11–20 of 157 posts
I think the author is a little disingenuous with the term "security theatre". Basically he argues that OCSP doesn't work because hard fail might cause DOS -- but fails to conclude that without OCSP SSL/TLS is useless . It's a long argument for saying that the CA system is broken (you can only trust the white-list chrome provides) -- and the sensible conclusion is that you cannot trust any other certificate chains (wi…
I'm honestly kind of surprised how little action there has been to assist with a migration away from the CA model. The technology is there, but people just don't seem interested enough to leverage it. Systems like Namecoin could serve this purpose marvelously. Powerful devices have direct access to the entire cryptographically authenticated DNS and certificate database. Weak devices can specify whom they trust to pro…
Namecoin is fantastic in theory, but has the fatal flaw of using Bitcoin: the fastest number cruncher wins. Some would argue that the strength of Bitcoin's tech is that numerous currencies with different genesis blocks can flourish. That doesn't get us anywhere with naming, though.
Dead horse flog: the CA model's problem is that you can't do federated (global) naming and federated trust in the same system.
I'm honestly kind of surprised how little action there has been to assist with a migration away from the CA model. The technology is there, but people just don't seem interested enough to leverage it. Systems like Namecoin could serve this purpose marvelously. Powerful devices have direct access to the entire cryptographically authenticated DNS and certificate database. Weak devices can specify whom they trust to pro…
I should be able to choose who I trust, a notary system would allow me to do just that. No central CA systems.
The biggest concern I can see is Identity management, but, as mentioned by Moxie, most of these CA don't do anything close to proper Identity management any more - I have a number of certificates bought from quite a few different CA's all made out to my rabbit, at no fixed address.
Notaries can, of course, do additional verification - they could even advertise this as a premium.
I don't see why this can't be extended to DNS lookup's either. I trust X notaries and pin the results I get, I can choose to trust a majority, or be hyper paranoid and require everyone to agree. No need to run a power hungry blockchain, no single point of technology failure.
Technically, all of that is feasible today. And I imagine we will see a number of different technologies combined to form a proper, decentralised, system.
I'm honestly kind of surprised how little action there has been to assist with a migration away from the CA model. The technology is there, but people just don't seem interested enough to leverage it. Systems like Namecoin could serve this purpose marvelously. Powerful devices have direct access to the entire cryptographically authenticated DNS and certificate database. Weak devices can specify whom they trust to pro…
Why have a single entity at all? Moxie Marlinspike proposed Convergence ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Wl2FW2TcA ) as a solution - I think that something like that has far more potential wheels to travel than a Namecoin based system. I should be able to choose who I trust, a notary system would allow me to do just that. No central CA systems. The biggest concern I can see is Identity management, but, as mentione…
> if the attacker still has control of the site, they can hop from CA to CA getting certificates. (And they will have the full OCSP validity period to use after each revocation.)
The solution here is to not allow OCSP stapling to request a new certificate and use a full OCSP check to verify that the cert wasnt revoked.
I'm honestly kind of surprised how little action there has been to assist with a migration away from the CA model. The technology is there, but people just don't seem interested enough to leverage it. Systems like Namecoin could serve this purpose marvelously. Powerful devices have direct access to the entire cryptographically authenticated DNS and certificate database. Weak devices can specify whom they trust to pro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why have a single entity at all? Moxie Marlinspike proposed Convergence ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Wl2FW2TcA ) as a solution - I think that something like that has far more potential wheels to travel than a Namecoin based system. I should be able to choose who I trust, a notary system would allow me to do just that. No central CA systems. The biggest concern I can see is Identity management, but, as mentione…
Want to help us work on this problem at http://telehash.org ?
The web, as a technology is probably not going anywhere for a few more decades at least - people have gotten very used to opening up a web browser - very few actually understand the technology beneath.
The CA/DNS issue is one based solely around them - can I type the domain name I saw on the tv/ my friend gave me/I heard about into a web browser (and these days) and it can direct me (securely) to the page where I can do business.
Telehash seems to fit in on another level. Perhaps one which we are heading towards - a world of machines securely finding and communicating with each other to achieve a goal set for them by some human actor.
This space is becoming more crowded and no good contender has emerged - and I think there is a good reason - they are either too radical as so they can't find a footing, or they are too conservative.
The documentation is slightly lax, but I feel telehash is the latter - it doesn't seem to be solving any problems already solved:
* Space/Storage/Data Transfer - I don't care what anyone says, the blockchain model is simply no scalable, any system where are full client has to hold onto/download gigabytes of information is a non-starter for me.
But still, in any new system - hopefully decentralised, we need to distribute information. Any kind of system we build must be tolerant of partitioning - I think the solution to this is injecting some trust (ala Convergence)
* Speed - Computers work in nanoseconds, the web currently operates in seconds (some sites in milliseconds) - we can't beat the speed of light, but we can certainly start removing the cruft from our communications - HTML, XML, JSON, CSV - are all formats designed for people. We need tools that let us manipulate formats designed for machines.
Our networking protocols are like this as well - as much as people hate ASN.1 it solved some problems decades ago allowing the phone system to scale on just duct tape and wd40
* Power - Blockchain bashing time again - we live in a world of limited, expensive power. We are getting much better at producing low power devices, people like wireless devices. Why should our networks be so power-hungry?
Just a few, rambling thoughts.
I'm honestly kind of surprised how little action there has been to assist with a migration away from the CA model. The technology is there, but people just don't seem interested enough to leverage it. Systems like Namecoin could serve this purpose marvelously. Powerful devices have direct access to the entire cryptographically authenticated DNS and certificate database. Weak devices can specify whom they trust to pro…
The migration away from the CA model is called "certificate pinning". Chrome uses it for high-value sites, and you use it whenever you ssh somewhere and the key's fingerprint is in your .ssh/known_hosts file.
TOFU/POP is not an effective model for the web. There are simply too many sites for it to be useful. It's pretty much an everyday occurrence that I go to a site I've never been to before, and certificate pinning won't help at all there.
I'm honestly kind of surprised how little action there has been to assist with a migration away from the CA model. The technology is there, but people just don't seem interested enough to leverage it. Systems like Namecoin could serve this purpose marvelously. Powerful devices have direct access to the entire cryptographically authenticated DNS and certificate database. Weak devices can specify whom they trust to pro…
Why have a single entity at all? Moxie Marlinspike proposed Convergence ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Wl2FW2TcA ) as a solution - I think that something like that has far more potential wheels to travel than a Namecoin based system. I should be able to choose who I trust, a notary system would allow me to do just that. No central CA systems. The biggest concern I can see is Identity management, but, as mentione…
How do you figure that Namecoin is a "single entity"?
I'm honestly kind of surprised how little action there has been to assist with a migration away from the CA model. The technology is there, but people just don't seem interested enough to leverage it. Systems like Namecoin could serve this purpose marvelously. Powerful devices have direct access to the entire cryptographically authenticated DNS and certificate database. Weak devices can specify whom they trust to pro…
There's been plenty of action, but you can't turn the whole world on a dime. Namecoin is fantastic in theory, but has the fatal flaw of using Bitcoin: the fastest number cruncher wins. Some would argue that the strength of Bitcoin's tech is that numerous currencies with different genesis blocks can flourish. That doesn't get us anywhere with naming, though. Dead horse flog: the CA model's problem is that you can't do…
What's the issue with that? It's reasonable to assume that the good number crunchers will always have more power than the bad number crunchers, and if that assumption ever fails, it's easy to detect and we're simply back to CA levels of security.