Re: Security for various IETF services

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 09 April 2014 17:31 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BC1C1A03E4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:31:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.172
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.172 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ikdHwGDD3Dzf for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D3B81A03C3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D99CC1B805A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA6BA19005C; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:31:40 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
Subject: Re: Security for various IETF services
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <534580AF.4080602@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 13:31:40 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <3979F9B2-01CB-4DFE-A872-3EED6840F44D@nominum.com>
References: <20140409154919.11E6118C106@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <534580AF.4080602@dcrocker.net>
To: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/T022d81uMXcTQT-WcUcAFZ0u2E0
Cc: Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 17:31:50 -0000

On Apr 9, 2014, at 1:17 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> The interesting premise in the suggestion is that a web of trust key management model is useful at Internet scale.

It doesn't actually require a web of trust.   It could work as well (likely better) as a simple whitelisting system with no shared trust at all.