IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: not really pgp signing in van

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 10 September 2013 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8926121F994A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:18:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.436
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.436 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.163, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9j+HDcuCphE5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og124.obsmtp.com (exprod7og124.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 988FD21F98EE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob124.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUi9UVfvCzWa0Lbe7w6j8YjcHOGNxpykn@postini.com; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:18:15 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 474DF1B823F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:18:13 -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 ESMTPS id EF874190074; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:18:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.134]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:18:11 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: not really pgp signing in van
Thread-Topic: not really pgp signing in van
Thread-Index: AQHOqpqEB3VH/4NMm0OmqkHjUm9ALJm5aiMAgABaqYD//9WJAIAARlSA///KM4CAAFZ3gIAC1QGAgAAEoYCAAPmWgIAAFPEAgABoNQCAAAGxAIAAFfqAgAAJL4CAADHKgIAAAaIAgAADyACAAARAgIAA+LSAgAAM44A=
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 17:18:11 +0000
Message-ID: <241D1DD6-C096-49D6-A05B-33638846BF15@nominum.com>
References: <20130910010719.33978.qmail@joyce.lan> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077527E234@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1309092125360.34090@joyce.lan> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077527E488@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAMm+LwhZ9OKesZW+kFct5Gps6_JBzcNUUBQ-y5J21zMcxmL6EQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwhZ9OKesZW+kFct5Gps6_JBzcNUUBQ-y5J21zMcxmL6EQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <9C16C6A33131E940990381653CB002D0@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, "<ietf@ietf.org>" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 17:18:21 -0000

On Sep 10, 2013, at 12:32 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> wrote:
> The CA NEVER ever gives the user the key in any of the systems I have worked on.

This appears to be untrue.

> Comodo offers that exact service today.
> 
> https://secure.comodo.com/products/!SecureEmailCertificate_Signup

The Comodo service generates the key pair for you.   This means that they have your private key.   We would hope that they would behave responsibly, but we don't have the assurance we would have if we generated the key pair and sent them only the public half.

> Eliminate the CA and you eliminate the parties with the incentive to sell the solution.

Who cares?   You can't get people to buy what they don't want.

> Whatever scheme is picked to complete secure email there is going to be a problem finding end users certs and end user policies. And there may be a market for solving that problem just like there is a market for blocking spam. 

There is a market for it, but right now it's very small, because nobody but people whose activities _require_ a secure channel are interested in the product.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email