[cryptography] SSL is not "broken by design"
ben at links.org
Fri Sep 23 15:57:45 EDT 2011
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 8:21 PM, ianG <iang at iang.org> wrote:
> On 24/09/11 05:13 AM, Jon Callas wrote:
>> On Sep 23, 2011, at 11:17 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Peter Gutmann
>>> <pgut001 at cs.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>>>> Ben Laurie<ben at links.org> writes:
>>>>> Well, don't tease. How?
>>>> The link I've posted before (but didn't want to keep spamming to the
>>> That was a fun read and I mostly agree, but it raises some questions...
>>> a) Key continuity is nice, but ... are you swapping one set of
>>> problems for another? What happens when I lose my key? How do I roll
>>> my key? I just added a second server with a different key, and now a
>>> bunch of users have the "wrong" key - what do I do? How do I deal with
>>> a compromised key?
>> Great rhetorical questions, Ben. You nail it.
>> Continuity is great, but it has its own set of problems that include all
>> the ones you mention. Rolling keys is the easiest one of them and can be
>> solved pretty much the same way. But all the others are problems that
>> continuity introduces. I brought up these issues in my long rant. Continuity
>> can solve some, but not all of the problems.
> Think of it as CA-signed+key-continuity. Not either/or, but both,
> integrated, melded.
I'm thinking of it, and I don't get it.
The answer to all these questions seems to be "enroll with a CA". How
did that help?
More information about the cryptography