[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100908203422.GG2207@sentinelchicken.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 13:34:22 -0700
From: Tim <tim-security@...tinelchicken.org>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: [GOATSE SECURITY] Clench: Goatse's way to say
"screw you" to certificate authorities
> > I'd rather have a company pay some good bucks to get their hands on a
> > highly trusted certificate than kids who's aim in life is wiping as
> > much hard disks as possible.
> > Which also answers why those $10-$20 assholes does a better job than
> > the kids we all know about...
>
> Same. I would rather trust a large company that doesn't care about
> anything except for my cash, instead of developing a different framework
> that is not based around money.
I think you're on to something there, in that if a company's business
model were completely built on trust, then they would actually want to
protect that and not give up keys to governments.
However, why don't we have server certificates with multiple
independent CA signatures? From there, browsers/clients could be
written to be more suspicious of single-signature Sub-CAs signed by
CAs that aren't considered as safe/trustworthy (based on whatever
political prejudices you choose).
SSL PKI won't work if it's as flexible as PGP's web of trust, but
there's no reason it needs to be as fragile as it is now.
tim
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists