Subject: Re: Conclusion - Biometric inclusion in QC

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 10:30:42 +0200

Denis,

I believe it was me who pointed out the possibility to include a hash of a
precalculated bio-metric template. It didn't get that much support on this
list but I agree that it would work very well in some applications.

To the problem. How do I know that the message I now reply to, was written
by that Dennis Pinkas that I met in Minneapolis??? 
Probably because that would certainly be the only Dennis Pinkas in the
world who would talk about "low-fat leaf certificates" :-)  Right?

So your name is not the only thing that convince me that this is you. Even
so in this environment anyone could use your name. Still I'm almost 100%
sure that this message came from the real Dennis Pinkas. Why? Because it
makes sense.

What I'm trying to say is that in most cases in life, we do just fine with
a name, and the fact that the person speaks about the right things, and in
a way, that makes sense to us. In some cases this is not enough but that's
often the cases where the "trusting" party also know you by some of your
unique identifiers (such as SSN).

But never the less. Your scenario may also be very valid. I just wander if
this is such a large issue that it makes it worth putting down all the hard
work it takes to come up with an agreeable solution that will enhance
interoperability in any meaningful way (more than the current profile
already does).

And don't forget that putting a hash of a picture in a QC, is already a
valid option. For example you can use this hash as a unique identifier
(issued by the CA) and put it in the dNQualifier attribute. Then include an
attributeSemantics OID defining this property. And you are all set !!

/Stefan

At 04:42 PM 3/30/99 +0200, Denis Pinkas wrote:
>Stefan,
>
>I have kept silent but looked at this interresting discussion. I will re-use
>some of the arguments sent to the list.
>
>How can I make a difference between "the" John Brown I met last monday and
the
>other 2000 (?) John Brown's ?
>Maybe "my" John Brown is John Brown 1278, but in fact I do not know. I could
>easily make the difference if the picture from John Brown was included in the
>certificate. While reading this, some might jump from their chair since I
have
>been advocating low-fat leaf certificates at the last PKIX meeting !
>
>The solution has already been given on this list. Instead of including the
>whole picture, a hash of the picture could be included. Now John Brown could
>provide me with the picture while sending me a signed message and I could
>verify that it corresponds to the picture of the John Brown I met.
>
>Two observations:
>
>1) John Brown is free to release me his picture or not. In this way his
privacy
>may be respected, even if his certificate is published.
>2) Once I got the picture, I do not need it once again. This solves bandwith
>for other exchanges.
>
>As a conclusion, I would welcomme an extension able to handle hash values of
>biometric information, in particular pictures.
>
>Denis
>
>
>> I have now concluded the bio-metric topic as settled.
>>
>> The conclusion is to NOT include support for bio-metric data in the profile
>> at this stage.
>> At least not until the list has provided an agreeable solution that can
>> enhance interoperability in some meaningful way.
>>
>> The informational web site http://www.accurata.se/QC/ has been updated with
>> the rationale for this conclusion.
>>
>> Look under "Settled topics"
>>
>> /Stefan
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Stefan Santesson                <[email-masked]>
>> Accurata Systemsäkerhet AB      http://www.accurata.se
>> Slagthuset                      Tel. +46-40 108588
>> 211 20  Malmö                   Fax. +46-40 150790
>> Sweden                        Mobile +46-70 5247799
>>
>> PGP fingerprint: 89BC 6C79 5B3D 591B 8547  1512 7D11 DBF4 528F 29A0
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stefan Santesson                <[email-masked]>
Accurata Systemsäkerhet AB      http://www.accurata.se
Slagthuset                      Tel. +46-40 108588              
211 20  Malmö                   Fax. +46-40 150790              
Sweden                        Mobile +46-70 5247799

PGP fingerprint: 89BC 6C79 5B3D 591B 8547  1512 7D11 DBF4 528F 29A0
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Denis Pinkas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 11:09:23 +0200

Stefan,

My comments are along the lines.

> precalculated bio-metric template.

There may be quite true, I did not checked who it was.

> It didn't get that much support on this

Good.

> by that Dennis Pinkas that I met in Minneapolis???

I do not believe you met any Dennis Pinkas, maybe you met a Denis Pinkas.

> world who would talk about "low-fat leaf certificates" :-)  Right?

No. Any one of the 400 persons that was at the PKIX meeting could impersonate me
by talking of "low-fat leaf certificates". Anyway, this is not the main topic.

> sure that this message came from the real Dennis Pinkas. Why? Because it

More important, because it comes from an e-mail address that sounds correct.

> But never the less. Your scenario may also be very valid.

Fine.

> I just wander if

I believe that, if we have consensus, it will be interesting to support this
capability.

> attributeSemantics OID defining this property. And you are all set !!

If I understand correctly, you mean that we have some means to have an extension,
... but we still need to define that extension.
This is exactly what I am advocating for.

Regards,

Denis