2 ms·
That's a different proof of ownership model, though. If I understand it correctly, you set the DNS record once and then forget about it. Hence, you will only pr
by xurukefi 4y ago
That's a different proof of ownership model, though. If I understand it correctly, you set the DNS record once and then forget about it. Hence, you will only prove that you had control over the zone at some point in time. With the DNS-01 challenge you prove that you have control over the zone at the time you request the certificate, because it requires a new TXT record every time.
- teddyh 4y agoBut what could an attacked actually do in vbezhenar’s proposed protocol? An attacker could… get a new certificate for a private key they don’t have? How is that bad?
- xurukefi 4y agoWell, you would only need to compromise a dns zone once and sneak in your DNS record. If the actual owner of the domain/zone does not carefully watch their records and if they use a different verification method for their certificates, then you'll have a continously operating backdoor. Maybe this is somewhat fabricated, but if you require a fresh challenge everytime, then that means the attacker has to maintain a compromised channel to the dns zone, which one could argue raises the bar significantly.
- teddyh 4y agoA bit far-fetched, but sure. You could require that the certificate put into the DNS record also had, say, today’s date on it (UTC). This way, you’d fix the problem you describe but still have a vastly simpler process than ACME.