5 ms·
The web cannot be decentralized without putting an end to SSL. As long as certificate-issuers are the arbiters of commerce and browsers push users to trust uns
by maxk42 8y ago
The web cannot be decentralized without putting an end to SSL. As long as certificate-issuers are the arbiters of commerce and browsers push users to trust unsecured websites more and more, malicious governments will be able to silence people by revoking their certs.
There are stronger alternatives. We need to make a push to begin using them.
- jakelazaroff 8y agoI'm not sure what stronger alternatives you're referring to. Can you elaborate or share any resources?
- sparkie 8y agoIf, instead of identifying services by some human readable name, they are identified by their public keys, then we don't need certificates - there are several encrypted and authenticated transport protocols which only require knowledge of the destination's public key upfront. You then need an alternative name system which links a unique human readable name to a public key. This is the tricker part (see Zooko's triangle), but there are some creative solutions like Namecoin and the Blockstack Name Service.
- jimsmart 8y ago> links a unique human readable name to a public key Easy: use DNS, store the PGP key ID a TXT records, and then look up the public key for that ID using a PGP key server.
- peterwwillis 8y agoYour argument might sound stronger if you didn't use the name of a dead protocol. All use of SSL has been prohibited by RFC since 2015. I'm pretty sure there aren't better alternatives.
- kodablah 8y agoPeople tend to use "SSL" to mean "CA-based TLS" these days, as in "SSL certificate".
- peterwwillis 8y agoYes I know, and it's wrong. I mean, don't get me wrong, it's great as a giant red flag that somebody doesn't know what they're talking about, but then other people start repeating it and the dumbness spreads.