3 ms·
> They probably couldn't take the Cloudflare approach of jamming 100 customer domains onto each certificate, since that would leak bucket names too easily. Iss
by RKearney 7y ago
> They probably couldn't take the Cloudflare approach of jamming 100 customer domains onto each certificate, since that would leak bucket names too easily.
Issuing one certificate at a time wouldn't make a difference since they're all submitted to public CT logs. Bucket names shouldn't contain sensitive information and security through obscurity is a bad idea.
- regecks 7y agoYeah, good point. It makes me doubt that they will issue bucket-specific certificates at all. Perpetually exposing every single bucket name seems like a bad trade-off just to satisfy certificate verification. Maybe there will be a name translation scheme for bucket names with periods (kinda like punycode for IDNs).
- mjevans 7y agoWith an Internet that doesn't push back packet rejection to bad hosts, rather than victims that are being flooded; being able to individually address buckets sounds like an increased risk.
- falsedan 7y ago> security through obscurity is a bad idea only if that's your only defense, which it was for a lot of old crypto schemes & why the crypto community consensus was to publish algorithms/assume the attacker had the implementation. that mindset isn't universally applicable
- blattimwind 7y ago> security through obscurity is a bad idea Obscurity is a good and sensible layer for defense in depth. Systems A and A' were the only difference for A' is added obscurity will result in A' being more difficult to attack.