5 ms·

I wish there was wide support for public-key-addressable servers (like tor adresses). It won't solve the issue of memorable names, but it could solve this boots

I wish there was wide support for public-key-addressable servers (like tor adresses). It won't solve the issue of memorable names, but it could solve this bootstrapping problem. Perhaps le should look into encorperating tor into its domain verification process.

hn_go_brrrrr 4y ago
How do you handle key rotation?
- Zamicol 4y ago
  Publish merkle roots on global ledgers like blockchains.
  - withinboredom 4y ago
    Handshake (namebase.io) comes to mind.
- josephg 4y ago
  When you connect to the service, the client tells the server which public key (key A) its expecting the server to prove that it has ownership of. If the key A is still valid, the server can use the corresponding private key to sign a challenge. If the key has been rotated out, the server instead presents the new key, and a signature. Eg, the server responds by naming key B, and presents a certificate of key B, signed by key A (the presented key). Instead of just a single key rotation the server could present a chain of certificates from A to B to C (the key the server wants to use). And optionally, a message saying "from now on, please make further requests using key B as key A has expired".
  - dolni 4y ago
    This falls apart if keys are ever compromised.
    - josephg 4y ago
      If the key is compromised, there’s two ways the key can be rotated. Either the key is updated upstream (in the dns record or through an app update or whatever). Or the next request uses the compromised key, (and could be MITMed.) The server responds with the new signed key. And requests after that will be safe. It’s not perfect - it has some properties from TOFU systems. And it expects the client to cache key material. (It’s not stateless like tls). But I think it would be a pretty workable system.
teddyh 4y ago
“[…] you cannot have a namespace which has all three of: distributed (in the sense that there is no central authority which can control the namespace, which is the same as saying that the namespace spans trust boundaries), secure (in the sense that name lookups cannot be forced to return incorrect values by an attacker, where the definition of "incorrect" is determined by some universal policy of name ownership), and having human-usable keys.” — Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle
- ameliaquining 4y ago
  Zooko's conjecture predates the invention of Bitcoin, and the article goes on to explain that blockchain-based systems can in fact have all three properties.
- survirtual 4y ago
  Actually, you can.
  - survirtual 4y ago
    I like the downvotes here for stating a fact. The current CA system is horrendous in its centralization. It is completely possible to make a new mechanism using hashed-addresses and using traffic + user choice as the allocation mechanism for namespaces. Instead of namespaces being fought for financially, users assign namespaces to site addresses (hashes) which represent a pub key of a keypair and identity of a server. The namespaces, say “search” is then assigned to the address hash with the most users by default. If a user likes a different one, they link the “search” namespace to a different hash and that counts as a vote for that location being the default. This can be done using just traffic as an indicator for the defaults, in the event unique humanness cannot be established properly for an identity. One summary of a frictionless scheme without central control that circumvents just about every shortcoming of the current system, and has all three properties. There are other schemes, btw. Also, in the event it isn’t clear: tls comes natively to this scheme because the addresses are pub keys. There can’t be a mitm for this scheme unless they have the priv key, or find a way to direct traffic through them and acquire a majority stake for a namespace and phish the original site. Whoever has the priv key controls the properties of the address hash, which is where all the records go. This would make the internet significantly more democratic and less prone to bad actors. It would eliminate domain name squatting completely, and would enable new technologies which more closely match a namespace than old ones to have a chance, promoting innovation and meaningful competition.

hn_go_brrrrr 4y ago

How do you handle key rotation?

Zamicol 4y ago
Publish merkle roots on global ledgers like blockchains.
- withinboredom 4y ago
  Handshake (namebase.io) comes to mind.
josephg 4y ago
When you connect to the service, the client tells the server which public key (key A) its expecting the server to prove that it has ownership of. If the key A is still valid, the server can use the corresponding private key to sign a challenge. If the key has been rotated out, the server instead presents the new key, and a signature. Eg, the server responds by naming key B, and presents a certificate of key B, signed by key A (the presented key). Instead of just a single key rotation the server could present a chain of certificates from A to B to C (the key the server wants to use). And optionally, a message saying "from now on, please make further requests using key B as key A has expired".
- dolni 4y ago
  This falls apart if keys are ever compromised.
  - josephg 4y ago
    If the key is compromised, there’s two ways the key can be rotated. Either the key is updated upstream (in the dns record or through an app update or whatever). Or the next request uses the compromised key, (and could be MITMed.) The server responds with the new signed key. And requests after that will be safe. It’s not perfect - it has some properties from TOFU systems. And it expects the client to cache key material. (It’s not stateless like tls). But I think it would be a pretty workable system.

teddyh 4y ago

“[…] you cannot have a namespace which has all three of: distributed (in the sense that there is no central authority which can control the namespace, which is the same as saying that the namespace spans trust boundaries), secure (in the sense that name lookups cannot be forced to return incorrect values by an attacker, where the definition of "incorrect" is determined by some universal policy of name ownership), and having human-usable keys.” — Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle

ameliaquining 4y ago
Zooko's conjecture predates the invention of Bitcoin, and the article goes on to explain that blockchain-based systems can in fact have all three properties.
survirtual 4y ago
Actually, you can.
- survirtual 4y ago
  I like the downvotes here for stating a fact. The current CA system is horrendous in its centralization. It is completely possible to make a new mechanism using hashed-addresses and using traffic + user choice as the allocation mechanism for namespaces. Instead of namespaces being fought for financially, users assign namespaces to site addresses (hashes) which represent a pub key of a keypair and identity of a server. The namespaces, say “search” is then assigned to the address hash with the most users by default. If a user likes a different one, they link the “search” namespace to a different hash and that counts as a vote for that location being the default. This can be done using just traffic as an indicator for the defaults, in the event unique humanness cannot be established properly for an identity. One summary of a frictionless scheme without central control that circumvents just about every shortcoming of the current system, and has all three properties. There are other schemes, btw. Also, in the event it isn’t clear: tls comes natively to this scheme because the addresses are pub keys. There can’t be a mitm for this scheme unless they have the priv key, or find a way to direct traffic through them and acquire a majority stake for a namespace and phish the original site. Whoever has the priv key controls the properties of the address hash, which is where all the records go. This would make the internet significantly more democratic and less prone to bad actors. It would eliminate domain name squatting completely, and would enable new technologies which more closely match a namespace than old ones to have a chance, promoting innovation and meaningful competition.