Re:Around 293 intermediate CAs in violation of CA/Browser gu...
by ancarda on Monday July 06, 2020 @10:53AM
(#23748545)
Do you have an alternative? DANE looks good but it would require lots of people to get on board with DNSSEC first...
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Around 293 intermediate CAs in violation of CA/Browser gu...
by ocdtrekkie on Monday July 06, 2020 @11:02AM
(#23748653)
The interesting thing is that web browsers can make people "get on board" with anything. Most of the PKI and TLS changes in the last couple years have happened because Chrome/Firefox/Safari have decided to say "this or your page won't work".
Understanding where web security is right now is about understanding who is making the decisions (regardless of any claims about committees and processes), and what motivations they have to make the decisions they do.
Re:Around 293 intermediate CAs in violation of CA/Browser gu...
by parliament32 on Monday July 06, 2020 @12:30PM
(#23749543)
Doesn't this just shift the exact same trust to registrars?
Re:Around 293 intermediate CAs in violation of CA/Browser gu...
by ocdtrekkie on Monday July 06, 2020 @12:40PM
(#23749652)
It shifts the trust to a single CA instead of all the CAs.
Re:Around 293 intermediate CAs in violation of CA/Browser gu...
by a1369209993 on Monday July 06, 2020 @02:29PM
(#23751079)
More precicely, it means that compromising the public key infrastructure requires compromising one specific CA, rather than compromising any single CA out of hundreds. Ideally, we would it to instead require compromising all CAs out of hundreds, but as long as the defective-by-design X.509 PKI is used, that's not very possible, much less likely.