-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/30/2013 03:50 PM, Phil Pennock wrote: > On 2013-10-30 at 10:22 +0100, Thijs Alkemade wrote: >> In my opinion, “trusted” should not mean “can xmpp.net make a >> connection it trusts” but rather “can (most) end users make a >> connection without certificate warnings”. Currently, I’m not >> aware of any client supporting DANE. (This also covers my opinion >> on CAcert.) > > Reasonable, thanks. "Trusted" might be a poor choice of words, > given than without pinning, history shows that the CA system is > already too vulnerable here, so relying purely upon the CA for > _unattended_ operation s2s, where a human would not have an > opportunity to review (unless diligently reviewing logs) may result > in false self-assurances of integrity. > > But "the perfect is the enemy of the good" and this is definitely a > huge step forwards, as is the manifesto; so as long as this state > is not seen as the end goal but a worthwhile step, I'm all for it.
Absolutely. I am all in favor of DANE/DNSSEC, POSH, secure delegation, key pinning, certificate transparency, and of course end-to-end encryption. But we need to start somewhere, and that's what this manifesto is all about. We might have other manifestoes in the future. ;-) >> Of course, this is only my own opinion. :) The test should be >> useful for the community, so if the consensus is that DANE’s >> trust anchor assertions should be allowed for showing up as >> trusted, then I’m willing to change that. > > Probably best to just have rough consensus that once a couple of > major clients and a couple of major servers have support, the > relevant report mechanisms can be updated; s2s and c2s could switch > independently. Agreed. > Once a couple have support, and the reporting mechanism shows that > this is sufficient for many, it provides gentle pressure on > everyone else that they're falling behind in not providing the > certificate validity assurance that their users should be able to > depend upon. Yes. Over time we'll keep raising the bar. Peter -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJScbSVAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pw9sP/0a0Gi/mqEtyDiPnonEX2eDd +kiKWvlMPYwXM9j30rI1S/EQ+nq/qNMc3hqtPKZmx9AGHcPAZ9rjC/1Fe5aub7dP 9wlCcchepwQPXi0PR5ghvQTu2ZCwz/LNcM1L4Dc8uP7dL3DqJcglihodAfSCscIf AGrr0qIvHmL/UU9+DA+0TzupW1/Ar6jfv+lYfPiuPyX8ZOkvc3oJNG1p1KXm0mj1 +xPaiXB+1B1e9WvrY8M4jWXZCsc+c+ZF2vP89RRvdStM30TiL+BPwkfhFu4TKVTS DKZ0VfNpeS61HTffdEAuD9p0GVnQgsDxRgn1BT83v1GOpud1iCNifVlr5LAbU0YQ gJ30632ee+ULVvt59B0x/aUs6TnLaQ5ah2wGGZ6EZ+I9JeRN+Gbm6JIwdRop7KUl i+qe8MAyU0ECaPpelYTRh6Wk4Sl624AOJs0nZ8BdJ3BayBIR7zMqfosAHuauDLmT /1HZCOgsY90FY23jWr2THN1gyOBBGx9JENr7ra4jbH/5O4p1Gvxo1ImdMwGExioZ tJmyklSyhELZtiTDHjiCnuCzMMkToriZUifdH2hoCyaxgmY4Kv5Zq+Ahh2JO63vF 61/poa/vo4kFzjqn/pK3xEha5dkvvIawjkz56bkulTaDgQvCk40XjchwiALbYuIr hjIP5tMnuaaHSJ3yX88X =vKuA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
