On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/1/2014 10:20 AM, Nico Williams wrote: >> See the Opportunistic Security draft. > > Actually, we don't need any mods to any protocols.
If the only goal is protection against passive attacks then we have enough, yes. But we should not preclude protection against MITMs. > Self-signed server certs, with users being warned of the hazards, seems fine > to me. Servers who want to assure their users of better protection get a Warning users is of no use. DANE is the right approach. Add TCPINC with ephemeral ECDH keys and you have protection relative to passive attackers always (well, when the two peers speak it), and protection against MITM attacks when the server's public keys are published in the DNS. > signed key. If the IETF wants to provide a service to the community, > generate and maintain those certs for free. I'm not sure what you want the IETF to provide. Nico -- _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
