3 ms·

doesn't that just push the "authority" to DNS. You still need someone to vouch that you are who you say you are.

yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
Well, yeah. You need to trust someone. And if you aren't willing to centralize, then you're left with key signing parties.
lphnull 8y ago
I'd prefer a wild-west type of world where certs are decentralized and "blind trust" towards big authorities becomes optional and still there as a reinforcement, but not necessary and definitely not required to communicate securely. I mean- if there are adversaries out there trying to hack our communications- then we need to let these adversaries try so that we can engage them head on so that their methods become published, public, and thoroughly analyzed by the people in charge of strengthening our protocols. This approach would be like fracturing the bone to make it stronger- we allow nation state hack us in order to figure out ways to stop and prevent such hacks using open and transparent software alone. Trusting any group of people anywhere "just because they're trust worthy" feels like a variable defining <the contents of its data> as equal to <the contents of its data>. It just doesn't make sense for a variable to trust itself "just because" because then I wonder if something fishy is going on under the hood.
- foepys 8y ago
  That's exactly what you don't want if you can't trust your ISP.
vbezhenar 8y ago
DNS is a natural source for trust. We need secure DNS for a sane internet anyway. DNS has hierarchical structure which naturally maps to certificate hierarchy.
AFNobody 8y ago
If a hostile controls a DNS server, you are hosed anyway.
- AgentME 8y ago
  If the sites you care about are using HSTS (and they're in the HSTS preload list, or you've visited them before from this device), then the worst the attacker can do is deny you from accessing them.
  - AFNobody 8y ago
    HSTS depends on DNS and NTP.

Well, yeah. You need to trust someone. And if you aren't willing to centralize, then you're left with key signing parties.

lphnull 8y ago

I'd prefer a wild-west type of world where certs are decentralized and "blind trust" towards big authorities becomes optional and still there as a reinforcement, but not necessary and definitely not required to communicate securely. I mean- if there are adversaries out there trying to hack our communications- then we need to let these adversaries try so that we can engage them head on so that their methods become published, public, and thoroughly analyzed by the people in charge of strengthening our protocols. This approach would be like fracturing the bone to make it stronger- we allow nation state hack us in order to figure out ways to stop and prevent such hacks using open and transparent software alone. Trusting any group of people anywhere "just because they're trust worthy" feels like a variable defining <the contents of its data> as equal to <the contents of its data>. It just doesn't make sense for a variable to trust itself "just because" because then I wonder if something fishy is going on under the hood.

foepys 8y ago
That's exactly what you don't want if you can't trust your ISP.

vbezhenar 8y ago

DNS is a natural source for trust. We need secure DNS for a sane internet anyway. DNS has hierarchical structure which naturally maps to certificate hierarchy.

AFNobody 8y ago

If a hostile controls a DNS server, you are hosed anyway.

AgentME 8y ago
If the sites you care about are using HSTS (and they're in the HSTS preload list, or you've visited them before from this device), then the worst the attacker can do is deny you from accessing them.
- AFNobody 8y ago
  HSTS depends on DNS and NTP.