David Brown wrote: > On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 12:37:17PM -0700, James G. Sack (jim) wrote: > >>> I read some years ago that self-signed certs are more secure as the data >>> encrypted by certified keys are accessible to those with access to the >>> key data from the CA (e.g. - the feds). >> >> I don't really see that argument. The overwhelming use of ssl certs is >> to establish credible identity, I believe. If the top level root CA >> certs have gu'ment fingers in them, then the only consequence is >> questionable authenticity of root-signed certs or, I suppose, bogus >> revocations. >> >> Am I mistaken? > > I would be concerned as to how a key is generated. If I generate my own > key, and ask the root CA to sign it, then I'm only using them to > authenticate my certificate. If their procedure requires them to generate > my key first, it could be a weak key in a way that wouldn't be easy for me > to detect. It would at least be a good sanity test to test the things that > are supposed to be prime for primality and probably that the factors are > safe primes and stuff like that. > > Anybody ever gotten an official CA key? Did they generate the key, or do > they let you generate the key, and they then sign it as the service? >
Oh wow, I never considered that a CA would generate a key -- isn't that a violation of the whole concept of private keys. I suppose key-signing authorities might provide key-generating utilities to naive clients, but I would be inclined not to use any such tool, for the reason you raise. I'd like to know the answer to your question! Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
