6 ms·

If you are careful when generating your certificate (that is, careful to generate a subject certificate, and not a CA certificate) and can reliably distribute y

by ctz 12y ago

If you are careful when generating your certificate (that is, careful to generate a subject certificate, and not a CA certificate) and can reliably distribute your certificate to all clients you are interested in, then self-signed certificates are usually much better than the public CA system. But actually achieving the pre-distribution step is pretty hard, and basically impossible over the internet. You can achieve it pretty well in a business setting, where you can push your certificates to all the clients through AD, MDM, or similar. Sidenote: You should also take this opportunity to appreciate how dismally mis-designed web transport security is: * Cleartext, unauthenticated: just works, no warnings. * Encrypted, unauthenticated: THE SKY IS FALLING. * Encrypted, authenticated: little padlock.

itistoday2 12y ago
> If you are careful when generating your certificate (that is, careful to generate a subject certificate, and not a CA certificate) and can reliably distribute your certificate to all clients you are interested in, then self-signed certificates are usually much better than the public CA system. Indeed, and the blockchain (combined with a proxy like DNSChain), can be used to do this securely and for free at-scale. > Encrypted, authenticated: little padlock. Neither self-signed nor CA-signed certificates are securely authenticated, so the padlock is completely misleading. See this comment for details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7826443 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7826443
- itistoday2 12y ago
  Could whoever down-voted that please explain why you did so?
  - tombrossman 12y ago
    Wasn't me but I wonder about this: "Neither self-signed nor CA-signed certificates are securely authenticated...". I'm no expert on CAs but saying their certs are not securely authenticated is worrying. Seems to defeat their purpose, no? Maybe expand on that point if you can as I don't understand how it can be true.
    - itistoday2 12y ago
      Did you read the comment I linked to where I provided those details? Here it is again: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7826443 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7826443 And if you want a longer version of that, you can go here: http://blog.okturtles.com/2014/02/introducing-the-dotdns-metatld/ http://blog.okturtles.com/2014/02/introducing-the-dotdns-met... > I'm no expert on CAs but saying their certs are not securely authenticated is worrying. Yes. I'm glad we agree on that. :P
tptacek 12y ago
A site claiming to offer cryptographic security when it is in fact not is, in reality, worse than a site that simply doesn't offer cryptographic security. Both those sites --- the SSL site and the non-SSL site --- aren't offering security. But only one of them is also being deceptive about it. However, you'll get no argument from me if you constrain your argument about dismal mis-design to browser UI/UX. The browser UX design for TLS security hasn't meaningfully changed since Netscape.
- lockes5hadow 12y ago
  You have a point here. Perhaps the real solution is that we should make the browser throw a fit when someone tries to input a "password" into a page/authdialog that has no security as well.
  - mindslight 12y ago
    Then the altered page just specifies that it is not a password field, and emulates it with javascript or whatever. So that could only work for sites where a password manager was used, assuming the user doesn't just go ahead and type it in themselves.
    - psykovsky 12y ago
      Not just passwords, any form submission. :P
      - droope 12y ago
        you could simulate forms with JS and images. You dont even need to submit, once a user fills the form exfiltrate it through a JS image load, such as this http://www.lanmaster53.com/2011/05/stealth-cookie-stealing-new-xss-technique/ http://www.lanmaster53.com/2011/05/stealth-cookie-stealing-n...
- mindslight 12y ago
  Unauthenticated SSL does provide security against passive attackers, which is what mass surveillance in developed countries is. If the NSA ever insists on widespread MITM of connections, we have much bigger problems. I agree the UI needs to be properly worked out so that eg a bank can't be downgraded to an unauthenticated certificate.
Istof 12y ago
yes, this is my biggest problem with my favorite browser... why does Firefox do this? (Encrypted, unauthenticated: THE SKY IS FALLING.) edit: this is probably part of a NSL...

by ctz 12y ago

itistoday2 12y ago

> If you are careful when generating your certificate (that is, careful to generate a subject certificate, and not a CA certificate) and can reliably distribute your certificate to all clients you are interested in, then self-signed certificates are usually much better than the public CA system. Indeed, and the blockchain (combined with a proxy like DNSChain), can be used to do this securely and for free at-scale. > Encrypted, authenticated: little padlock. Neither self-signed nor CA-signed certificates are securely authenticated, so the padlock is completely misleading. See this comment for details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7826443 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7826443

itistoday2 12y ago
Could whoever down-voted that please explain why you did so?
- tombrossman 12y ago
  Wasn't me but I wonder about this: "Neither self-signed nor CA-signed certificates are securely authenticated...". I'm no expert on CAs but saying their certs are not securely authenticated is worrying. Seems to defeat their purpose, no? Maybe expand on that point if you can as I don't understand how it can be true.
  - itistoday2 12y ago
    Did you read the comment I linked to where I provided those details? Here it is again: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7826443 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7826443 And if you want a longer version of that, you can go here: http://blog.okturtles.com/2014/02/introducing-the-dotdns-metatld/ http://blog.okturtles.com/2014/02/introducing-the-dotdns-met... > I'm no expert on CAs but saying their certs are not securely authenticated is worrying. Yes. I'm glad we agree on that. :P

tptacek 12y ago

A site claiming to offer cryptographic security when it is in fact not is, in reality, worse than a site that simply doesn't offer cryptographic security. Both those sites --- the SSL site and the non-SSL site --- aren't offering security. But only one of them is also being deceptive about it. However, you'll get no argument from me if you constrain your argument about dismal mis-design to browser UI/UX. The browser UX design for TLS security hasn't meaningfully changed since Netscape.

lockes5hadow 12y ago
You have a point here. Perhaps the real solution is that we should make the browser throw a fit when someone tries to input a "password" into a page/authdialog that has no security as well.
- mindslight 12y ago
  Then the altered page just specifies that it is not a password field, and emulates it with javascript or whatever. So that could only work for sites where a password manager was used, assuming the user doesn't just go ahead and type it in themselves.
  - psykovsky 12y ago
    Not just passwords, any form submission. :P
    - droope 12y ago
      you could simulate forms with JS and images. You dont even need to submit, once a user fills the form exfiltrate it through a JS image load, such as this http://www.lanmaster53.com/2011/05/stealth-cookie-stealing-new-xss-technique/ http://www.lanmaster53.com/2011/05/stealth-cookie-stealing-n...
mindslight 12y ago
Unauthenticated SSL does provide security against passive attackers, which is what mass surveillance in developed countries is. If the NSA ever insists on widespread MITM of connections, we have much bigger problems. I agree the UI needs to be properly worked out so that eg a bank can't be downgraded to an unauthenticated certificate.

Istof 12y ago

yes, this is my biggest problem with my favorite browser... why does Firefox do this? (Encrypted, unauthenticated: THE SKY IS FALLING.) edit: this is probably part of a NSL...