4 ms·
These are covered by the exceptions procedure as described in the script, just to clarify the Ceremony Administrator is a per-ceremony role rather than a perman
by intunderflow 5y ago
These are covered by the exceptions procedure as described in the script, just to clarify the Ceremony Administrator is a per-ceremony role rather than a permanent occupation so dismissal would just involve replacement with another team member.
Exceptions are evaluated, documented and acted upon from the moment they are discovered. The Ceremony Administrator decides what to do about them after consulting the Internal Witness (but the CA gets to decide), at the end of every ceremony (with exceptions or not) we ask every participant to sign a sheet saying they're happy we effectively haven't breached security (last page of here: https://monzo.com/static/docs/redacted-root-certificate-authorities-ceremony-3-script.pdf https://monzo.com/static/docs/redacted-root-certificate-auth... ), if they don't sign, that would kick off a large discussion about whether we're happy to continue using these roots or replace them.
From memory we've had about 2 exceptions which have been resolved, both very minor (as ever, when you get into the room stuff comes up that you couldn't have planned for, if I recall one was something silly like a typo in the command documented on the script, so we just ran the command without the typo, etc).
- GoblinSlayer 5y agoYes, the system is assumed to work correctly, that's sensible. But does it? What happens when some component start to work in unintended way? If the participants don't have experience with failures, how they will behave? I mean when administrator denies interruption. Rotation of administrators and signatures is nice, but there's still one person that makes the most authoritative administrator. The bug to address here is conformity, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments