[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Gutmann) on Sunday, March 16, 2008 wrote:

>>I would think this would be rather common, and I may have heard about certs
>>that had authority to sign other certs in some circumstances...
>The desire to do it isn't uncommon, but it runs into problems with PKI
>religious dogma that only a CA can ever issue a certificate.

Is that a religious dogma, or a business model masquerading as a
religious dogma?

Whichever it is, it is an impediment to improving protection
against fishing attacks. Consider a large organization like Amazon
and users using tools like the Petname toolbar
<http://www.waterken.com/dev/YURL/Name/>. Amazon has many servers,
each of which needs a TLS signing key. In a more ideal world,
Amazon would have a CA signed public certification key, which it
would use to certify each server's TLS signing key. The Petname
toolbar would use Amazon's public certification key as the identity
matching the user's petname for Amazon. Once that petname has been
established, AKA the introduction problem, the identity would be
safe, regardless of what happens higher in the PKI hierarchy. The
higher levels of the PKI hierarchy would only be used during the
introductory contact.

Given the current situation, with the CAs having a monopoly on
issuing certificates, there are many different public keys
associated with Amazon. In addition, Amazon may chose to change the
CA it uses. To handle this situation, the Petname toolbar the DN
instead of a public key, which opens the Petname tool bar to
spoofing by any of the 100 or so CAs configured in the standard
browsers. Does anyone know what happened to Baltimore's signing key
when they went out of business?

Cheers - Bill

Bill Frantz        | The first thing you need when  | Periwinkle
(408)356-8506      | using a perimeter defense is a | 16345 Englewood Ave
www.pwpconsult.com | perimeter.                     | Los Gatos, CA 95032

The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to