The foundation of a more secure web: Google Trust Services

Post by exolymph » Fri, Jan 27, 2017, 4:22 AM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #80

cuckcuckspruce wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AOL is dead, long live AOL!/s For serious though, there's not really any lock-in here (yet). You could replace everything from the certificate through the public DNS with GoDaddy and things would work just fine. I don't really see Google moving to close the web parts of this.

We still need to make choices that guarantee it's the case in the future. We need to ensure we don't end up with environment as diverse as email where most people use Gmail, or Linux services which are all being rewritten under systemd, or many other cases where we voluntarily choose a monoculture that can force our choices in the future...

Post by justicezyx » Fri, Jan 27, 2017, 4:27 AM UTC

reddiric wrote: post #79

mastax wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Google less trustworthy than Go Daddy? Or CNNIC? Or the Hong Kong Post Office? Yes the CA system is broken but framing that as an anti-Google argument seems silly.

I didn't make a claim if they were trustworthy. Google has leveraged their properties to force people to trust them with the rest of the internet, regardless of if you think they are trustworthy or not.

Post by quickben » Fri, Jan 27, 2017, 4:34 AM UTC

algesten wrote: post #40

JoshTriplett wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this feels wrong, though I can't quite pin point why. It's unusual for a root CA to be run by a service that otherwise has nothing to do with CA issuance, for the primary purpose of issuing certificates for that service's first-party sites, and not for third-party sites. I can't think of a single other example of a single-purpose root CA like this. (The announcement mentions that they might use this to operate as a…

I guess if NSA/FBI forces google to hand over the CA keys, they kan orchestrate undetectable MITM-attacks. I wonder why browser won't automatically store the fingerprint for every HTTPS-certificate it encounters and throw up a fuzz to the user if a certificate changes without any good reason?

Post by AdieuToLogic » Fri, Jan 27, 2017, 4:48 AM UTC

niftich wrote: post #43

I don't think this is a bad thing. Instead of a third-party you trust (or rather, your user-agent trusts) vouching that Google's indeed Google, it's now Google vouching for itself, and you trust them by the virtue that they're Google. This ought not be surprising: presumably, who better to say that Google is indeed Google than Google itself? The reason everyone doesn't run a root CA is because it's difficult to coord…

  I don't think this is a bad thing. ... This ought
  not be surprising: presumably, who better to say
  that Google is indeed Google than Google itself?

  Especially #2 is rather nasty, even if you
  pay for a highly trusted certificate, your site
  will not be in any way locked to that
  certificate, you have to trust all CAs in the
  client's browser since any of them can generate
  a fake cert for your site that is just as valid.
  It also does not require access to either the
  server or the client.

Post by tantalor » Fri, Jan 27, 2017, 5:51 AM UTC

arkitaip wrote: post #128

Cyph0n wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's remaining is: server written in Go, running on a Google server OS, located on a Google designed server appliance, which is centrally controlled by a Google designed microprocessor, which is finally manufactured in a Google owned semiconductor foundry. Oh, and the sand used for silicon purification is sourced from a Google-owned stretch of beach. I haven't considered the internals of the datacenter though...

What I am waiting for is a good shopping experience hosted by Google. Can for the life of my not understand why did still haven't done this because it would solve so many of their problems wrt ads and purchasing.