4 ms·

This is interesting. I've always been okay with dropping HTTP for HTTPS-only as a long-term goal, as long as we get rid of the SSL cert racket first. As far a

by chjj 11y ago

This is interesting. I've always been okay with dropping HTTP for HTTPS-only as a long-term goal, as long as we get rid of the SSL cert racket first. As far as MITM and identity go, could we at least modify the protocol to allow fingerprint caching, as opposed to certs, as a fallback? ...SSH does this and it is arguably more important to secure than HTTPS. Fingerprint caching seems insecure when you think about it, yet we're all okay with maintaining our servers with this in place. Furthermore, X.509/ASN.1 is the worst thing to happen, ever. I know this because I damn near tore my hair out trying to implement an x.509 certificate validation.

mmphosis 11y ago
> as long as we get rid of the SSL cert racket first. "It is really a messed up situation to have to pay to not have your website marked as dangerous"
- IgorPartola 11y ago
  It's also messed up that we have to pay for domain names. Why can't we have them for free? I want Google.com please. You can get free certs now, and more ways to obtain them are coming this summer. In either case, let's solve our immediate problem now, then add different authentication methods to browsers after.
  - danieldk 11y ago
    This is an incorrect analogy. Domain names are a finite resource, the cost of signing a certificate approaches zero.
    - odonnellryan 11y ago
      The cost of the actual signing is pretty much zero, but there were definitely paid devs who built these commercial solutions.
      - Someone1234 11y ago
        Indeed. But couldn't it be ad support for how little it costs? Just watch this 5 minute video then get a free domain certificate.
        rspeer 11y ago
        You want the future of the Web to be Web developers watching insipid 5-minute videos before they can get anything done?
        Someone1234 11y ago
        I'd take that over what we have now in a heartbeat. My time isn't worthless, but for a personal web-site I am already "wasting" tons of time on it, and what is 5 minutes more? Better than a $60/year certificate. StartSSL is too terrible. Let's Encrypt doesn't exist. And CloudFlare requires you to use their entire service for the free certificates.
        odonnellryan 11y ago
        I see the point you're trying to make. I think we need a NFP org to become a trusted auth for these types of things. No way is GoDaddy going to help us here..
    - rakoo 11y ago
      You don't actually pay the signing of the certificate, you pay for the trust that the CA should give you.
      - Karunamon 11y ago
        Then why does VeriSign charge more than Gandi for the same thing (domain control validation)? Why do we treat ID verified certificates (i.e. it has your name on it) as somehow "better" than the former, but the browser doesn't care, it just cares that the cert was signed? Why do certificates expire, but not require new keys? (And why does this expiration cause a scary warning akin to a self signed cert?) There is no practical reason for the expiration, save to line the pockets of the CAs. None of this crap makes any sense, unless you view the CA system as exploitative and broken by design, in which case the answer to most of these things is "because greed".
        rakoo 11y ago
        I mostly agree with you and the cynical in me says it's all about greed, except regarding expiration: nothing is eternal, especially considering crypto, so it's a safe assumption to say that nothing can be guaranteed for more than a given number of years. If you don't put a limit, you stall development of new primitives because deployment is more expensive than deprecation of what is already existing. Putting a "best before" date keeps everyone's head up. The CA system looks like a good idea on paper if you keep it technical; if you look at it from a more widespread angle there's little surprise that it turned out to be like it is. But the idea remains good.
    - IgorPartola 11y ago
      It is zero. StartSSL has had free certs for years. Let's Encrypt will give another source of free certs. I expect shortly after that basic DV certs will be given out for free from most CA's. But most people don't care about finite or not finite resources. I am starting to suspect that the isse is mostly just the cost (with not everyone yet knowing how to get free certs). If your main objection is that you don't like the StartSSL UI, you can get a paid DV very for $5. That is about half the price of your domain.
    - mauricemir 11y ago
      not for proving identity - how do you prove that ebay is ebay or that bank site really is Barclays and not some scammer
      - moe 11y ago
        Not with SSL certs anyway. At least not as long as your browser trusts hundreds of CA's, including shady ones such as Comodo[1] who will issue fake certs to any name (Google, Skype, etc.). [1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/03/comodo_group_is.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/03/comodo_group_...
        eli 11y ago
        The fact that Comodo is occasionally scammed (a headline-generating event) does not prove that they add no level of identity authentication.
      - ceejayoz 11y ago
        With an email hostmaster/webmaster@example.com and/or a DNS record. EV certs require more, but DV certs have their identities verified automatically in seconds.
- mauricemir 11y ago
  Which suits some people just fine
hannob 11y ago
>As far as MITM and identity go, could we at least modify the >protocol to allow fingerprint caching, as opposed to certs, >as a fallback? We already have that. It's called HTTP Public Key Pinning (HPKP). But not "opposed to certs". In addition. Which is the right thing to do: Don't use it as a replacement for existing security, but add it on top of what we already have.
- chjj 11y ago
  Yeah, I agree with you. I suppose I worded that strangely. I didn't mean cut certs out of the equation, just use fingerprints as fallback, if possible. I wasn't aware of HPKP. According to mozilla docs, it's lacking some browser support. If it got implemented across the board, this would be great. I suppose it also depends on whether or not the browser screams at the user if the fingerprint fallback is necessary.
mauricemir 11y ago
so who is going to pay for it?
forgottenpass 11y ago
Fingerprint caching seems insecure when you think about it, yet we're all okay with maintaining our servers with this in place. You're supposed to use out of band methods to verify the host key before approving it.
- josho 11y ago
  Yes, you are supposed to. But, do you know anyone/any organization that actually does this? I don't.
  - forgottenpass 11y ago
    I'm well aware people tend not to practice security hygiene when it comes to SSH. I do, I have friends that do and friends that don't. While I acknowledge it's burdensome and the process could probably be streamlined, it's not my problem.
profmonocle 11y ago
> Fingerprint caching seems insecure when you think about it, yet we're all okay with maintaining our servers with this in place. SSH's fingerprint system is intended to be used by people who understand the basics of it. HTTPS is intended to be used by the average web user, who will click "yes" on any prompt that comes up.

by chjj 11y ago

mmphosis 11y ago

> as long as we get rid of the SSL cert racket first. "It is really a messed up situation to have to pay to not have your website marked as dangerous"

IgorPartola 11y ago
It's also messed up that we have to pay for domain names. Why can't we have them for free? I want Google.com please. You can get free certs now, and more ways to obtain them are coming this summer. In either case, let's solve our immediate problem now, then add different authentication methods to browsers after.
- danieldk 11y ago
  This is an incorrect analogy. Domain names are a finite resource, the cost of signing a certificate approaches zero.
  - odonnellryan 11y ago
    The cost of the actual signing is pretty much zero, but there were definitely paid devs who built these commercial solutions.
    - Someone1234 11y ago
      Indeed. But couldn't it be ad support for how little it costs? Just watch this 5 minute video then get a free domain certificate.
      - rspeer 11y ago
        You want the future of the Web to be Web developers watching insipid 5-minute videos before they can get anything done?
        Someone1234 11y ago
        I'd take that over what we have now in a heartbeat. My time isn't worthless, but for a personal web-site I am already "wasting" tons of time on it, and what is 5 minutes more? Better than a $60/year certificate. StartSSL is too terrible. Let's Encrypt doesn't exist. And CloudFlare requires you to use their entire service for the free certificates.
      - odonnellryan 11y ago
        I see the point you're trying to make. I think we need a NFP org to become a trusted auth for these types of things. No way is GoDaddy going to help us here..
  - rakoo 11y ago
    You don't actually pay the signing of the certificate, you pay for the trust that the CA should give you.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      Then why does VeriSign charge more than Gandi for the same thing (domain control validation)? Why do we treat ID verified certificates (i.e. it has your name on it) as somehow "better" than the former, but the browser doesn't care, it just cares that the cert was signed? Why do certificates expire, but not require new keys? (And why does this expiration cause a scary warning akin to a self signed cert?) There is no practical reason for the expiration, save to line the pockets of the CAs. None of this crap makes any sense, unless you view the CA system as exploitative and broken by design, in which case the answer to most of these things is "because greed".
      - rakoo 11y ago
        I mostly agree with you and the cynical in me says it's all about greed, except regarding expiration: nothing is eternal, especially considering crypto, so it's a safe assumption to say that nothing can be guaranteed for more than a given number of years. If you don't put a limit, you stall development of new primitives because deployment is more expensive than deprecation of what is already existing. Putting a "best before" date keeps everyone's head up. The CA system looks like a good idea on paper if you keep it technical; if you look at it from a more widespread angle there's little surprise that it turned out to be like it is. But the idea remains good.
  - IgorPartola 11y ago
    It is zero. StartSSL has had free certs for years. Let's Encrypt will give another source of free certs. I expect shortly after that basic DV certs will be given out for free from most CA's. But most people don't care about finite or not finite resources. I am starting to suspect that the isse is mostly just the cost (with not everyone yet knowing how to get free certs). If your main objection is that you don't like the StartSSL UI, you can get a paid DV very for $5. That is about half the price of your domain.
  - mauricemir 11y ago
    not for proving identity - how do you prove that ebay is ebay or that bank site really is Barclays and not some scammer
    - moe 11y ago
      Not with SSL certs anyway. At least not as long as your browser trusts hundreds of CA's, including shady ones such as Comodo[1] who will issue fake certs to any name (Google, Skype, etc.). [1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/03/comodo_group_is.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/03/comodo_group_...
      - eli 11y ago
        The fact that Comodo is occasionally scammed (a headline-generating event) does not prove that they add no level of identity authentication.
    - ceejayoz 11y ago
      With an email hostmaster/webmaster@example.com and/or a DNS record. EV certs require more, but DV certs have their identities verified automatically in seconds.
mauricemir 11y ago
Which suits some people just fine

hannob 11y ago

>As far as MITM and identity go, could we at least modify the >protocol to allow fingerprint caching, as opposed to certs, >as a fallback? We already have that. It's called HTTP Public Key Pinning (HPKP). But not "opposed to certs". In addition. Which is the right thing to do: Don't use it as a replacement for existing security, but add it on top of what we already have.

chjj 11y ago
Yeah, I agree with you. I suppose I worded that strangely. I didn't mean cut certs out of the equation, just use fingerprints as fallback, if possible. I wasn't aware of HPKP. According to mozilla docs, it's lacking some browser support. If it got implemented across the board, this would be great. I suppose it also depends on whether or not the browser screams at the user if the fingerprint fallback is necessary.

mauricemir 11y ago

so who is going to pay for it?

forgottenpass 11y ago

Fingerprint caching seems insecure when you think about it, yet we're all okay with maintaining our servers with this in place. You're supposed to use out of band methods to verify the host key before approving it.

josho 11y ago
Yes, you are supposed to. But, do you know anyone/any organization that actually does this? I don't.
- forgottenpass 11y ago
  I'm well aware people tend not to practice security hygiene when it comes to SSH. I do, I have friends that do and friends that don't. While I acknowledge it's burdensome and the process could probably be streamlined, it's not my problem.

profmonocle 11y ago

> Fingerprint caching seems insecure when you think about it, yet we're all okay with maintaining our servers with this in place. SSH's fingerprint system is intended to be used by people who understand the basics of it. HTTPS is intended to be used by the average web user, who will click "yes" on any prompt that comes up.