kind of 
  object or entity.  An advantage of using HTTP URIs is that you usually 
  can get further information "by clicking on the link".

  
Regards
Anders Rundgren
Senior Internet 
  e-commerce Architect
  
+46 70 - 627 74 
37















[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]