Netherlands blocks US takeover of vital digital supplier

Two thirds of Europeans want this - https://www.techpolicy.press/almost-two-thirds-of-europeans-...

> The figures were almost universal across all categories: 62 percent of those surveyed across the five European countries said they favored or had considered replacing US data storage and payment services, while 59 percent of respondents said they would back a change from American video-conferencing companies like Zoom.

(Technically only five countries in the EU in this survey, but the five most populous countries, and presumably other countries generally agree)

Disclaimer: I have more exposure to Ukrainian variation of this setup (see jkurwa) than to actual Estonian and extrapolate a bit from what I heard from people. Half of this may be outdated or wrong, but I believe that the general vibe is correct.

From what I know about Estonian eID stack, they use traditional PKI to the full extent -- LDAP, PKI, OCSP, all the standard designs from the 90ies and then internally (for use by the government itself) they have a sort of a document exchange system on top of that where everything is done through CMS (PKCS). I believe this is why eIDAS and trust services directive talk about trust lists, qualified certificate authorities and all that.

So you get a physical id card that is a smart card for X509 certificate and then sign, encrypt and do all the stuff you do with keys once you figured out key management. Since the key can't leave the card you need to deal either with a special Estonian keyboard that doubles as a keyreader (in Ukrainian flavor we get a mobile app that can generate a key and get x509 issued remotely, maybe Estonia has that too nowdays or we get a file-based key from a trusted provider, like a bank) or get an actual keyreader or a phone. On the provider side you also have to deal with trust lists, because Estonia and Lithuania don't use the same root of course.

The first gotcha is -- if you have LDAP, CSP and OCSP and can query those, that's a bit of a privacy risk (AFAIK, primary key is based on the date of birth, because reasons). Second gotcha -- key rotation is not practical, so certificates are long lived. Certificates that I saw had demographic identifier of the person as a serial, which is not great for privacy, but convenient for deployment I guess (for comparison, Ukrainian flavor only allows CSP through subject key and has the number deep in the directory lookup extension)

I don't think the stack is bad, but I think it's an overkill for the basic feature of logging into the government website and blessing some bytes with your legal persona. It does help when the user signs a legal document and then tries to walk it back (for example because the document is now an exhibit A in a VAT fraud case, yes real story). I think this particular problem can be solved by non-technical means. More specifically, PKI solves the problem of verifying the identity of the user and then allowing to prove to a third party that it happened.

What is actually needed from the ID stack is allowing a first party in a closed system to match the token presented by a second party to their legal identity. I don't believe cryptographic signing or key derivation is really necessary, as the system that produces the key and the system that verifies the signed artifact are the same entity in most threat models.

I think DigID does the right thing by being a glorified OTP generator with more or less nice UX that solves just that. The actual problem is key provisioning anyways, but once you have done that, it isn't necessary to go full PKI.

To make my point even more ahm pointy, we don't use client X509 to log into github or google. We use passwords, HOTP and fidokeys, because x509 has bad UX and bad security too (in practice)

Add: downvotes for explaining why PKI is an overkill? okay, I will not survive that

This is exactly why privacy by architecture matters more than privacy by policy. The Netherlands trusted a policy ("Solvinity can't access the data") but the architecture allowed it anyway. The only real solution is cryptographic sovereignty systems where even the vendor mathematically cannot access user data, regardless of what US law says. Not we promise we won't look but we literally cannot look. Building something small in this direction a mesh network where identity is a BIP-39 seed phrase and messages are E2E encrypted at the protocol level,not the application level. The goal is that even I as the developer cannot read user messages. It's still early, but this problem you're describing is exactly why it needs to exist.

This comment gets my personal "The most logical position of the day" award

> Sanctioning people is basically risk-free and more importantly dollar-free.

In the long term, I think this was actually really expensive. People talk and worry about this, and as a result of this (and similar developments) general consensus seems to have shifted towards preferring EU companies over US companies for tech. That used to be the exact opposite for as long as I can remember.