Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:99761
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.174 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jakub.php@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CANUQDChUwSWmXj4ddsTs8Zqbvku3bVQJBGc2605Zxysg+NgO+Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANUQDCiUYNwH_tkZyS_cbWVa1X=4CAA3_14VD+fYjAXk-JU=1g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANUQDChzB7EYyx8QOPgDC2TPR7n-h-dK43tHDfTZ=ocHPLHSOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEKnhAH8eGzcUsWODc75_L1kq4OtF2bvR7qJkijWWSVoY7c_mQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANUQDChVGuF1rrG3+AVTT+pp0nEmDw7MXyGGX7nVbQ42Kpgytw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEKnhAH78Uey_Tp43UY+AVaADi-ckvtBW9EqsuKTj8iDfK+AGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANUQDCivjqg_NN+Zr_ZWWxh8mQyV3JVi1JDSY-ymVoc8ZKyR6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <HE1PR02MB1052A742CD23C1CA9DF54F6EBAD60@HE1PR02MB1052.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CANUQDChRXr3FB+fa7744KaBBvawQ+QhLn8z46qAaAdU85pxtbw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAESVnVoO-Pe+SQeCn1gywQaZA4z4nL7Mtq+7PwYWeAbP=3juZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANUQDChhO7A6by5tcimeEobaP-4k1TRsm4sXh75=K2sCi5HzHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <HE1PR02MB105234EBBCC3B38F2D5105B3BAD70@HE1PR02MB1052.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CANUQDChnN1Mi6E-EUPgFkr5muHCkQt7xDA5F8oy5h2Cxph6Q3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <HE1PR02MB1052F972CF1C581D0A38EB76BAD70@HE1PR02MB1052.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <CANUQDChUwSWmXj4ddsTs8Zqbvku3bVQJBGc2605Zxysg+NgO+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 14:23:46 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEKnhAGiM1+G1P1B-tfn4SGDTHfAi6nh8sO7yyWKeFxHsBcvHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Niklas Keller <me@kelunik.com>
Cc: Anatol Belski <weltling@outlook.de>, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>, 
	PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1358f4ef9e17055391e86b"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] Distrust SHA-1 Certificates
From: bukka@php.net (Jakub Zelenka)

--94eb2c1358f4ef9e17055391e86b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi,

On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Niklas Keller <me@kelunik.com> wrote:

> But the RFC is what you wrote about some days ago. Anything I told is
>> based on the RFC and the previous conversations. My understanding was, that
>> you were intended to push the exact RFC to vote. If you tell now there's no
>> approach and the RFC has to be ignored, then it doesn't help. If there's
>> another approach, so please present it.
>
>
> Nobody wants to backport OpenSSL's implementation, so I don't see the
> viability of supporting `auth_level`.
>
> Backporting auth_level would be overkill but we could add a sig_level as I
said previously. It would simplify many things in the future and address
exactly the issue. Setting explicit options named by algorithm is not
flexible and after couple of years it will be just an ugly unused leftover
from past...


> I've outlined my current suggestion several mails ago:
>
> -----
> I think the best approach for now would be that:
>
> Add two new context options for the "ssl" wrapper:
> "insecure_allow_md5_signature" and "insecure_allow_sha1_signature". They
> will both default to false starting in PHP 7.2 while the backports to PHP
> 7.1 and 7.0 will default to true. Additionally there will be two INI
> options which are only added to PHP 7.1 and 7.0 to allow people to
> immediately upgrade to secure defaults without any risk of breaking other
> apps.
> -----
>
>
I don't like adding new INI in general. It won't really help because people
won't usually set it and changing behavior in such way is not good IMHO.

To sum it up I'd really prefer solution based on security level (in this
case just a sig_level part of it) and have it just as a context option
which could be backported in the following way:

7.0 - default to 0 (the same behavior as now to be safe)
7.1 - default to 1 (80 bits of security and more - disable md5 as it
shouldn't break too many apps and at least protect against md5 signed
certs).
7.2 - default to 2 (SHA-1 disabled as well).

Cheers

Jakub

--94eb2c1358f4ef9e17055391e86b--