3 ms·
Iirc you can have certs signed by multiple roots though, right? In which case these sites can just get their cert signed by the pinned symantec root and a real
by Manishearth 10y ago
Iirc you can have certs signed by multiple roots though, right? In which case these sites can just get their cert signed by the pinned symantec root and a real still-valid root. Nobody's stopping symantec from signing new certs, they just won't work in Chrome (and likely other browsers)
Or maybe I've misunderstood the situation.
- wnoise 10y agoUnfortunately, you can't keep multiple chains in a single X.509 certificate. While you can have a given key signed by multiple CAs, AIUI, this just lets you switch easily, not tell a client about both, and just work if they trust either CA.
- Manishearth 10y agoHuh, okay. Surprised that's not possible. IIRC letsencrypt did something like this to bootstrap but I guess you can have a root sign a root, but not have two roots sign something and have both in the same cert. I've always been of the opinion that the rogue/careless CA problem can be solved by mandating N root sigs and recommending M>N. In a system with multiple independent LetsEncrypt like entities this is doable. If a CA needs to be revoked you can do it in a much easier way here, since it's still ok to transitively allow sites with N-1 certs and one now-disallowed cert signed by that CA. Doesn't fix all the problems but it certainly removes the inertia behind kicking out bad CAs. Looks like we'd need a x509 extension to do this then. :/