As many of you might already know: http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/371835374/article.pl
I will take this as an opportunity to state my opinion on our problems with certs :)
If we have a CA, we need to warn for self-signed certs. But if we do it like Firefox 3 - which some here considered the right way - it will scare users away - they can't talk or won't use crypto at all.
Another problem is that a CA means a single point of failure. If that CA is broken, someone can forge everyone. Plus I don't trust CAs generally.
So what's left? * Self-signed keys * GPG * SRPThe problem with self-signed keys is that the fingerprint you need to verify is very long and most users just won't verify it.
The problem with GPG is that this is geeks-only. The problem with SRP is bots.So, I think we shouldn't concentrate on one of these. We should have more than 1 way. For example, if we have SRP and self-signed certs, we'd be fine. For bots, we could also add a CA so bots of the same owner trust each other by just having the root cert.
Any thoughts on this? -- Jonathan
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
