Re: [therightkey] Defining CT-for-PKIX and CT-for-DNSSEC

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Sun, 18 November 2012 01:24 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1211171804460.21843@bofh.nohats.ca>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 17:24:07 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <208851A7-84FB-4BF9-ACCE-18A931B146F6@vpnc.org>
References: <CCCD7038.36484%carl@redhoundsoftware.com> <alpine.LFD.2.02.1211171804460.21843@bofh.nohats.ca>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Cc: therightkey@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [therightkey] Defining CT-for-PKIX and CT-for-DNSSEC
Precedence: list

On Nov 17, 2012, at 3:06 PM, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012, Carl Wallace wrote:
> 
>> Who is intended to be able to contribute to the log?  It seems like for
>> this to provide the desired visibility, any client should be able to.  For
>> CT, at least, I thought this was not to be the case.
> 
> How do you authenticate that?

The submission includes the whole DNSSEC chain to the root, similar to what it does for CT-for-PKIX.

> You cannot use the DS/DNSKEY for
> authentication because then the CT audit log is useless to detect
> compromises.

The purpose is to detect inclusion of DS keys that are not valid to the end host, not to detect "compromise". You have been following this mailing list, yes?

> And you cannot say "The CA industry" either, which is the answer for the
> CT-PKIX version.

OK, so maybe you haven't been following the mailing list or reading the draft. In the CT-for-PKIX proposal, individuals can submit their own certificate.

> If you make CT-DNSSEC go through the CA industry, it
> will cost $10/year or more to get in the audit log.

Thank you, Strawman McBogusArg!

--Paul Hoffman

[therightkey] Defining CT-for-PKIX and CT-for-DNS… Paul Hoffman
Re: [therightkey] Defining CT-for-PKIX and CT-for… Shumon Huque
Re: [therightkey] Defining CT-for-PKIX and CT-for… Richard L. Barnes
Re: [therightkey] Defining CT-for-PKIX and CT-for… Paul Hoffman
Re: [therightkey] Defining CT-for-PKIX and CT-for… Carl Wallace
Re: [therightkey] Defining CT-for-PKIX and CT-for… Paul Wouters
Re: [therightkey] Defining CT-for-PKIX and CT-for… Paul Hoffman
Re: [therightkey] Defining CT-for-PKIX and CT-for… Carl Wallace
Re: [therightkey] Defining CT-for-PKIX and CT-for… Paul Wouters
Re: [therightkey] Defining CT-for-PKIX and CT-for… Carl Wallace
Re: [therightkey] Defining CT-for-PKIX and CT-for… Ben Laurie
Re: [therightkey] Defining CT-for-PKIX and CT-for… Ben Laurie
Re: [therightkey] Defining CT-for-PKIX and CT-for… Carl Wallace
Re: [therightkey] Defining CT-for-PKIX and CT-for… Ben Laurie
Re: [therightkey] Defining CT-for-PKIX and CT-for… Carl Wallace
Re: [therightkey] Defining CT-for-PKIX and CT-for… Ben Laurie
Re: [therightkey] Defining CT-for-PKIX and CT-for… Tom Ritter
Re: [therightkey] Defining CT-for-PKIX and CT-for… Ben Laurie