3 ms·
They already have the ability. Since that can't be revoked, might as well make it transparent and grant them the authority to match it. It's certainly better t
by caskance 11y ago
They already have the ability. Since that can't be revoked, might as well make it transparent and grant them the authority to match it.
It's certainly better than the current CA system.
- tptacek 11y agoI know a lot of people seem to think that, but that's just not right. You can pin a certificate with X.509 CA TLS, and you can theoretically pin a certificate against DNSSEC/DANE (no browser does and it's unlikely they ever will; browsers flirted with DNSSEC a few years ago and that code has been withdrawn). But when you pin an X.509 CA cert, you can also punish CAs that issue fraudulent CAs that break pins. This has already happened several times. When you break a DNSSEC/DANE pin, you have no recourse. Everyone relies on the same .COM keys.
- caskance 11y agoThe whole concept of certificates in the first place relies on your ability to keep the private key secret. You know what you really have no recourse to? The police coming when you are asleep and "interrogating" you until you give them access to the key.
- tptacek 11y agoI feel like I'm trying to give you detailed technical answers, and that your responses are mostly about abstractions. I'm not thinking about DNSSEC abstractly. I am concerned with its specifics, which I have studied for a long time and am convinced will harm the Internet. That's the nicest way I can say that your response to what I just said seems like a non sequitur. I just explained what I meant by recourse. I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong.
- takeda 11y agoYou can make your DNS server ignore root certificate and use anchors stored locally for specific TLD. If then you contact a TLD that's owned by 3rd party you essentially trusting whoever owns that TLD. For example .google is owned by Google, so whatever is under it is under their full control.
- tptacek 11y ago"DNSSEC is fine, as long as we all give up on .COM". Ok.
- caskance 11y agoOne of the flaws about talking with an overloaded term like "security". If even abstractly, something does not work, what's the point of arguing about its technical details? As you said before, DNSSEC is fine if you concede .com to the US government. This has already happened, we're just putting it in writing.