Live data from Hacker News

Digicert Withdraws from the CA Security Council

digicert.com

21–30 of 73 posts

Re: Digicert Withdraws from the CA Security Council

#21

I have mixed feelings about all of this. The big philosophical divide is really around what you think a cert/https should mean. The one side (I'm summarizing here) says that HTTPS only means that the data transferred over the wire is secure and has nothing to do with authenticating that you're actually talking to the correct website. And that's correct, there are all sorts of MITM attacks, etc. that could be done and…

As Troy Hunt has been at pains to point out, some of the largest, most important and most spoofed/phished sites on the internet use only DV certs.

Google, Amazon, Facebook, and eBay are all DV. If they don't see value in EV/OV, then who on earth is it meant for?

Re: Digicert Withdraws from the CA Security Council

#22
post #3

Note that this is not the CA/Browser Forum, the usual industry association you hear about. The CA Security Council is a group of a small number of old-guard CAs, which has been notable recently for pushing a distinction between (automatic) domain validation, organizational validation, and Extended Validation, mostly as a response to Let's Encrypt. The "London Protocol" appears to be a proposal for formalizing the dis…

It's an interesting question: is there value to certificate identity verification ? Apple's App Store for example demands that companies wanting to publish apps have to undergo a verification process using a DUNS number. And this has been useful for example in resolving trademark and DMCA disputes. But not really sure if it's improved security in any way.

Of course there is. If you don't care who you're talking to, it doesn't matter if your message is encrypted. The anonymous mystery person who decrypts your HTTPS connection might be the same person who would have MITM'd your HTTP connection.

The entire concept of encryption presupposes that you care who you're talking to. If you don't, then why not just broadcast your message in the clear?

Re: Digicert Withdraws from the CA Security Council

#23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an interesting question: is there value to certificate identity verification ? Apple's App Store for example demands that companies wanting to publish apps have to undergo a verification process using a DUNS number. And this has been useful for example in resolving trademark and DMCA disputes. But not really sure if it's improved security in any way.

It's an interesting question: is there value to certificate identity verification ? This is interesting to me, in part because I've argued again and again against the idea that HTTPS must involve verification of the legal identity of the operator of a website, and for many years I always had people push back and insist that the encryption part was only a tiny, almost worthless portion of HTTPS -- identity verificatio…

It's true that unauthenticated, encrypted communication is an improvement over unencrypted communication, because it rules out pure eavesdropping attacks. The question is, what's the risk of eavesdropping compared to MITM?

Once upon a time, "using the Internet" meant shared-medium Ethernet, and the only choke-points were things like routers (too stupid to be nefarious) and ISPs (who were too busy).

These days, nearly everything is star-topography, and one of the biggest potential bad actors (the NSA) gets Internet backbone ISPs to silently do their bidding.

Sure, phishing is still a thing and identity verification doesn't solve that, but at least promoting it requires continual, repeated effort. You can't just add a black box to a network closet somewhere and come back a week later to pick up all the intercepted data.

Re: Digicert Withdraws from the CA Security Council

#24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an interesting question: is there value to certificate identity verification ? Apple's App Store for example demands that companies wanting to publish apps have to undergo a verification process using a DUNS number. And this has been useful for example in resolving trademark and DMCA disputes. But not really sure if it's improved security in any way.

Of course there is. If you don't care who you're talking to, it doesn't matter if your message is encrypted. The anonymous mystery person who decrypts your HTTPS connection might be the same person who would have MITM'd your HTTP connection. The entire concept of encryption presupposes that you care who you're talking to. If you don't, then why not just broadcast your message in the clear?

It's FUD to say encryption doesn't matter without authentication - unencrypted traffic is eavesdroppable by default and exposes you much more broadly than just being exposed to one potential bad actor.

Of course using authentication is vastly superior, but lacking it doesn't render encryption useless.

Re: Digicert Withdraws from the CA Security Council

#25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hadn't actually even _heard_ of "OV" before. Googling... I still can't tell what the difference between it and EV is supposed to be, other than how much someone paid a CA.

OV is EV where you also get the business name in the URL bar.

Other way around.

Re: Digicert Withdraws from the CA Security Council

#26
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple's case is a little different because it lets you publish native code on the phone. (You can argue that websites effectively also publish code, but the web sandbox is probably quite a bit stronger than the iOS one.) I don't think there's much advantage in knowing that you're some registered organization. It's pretty easy to register an organization - see e.g. https://stripe.ian.sh , to which the CASC responded b…

Same-origin policy does not help you on first visit, and trust on first visit is really the hard problem that PKI was invented to solve. If you can count on a prior relationship in encryption, then you don't even really need PKI. Just mutually decide on an encryption key and then use that to encrypt/decrypt your traffic. Not every website is Twitter or Facebook or Google or a major bank, where the vast majority of vi…

If you want to know if a site is trustworthy, you want a certificate from their insurance company, not their CA. Someone who is promising to pay you real money if the site contains malware or a scam or whatever. Unfortunately this sort of insurance would probably be more, not less, expensive than EV certs.

Re: Digicert Withdraws from the CA Security Council

#27
post #18

I have mixed feelings about all of this. The big philosophical divide is really around what you think a cert/https should mean. The one side (I'm summarizing here) says that HTTPS only means that the data transferred over the wire is secure and has nothing to do with authenticating that you're actually talking to the correct website. And that's correct, there are all sorts of MITM attacks, etc. that could be done and…

> It's quite unlikely that an EV cert would be issued for washingtonpostnews.com I think the https://stripe.ian.sh story argues otherwise - it would be pretty easy to start an LLC named "Washington Post News" in some other state and have the government agencies be fine with that. (In fact, for the specific case of Washington Posts, half of all US states have a city/town named "Washington.") Also the more practical pr…

This is one example, sure, but EV does, in general, work. And the reason why is not because it's an ironclad indefeatable process for proving you are legitimately a major trustworthy party: It's a frustrating pile of hoops to jump through. The arcane and archaic nature of getting an EV gates out malicious actors pretty effectively.

If you go through all of the process to get an EV (often involving scanned/faxed documents and phone calls), and then do something malicious with it, you're going to end up burning it (getting it revoked, generally, though, obviously the nightmare of revocation being still effectively broken comes into play) or even just the domain blocked by web filters and marked unsafe in the Safe Browsing list, setting you back to square one. All an EV vendor has to do for this to work is remember not to issue an EV again to anyone who uses the same credentials or proofs, whether or not they verified them with other authorities.

Whereas a domain-validated cert can, of course, be automated (as can domain purchasing), meaning DV certs can scale. As with spam, malware, etc., you just publish it in volume, keep changing addresses, content, etc. to evade automated filtering, and press on.

Meanwhile, if someone gets a Washington Post News EV, and starts impersonating WaPo, they only have one target to shut down a malicious actor.

I could give non-CA-related examples, but I've come to the belief recently that security and trust is often a matter of creating solutions which don't scale.

Re: Digicert Withdraws from the CA Security Council

#28
post #16

I have mixed feelings about all of this. The big philosophical divide is really around what you think a cert/https should mean. The one side (I'm summarizing here) says that HTTPS only means that the data transferred over the wire is secure and has nothing to do with authenticating that you're actually talking to the correct website. And that's correct, there are all sorts of MITM attacks, etc. that could be done and…

What percentage of users do you think routinely check for the presence of an EV or OV certificate on the sites they're browsing?

I think it's much, much higher in the aging population.

Re: Digicert Withdraws from the CA Security Council

#29
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What percentage of users do you think routinely check for the presence of an EV or OV certificate on the sites they're browsing?

I think it's much, much higher in the aging population.

The only place where the presence of an OV certificate is exposed is in the certificate details dialog -- the same dialog that will typically display arcane technical details like the public key and signature of the certificate. Non-technical users never look at this.

Re: Digicert Withdraws from the CA Security Council

#30

I have mixed feelings about all of this. The big philosophical divide is really around what you think a cert/https should mean. The one side (I'm summarizing here) says that HTTPS only means that the data transferred over the wire is secure and has nothing to do with authenticating that you're actually talking to the correct website. And that's correct, there are all sorts of MITM attacks, etc. that could be done and…

As Troy Hunt has been at pains to point out, some of the largest, most important and most spoofed/phished sites on the internet use only DV certs. Google, Amazon, Facebook, and eBay are all DV. If they don't see value in EV/OV, then who on earth is it meant for?

Like any security/UX thing there are issues all the way down. One of them being that you can't get an EV wildcard (because they want them to be "more secure" in certain respects) and so they're harder to manage - in particular harder to manage in big heterogenous environments.
Post reply on HN