4 ms·

Key Transparency [0] uses the same model. Too bad the project seems inactive. [0]: https://security.googleblog.com/2017/01/security-through-transparency.html h

• tialaramex 8y ago
  Humans are nosy. This works out to our advantage in Certificate Transparency, not a few problems have been uncovered by people who were just browsing either their own output from CT or https://crt.sh/ https://crt.sh/ and they said, as so often, not Eureka but "Huh, that's weird". Knowing james.johnson.example was issued a certificate does kinda give away what the Johnsons are calling their new boy baby before they announce it, but the argument that DNS names in the Internet are supposed to be "private" feels intuitively implausible, so we just said "Certificates in the Web PKI are public documents", and it's true because we said so and we meant it. Like those Inalienable Rights. But in Key Transparency your nosiness gets you nowhere, the privacy concerns were too great, and so a Key Transparency system doesn't tell us anything humans are nosy about. Who has keys? What keys? What can we say about those keys? Out of understandable deference to privacy we learn nothing of interest about these topics. Still it isn't _that_ inactive, it has changes from July or so in the git repo. Maybe something will yet come of it.