full-disclosure - Re: Slightly OT: What SSL cert do you consider strongest?

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20131023101231.GB21892@gremlin.ru>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 14:12:31 +0400
From: gremlin@...mlin.ru
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Slightly OT: What SSL cert do you consider
	strongest?

On 22-Oct-2013 16:14:00 -0400, David Miller wrote:

 > After the PRISM and other Snowden leaks, inquiring minds want to
 > know: whose SSL certs are to be trusted?
 > Is a self-signed cert likely to be stronger?

Obviously, yes: any issuer in any country may be forced (by local
authorities) to issue a valid certificate for any host or domain,
so no one will be able to distinguish between original host with
updated certificate and MitM proxy operated by feds.

-- 
Alexey V. Vissarionov aka Gremlin from Kremlin <gremlin ПРИ gremlin ТЧК ru>
GPG: 8832FE9FA791F7968AC96E4E909DAC45EF3B1FA8 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/