| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
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