Live data from Hacker News

Launching in 2015: A Certificate Authority to Encrypt the Entire Web

eff.org

141–150 of 476 posts

Re: Launching in 2015: A Certificate Authority to Encrypt the Entire Web

#141
It would be nice to have support for ECDSA certificates. I've not found a CA yet who'll provide one of these, despite the fact that many clients to already support them. Unfortunately, after a brief look through client.py I can't see any support for this. Is there any good way of filing an RFE or contributing a patch?

ECDSA certs are much cheaper to decrypt, and there's still some places (especially mobile) where TLS is a noticeable overhead - it'd be great to have a CA that provides them.

Re: Launching in 2015: A Certificate Authority to Encrypt the Entire Web

#142

Very interesting, it looks like they're working with IdenTrust on this. I wonder if it supports wildcard certs. Like StartCom selling Class 2/3, running a CA is very expensive and I wonder how they plan on recouping the fees for this.

> running a CA is very expensive and I wonder how they plan on recouping the fees for this Is it? Seems like it should be dirt cheap to me. It's basically just an API for generating and revoking certs.

WebTrust audits are the bulk of the cost. We got quoted $150k for our first audit. This is a yearly thing too.

You also have to pay for your own cage in a datacenter, the HSM, validation staff, etc...

Re: Launching in 2015: A Certificate Authority to Encrypt the Entire Web

#144
So this means that GoDaddy, Namecheap, Verisign and other sellers/resellers of SSL certificates will need to lower their prices soon, right? Because in a short time many websites won't need to purchase one since they can get it free.

Also, have they built this system with a completely scalable distributed architecture? For it to be practical it needs to be performant.

Also, does the NSA have access to the core of this system?

Re: Launching in 2015: A Certificate Authority to Encrypt the Entire Web

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a legitimate requirement. HTTP can be man-in-the-middled passively, and without detection; making dragnets super easy. In order for HTTPS self signed certs to be effectively man-in-the-middled the attacker needs to be careful to only selectively MITM because if the attacker does it indiscriminately clients can record what public key was used. The content provider can have a process that sits on top of a VPN…

> HTTP can be man-in-the-middled passively, and without detection; making dragnets super easy. Nothing can be man-in-the-middled passively, that makes no sense. That isn't what a MitM is. It requires active involvement by its very nature. > In order for HTTPS self signed certs to be effectively man-in-the-middled the attacker needs to be careful to only selectively MITM because if the attacker does it indiscriminatel…

> Nothing can be man-in-the-middled passively, that makes no sense. That isn't what a MitM is. It requires active involvement by its very nature.

By this I mean record all form submissions done through HTTP.

>> In order for HTTPS self signed certs to be effectively man-in-the-middled the attacker needs to be careful to only selectively MITM because if the attacker does it indiscriminately clients can record what public key was used.

> I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say.

The default thing we're trying to prevent is someone close to the server MITMing every request, recording each post, and reenacting them so that they are not discovered.

> If the MitM originates from a specific location (e.g. a single Starbucks, a single hotel, an airport, etc) it would never be detected by that method.

That is true for the example I gave which is just a proof-of-concept, but not true for a better method, like decentralization + public key signing.

What I'm fundamentally saying is that Cert + HTTPS is more secure, but it is not fully secure, since you have to trust the cert provider. Just in the same way, HTTPS without cert is not fully secure, but it is (much) more secure than HTTP.

Re: Launching in 2015: A Certificate Authority to Encrypt the Entire Web

#147

This certificate industry has been such a racket. It's not even tacit that there are two completely separate issues that certificates and encryption solve. They get conflated and non technical users rightly get confused about which thing is trying to solve a problem they aren't sure why they have. The certificate authorities are quite in love that the self-signed certificate errors are turning redder, bolder, and big…

It's not enough to keep the snoops out - you need to KNOW you're keeping the snoops out. That's what SSL helps with. A certificate is just a key issued by a public (aka trusted) authority. Sites can also choose to verify the certificate: if this is done, even if a 3rd party can procure a fake cert, if they don't have the same cert the web server uses, they can't snoop the traffic.

Site: Here's my public key. Use it to verify that anything I sent you came from me. But don't take my word for it, verify it against a set of trusted authorities pre-installed on your machine.

Browser: Ok, your cert checks out. Here's my public key. You can use it for the same.

Site: Ok, now I need you to reply this message with the entire certificate chain you have for me to make sure a 3rd party didn't install a root cert and inject keys between us. Encrypt it with both your private key and my public key.

Browser: Ok, here it is: ASDSDFDFSDFDSFSD.

Site: That checks out. Ok, now you can talk to me.

This is what certificates help with. There are verification standards that apply, and all the certificate authorities have to agree to follow these standards when issuing certain types of SSL certificates. The most stringent, the "Green bar" with the entity name, often require verification through multiple means, including bank accounts. Certificate authorities that fail to verify properly can have their issuing privileges revoked (though this is hard to do in practice, it can be done).

Re: Launching in 2015: A Certificate Authority to Encrypt the Entire Web

#148

How does a CA that's formed by a conglomerate of U.S. companies (under the jurisdiction of the NSA) make us any safer than we are currently? It doesn't. The chain of trust chains up all the way to a U.S. company, which can be coerced into giving up the certificate and compromising the security of the entire chain. I'm on the side of the EFF trying to encrypt the web, but this is not the solution.

truth be told, it doesn't make anyone safer. it's a big fat placebo, especially once the NSA realizes that this project is entirely under their jurisdiction.

Now, if there was a project in Iceland or Seychelles that was doing something similar, I would be much more apt to participate.

Re: Launching in 2015: A Certificate Authority to Encrypt the Entire Web

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Browsers shouldn't silently accept self-signed, but there is a class of servers where self-signed is the best we've got: connecting to embedded devices. If I want to talk to the new printer or fridge I got over the web, they have no way of establishing trust besides Tacking my first request to them.

Technically, there's no reason why a fridge couldn't have a signed cert tied to some dynamic DNS (e.g. . . ).

But note that only works if the manufacturer can choose the name without an issue from the customer. For things like network appliances in larger companies that aren't going to want [generic number]manufacturer.com but want [my name].corp.[my company].com, you're stuck.

Re: Launching in 2015: A Certificate Authority to Encrypt the Entire Web

#150
post #60

This certificate industry has been such a racket. It's not even tacit that there are two completely separate issues that certificates and encryption solve. They get conflated and non technical users rightly get confused about which thing is trying to solve a problem they aren't sure why they have. The certificate authorities are quite in love that the self-signed certificate errors are turning redder, bolder, and big…

> A self signed certificate warning means "Warning! The admin on the site you're connecting to wants this conversation to be private but it hasn't been proven that he has 200 bucks for us to say he's cool" no. It means "even though this connection is encrypted, there is no way to tell you whether you are currently talking to that site or to NSA which is forwarding all of your traffic to the site you're on". Treating…

> It's just the best that we currently have.

No, I wouldn't say so. Having SSL is better than having nothing pretty much on any site. But if you don't want to pay $200 somebody for nothing, you would probably consider using http by default on your site, because it just looks "safer" to the user that knows nothing about cryptography because of how browsers behave. Which is nonsense. It's worse than nothing.

And CA are not "authorities" at all. They could lie to you, they could be compromised. Of course, the fact that this certificate has been confirmed by "somebody" makes it a little more reliable than if it never was confirmed by anyone at all, but these "somebodies", CA, don't have any control over the situation, it's just some guys that came up with idea to make money like that early enough. You are as good CA as Symantec is, you can just start selling certificates and it would be the same — except, well, you are just some guy, so browsers wouldn't accept these certificates so it's worth nothing. It's all just about trust, and I'm not sure I trust Symantec more than I trust you. (And I don't mean I actually trust you, by the way.)

For everyone else it's not really about SSL, security and CAs, it's just about how popular browsers behave.

So, no, monopolies existing for the reason they are allowed to do something are never good. Only if they do it for free.

Post reply on HN