Re:Compromised Microsoft Key: More Impactful Than We Thought
by vladvasiliu on Saturday July 22, 2023 @08:12AM
(#36825553)
I guess 640K keys ought to be enough for anybody (TM)(r) (c)
More seriously, though, I wonder how AzureAD is implemented and how hard it would be to scope keys per tenant, if not per application. If I'm not mistaken, SAML certificates are per application.
Re:Compromised Microsoft Key: More Impactful Than We Thought
by specialist on Saturday July 22, 2023 @10:42AM
(#36826632)
ELI5, sorry:
Taking your POC just a bit further and you've got the basis for zero trust networking, right?
That's the Future Perfect Correct Answer™, right?
Re:Compromised Microsoft Key: More Impactful Than We Thought
by mistrial9 on Saturday July 22, 2023 @11:46AM
(#36827216)
zero trust, or zero stability ?
Re:Compromised Microsoft Key: More Impactful Than We Thought
by specialist on Saturday July 22, 2023 @12:41PM
(#36827666)
When we ran some stress tests, turned out Envoy could happily run with ~300K signing keys in its JWK Set before noticeable service degradation occurred. Even then, by bumping up the memory on the validation servers, there was a small sacrifice of a few ms per extra 100K keys.
This makes me fully agree that, for many applications, there’s probably an opportunity to vastly improve the security surface by bumping up the number of signing keys dramatically.
As long as both Keys and Signing keys define a KID, key verification is prefaced only by a hash table lookup or a tight loop through a keyset to find the appropriate Signing Key, before the slower verification procedure.