Re: Online Certificate Revocation Protocol

pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) Sun, 10 June 2001 12:36 UTC

Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA10330 for <pkix-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 08:36:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f5ABqXq17695 for ietf-pkix-bks; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 04:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.ec.auckland.ac.nz (mail.student.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.35.201]) by above.proper.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f5ABqVJ17683; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 04:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kahu.cs.auckland.ac.nz (pgut001@kahu.cs.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.36.13]) by mail.ec.auckland.ac.nz (8.9.3/8.8.6/cs-master) with SMTP id XAA05304; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:52:31 +1200 (NZST) (sender pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz)
Received: by kahu.cs.auckland.ac.nz (relaymail v0.9) id <99217395115126>; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:52:31 (NZST)
From: pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz
To: ietf-pkix@imc.org, phoffman@imc.org
Subject: Re: Online Certificate Revocation Protocol
Reply-To: pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz
X-Charge-To: pgut001
X-Authenticated: relaymail v0.9 on kahu.cs.auckland.ac.nz
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:52:31 -0000
Message-ID: <99217395115126@kahu.cs.auckland.ac.nz>
Sender: owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-pkix/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-pkix.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-pkix-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
List-ID: <ietf-pkix.imc.org>

Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org> writes:

>The latter is probably much more likely. Given that private keys are often 
>(usually?) protected with crackable passwords, the loss of a computer to an 
>attacker can be pretty disastrous. I assume that many CAs have out-of-band 
>revocation mechanisms for this case, but they certainly would take a long 
>time, and are probably difficult for a typical end user to find out about.
 
When I brought this up on the CMP list a while back, the response 
(tongue-in-cheek) was that users are expected to fly to the CA's place of 
business and beg in person to have their cert revoked.  This didn't strike me
as a very workable revocation mechanism.
 
(In case it isn't obvious anyway, I'm firmly in the scram-switch camp).
 
Peter.