News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on EFF to Verizon: Etisalat Certificate Authority Threatens Web Security. Parent comment

Re:EFF to Verizon: Etisalat Certificate Authority Threatens ... by sqrt17 on Saturday August 14, 2010 @11:13AM (#1603397)
... and if the owner of somerandomdomain.net lets his domain expire, you're faced with the choice of (a) put his SSL key (along with a couple thousand others) on the global CRL, which then grows to monstruous proportions or (b) let the old somerandomdomain owner play man-in-the-middle games with the new somerandomdomain customers?

Also, would that mean that VeriSign (.com registrar) would be your only option for a .com SSL certificate?

(I'm not saying it's a bad idea to limit CA authority to a certain top-level or second-level domain, it's just that I see certain problems with doing it wholesale and in parallel).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:EFF to Verizon: Etisalat Certificate Authority Threatens ... by caf on Monday August 16, 2010 @09:11PM (#1609885)
It would only have to go onto the CRL until it expired. The CRL would become large, but it would still be a couple of orders of magnitude smaller than the global DNS itself, and we manage to deal with that OK.

The idea would be that the certificate comes with the domain name, as the whole ball of wax. Verisign aren't the only _registrar_ though - GoDaddy, MelbourneIT etc. are all registrars - VeriSign's claim to fame is that they manage the .com _registry_.

[ Parent | on HN ]