Subject: Re: [pkix] [saag] fyi: CA/Browser Forum (CABF) reform deliberations + Revocation and TLS/SSL Replacements/Enhancements

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 16:38:32 +1000

SK is a TTP system as the notaries are still trusted to provide
availability even if the other aspects of operation are
cryptographically constrained against default.

A group of notaries could collude to establish a cartel and extract
functional pricing for their services if there was a sufficiently
large number of relying parties.

Alternatively they can simply publish a key for party X and then
ransom it to the legitimate owner of the domain.

SK is a silly, silly scheme that should be laughed off the stage. It
punts on all the hard problems of PKI by asserting an administrative
model that is ludicrous. 'google.com' must be worth a couple of
billion dollars at least. I cannot see anyone with a valuable domain
name risking it to a scheme that has revocation mechanism in case of
administrative error.

'Don't make mistakes' is not a viable administrative approach.

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Ben Laurie <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 8:02 AM, =JeffH <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>>
>> The CA/Browser Forum (CABF) was mentioned a few times during this very
>> interesting presentation in the PKIX session at IETF-83 Paris yesterday...
>>
>> Trust-Related Activities:
>> Internet Certification Authorities
>> Revocation and SSL Replacements/Enhancements
>> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-pkix-10.pdf
>
>
> Hmmm...
>
> a) Doesn't mention Certificate Transparency.
>
> b) Thinks Sovereign Keys (and presumably, had they mentioned it, CT) is a
> TTP, which is incorrect.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pkix mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pkix
>

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/