IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Using DNS system as a Global Root Certificate Authority - possible ?

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 27 December 2015 03:11 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 3410D1B29B4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:11:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_EQ_STATICB=1.372, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
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 80H3J_gecwXI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:11:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa3.jck.com (static-65-175-133-137.cpe.metrocast.net [65.175.133.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 527AB1A0020 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:11:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hp5.int.jck.com ([198.252.137.153] helo=JcK-HP5.jck.com) by bsa3.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1aD1k8-000Jwy-5r; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:11:36 -0500
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:11:31 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, Alexey Eromenko <al4321@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Using DNS system as a Global Root Certificate Authority - possible ?
Message-ID: <D24618171F1482DB31C6B8AB@JcK-HP5.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwgGhs_W9g2yG-HC6YDBiz++Z-G5hbNL=bFGAcDQXJK9AA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOJ6w=EdXPzK7f=zS0epuYXkkEcwtop11Ttt6QUR1-FtN1rGWg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwgGhs_W9g2yG-HC6YDBiz++Z-G5hbNL=bFGAcDQXJK9AA@mail.gmail.c om>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/yYLsGoABlhB7J8rYQweBOXuxwXA>
Cc: ietf <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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 03:11:42 -0000


--On Saturday, December 26, 2015 9:52 PM -0500 Phillip
Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> wrote:

>...
> One of the issues people don't seem to consider in these
> schemes is that merely reducing the number of trusted
> intermediaries from ~40 to one doesn't actually remove
> reliance on trusted third parties, it merely removes all
> choice in the matter.

And even that equation tends to be complicated by the
observation that the trust relationship, as far as certification
of identity is concerned, is with the registrars (and, in some
cases, their agents and resellers) rather than with the
registries.  At that point, the number of trusted intermediaries
gets back toward order 40 or 100, not one, unless the question
is "do you control this domain" rather than "are you who you say
you are".

    john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email