Re: [cryptography] if MitM via sub-CA is going on, need a name-and-shame catalog (Re: really sub-CAs for MitM deep packet inspectors?)

2011-12-03 Thread ianG
Wifebeating syndrome :) I was aware of the claim of MITMing, but nobody offered proof and it sort of faded away under the cover of NDAs. Just on that above: Back in 2005, 2006 or so when the Mozilla policy was being written, allegations surfaced that two CAs were practicing MITMing as a

Re: [cryptography] if MitM via sub-CA is going on, need a name-and-shame catalog (Re: really sub-CAs for MitM deep packet inspectors?)

2011-12-03 Thread Peter Gutmann
ianG i...@iang.org writes: PS; we need a better name than DPI MITM. For some reason I'm thinking of WITM. Given that the whole reason for doing this silly-walk in the first place was to protect us against MITMs, I wouldn't use WITM, I'd call it a WTFITM. Peter.

Re: [cryptography] if MitM via sub-CA is going on, need a name-and-shame catalog (Re: really sub-CAs for MitM deep packet inspectors?)

2011-12-03 Thread Lucky Green
On 2011-12-02 03:18, Adam Back wrote: [Other aspects of Adam's post elided to be addressed in a different context. My response here focuses exclusively on the very narrow question of corporate MITM SSL proxies] 2. corporate LAN SSL MitM (at least the corporation has probably a contract with all

[cryptography] if MitM via sub-CA is going on, need a name-and-shame catalog (Re: really sub-CAs for MitM deep packet inspectors?)

2011-12-02 Thread Adam Back
Now we're getting somewhere. If this is going on even the policy enforcement aspect of CAs is broken... CAs are subverting their own certification practice statement. The actions taken by the user of the sub-CA cert are probably illegal also in the US europe where there are expectations of

Re: [cryptography] if MitM via sub-CA is going on, need a name-and-shame catalog (Re: really sub-CAs for MitM deep packet inspectors?)

2011-12-02 Thread Peter Gutmann
Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org writes: a public MitM proxy? Or a corporate LAN. Private organisation. That intermediate CA needs publishing, and the CA that issued it. I was asked not to reveal details and I won't, but in any case I don't know whether it would achieve much. For the case of

Re: [cryptography] if MitM via sub-CA is going on, need a name-and-shame catalog (Re: really sub-CAs for MitM deep packet inspectors?)

2011-12-02 Thread Adam Back
On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 01:00:14AM +1300, Peter Gutmann wrote: I was asked not to reveal details and I won't, Of course, I would do the same if so asked. But there are lots of people on the list who have not obtained information indirectly, with confidentiality assurances offered, and for

Re: [cryptography] if MitM via sub-CA is going on, need a name-and-shame catalog (Re: really sub-CAs for MitM deep packet inspectors?)

2011-12-02 Thread Peter Gutmann
Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org writes: [WAP wildcard certs] That is bad. Are you saying there is anyone doing SSL mitm for stream compression reasons? Who? The use of wildard certs in WAP gateways came up from the SSL Observatory work... hmm, there's at least a mention of it in An Observatory

Re: [cryptography] if MitM via sub-CA is going on, need a name-and-shame catalog (Re: really sub-CAs for MitM deep packet inspectors?)

2011-12-02 Thread Adam Back
I wonder what that even means. *.com issued by a sub-CA? that private key is a massive risk if so! I wonder if a *.com is even valid according to browsers. Or * that would be funny. Adam On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 02:24:53AM +1300, Peter Gutmann wrote: Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org writes:

Re: [cryptography] if MitM via sub-CA is going on, need a name-and-shame catalog (Re: really sub-CAs for MitM deep packet inspectors?)

2011-12-02 Thread Peter Gutmann
Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org writes: I wonder what that even means. *.com issued by a sub-CA? that private key is a massive risk if so! I wonder if a *.com is even valid according to browsers. Or * that would be funny. No idea, but remember that it's not general-purpose browsers, it's

Re: [cryptography] if MitM via sub-CA is going on, need a name-and-shame catalog (Re: really sub-CAs for MitM deep packet inspectors?)

2011-12-02 Thread ianG
On 2/12/11 23:00 PM, Peter Gutmann wrote: I guess if you're running into this sort of thing for the first time then you'd be out for blood, but if you've been aware of this it going on for more than a decade then it's just business as usual for commercial PKI. I'm completely unfazed by it, it's

Re: [cryptography] if MitM via sub-CA is going on, need a name-and-shame catalog (Re: really sub-CAs for MitM deep packet inspectors?)

2011-12-02 Thread Ben Laurie
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:14 PM, ianG i...@iang.org wrote: On 2/12/11 23:00 PM, Peter Gutmann wrote: I guess if you're running into this sort of thing for the first time then you'd be out for blood, but if you've been aware of this it going on for more than a decade then it's just business as

Re: [cryptography] if MitM via sub-CA is going on, need a name-and-shame catalog (Re: really sub-CAs for MitM deep packet inspectors?)

2011-12-02 Thread Rose, Greg
Some random chiming in... On 2011 Dec 2, at 5:00 , Adam Back wrote: On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 01:00:14AM +1300, Peter Gutmann wrote: I was asked not to reveal details and I won't, Of course, I would do the same if so asked. But there are lots of people on the list who have not obtained

Re: [cryptography] if MitM via sub-CA is going on, need a name-and-shame catalog (Re: really sub-CAs for MitM deep packet inspectors?)

2011-12-02 Thread ianG
On 3/12/11 03:36 AM, Ben Laurie wrote: On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:14 PM, ianGi...@iang.org wrote: On 2/12/11 23:00 PM, Peter Gutmann wrote: I guess if you're running into this sort of thing for the first time then you'd be out for blood, but if you've been aware of this it going on for more

Re: [cryptography] if MitM via sub-CA is going on, need a name-and-shame catalog (Re: really sub-CAs for MitM deep packet inspectors?)

2011-12-02 Thread Jeffrey Walton
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 2:00 PM, ianG i...@iang.org wrote: On 3/12/11 03:36 AM, Ben Laurie wrote: On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 4:14 PM, ianGi...@iang.org  wrote: On 2/12/11 23:00 PM, Peter Gutmann wrote: I guess if you're running into this sort of thing for the first time then you'd be out for

Re: [cryptography] if MitM via sub-CA is going on, need a name-and-shame catalog (Re: really sub-CAs for MitM deep packet inspectors?)

2011-12-02 Thread dan
Whoever said security by obscurity doesn't work? Must have been on something. Obscurity works for the offense. --dan ___ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography