3 ms·
That would be a central point of failure and a ton of extra complexity without providing any kind of meaningful security benefit.
by lima 7y ago
That would be a central point of failure and a ton of extra complexity without providing any kind of meaningful security benefit.
- CiPHPerCoder 7y agoWhat do you mean "without providing any kind of meaningful security benefit"? It prevents a bored kid who dumps the private key from one router from being able to reliably impersonate thousands of consumers' routers, the world over. That's a meaningful security benefit.
- lima 7y agoThe attacker would just dump the individual router's key instead and use the remote signer as a signing oracle to impersonate devices.
- CiPHPerCoder 7y agoThe owner/operator of the router could do that to their own device, yes. The idea is that each router would get a certificate signed with a distinct subdomain unique to that router. So you still can't impersonate other devices. It wouldn't be a generic domain or wildcard certificate. The remote signer would furthermore suspend suspicious connections (i.e. from multiple public IP addresses).