Re: [TLS] TLS, PKI, and web security. Was: Eleven out of every ten SSL certs aren't valid

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

On Jul 21, 2010, at 4:12 PM, Peter Gutmann wrote:

> Marsh Ray <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
>> This sounds like an endeavor of great merit.
> 
> Phew, that's better than "OK, you write it then" :-).

Nah, Marsh is just being polite. You can't submit drafts right now, but we expect draft-gutmann-tls-why-00.txt early next week, so that we can all read it before the TLS WG meeting on Thursday. :-)

> 
> (This would also be useful for the rest of the big 5, IPsec, SSH, S/MIME, and
> PGP, for which the threat model is mostly "here's what we defend against, if
> that's what you want then use it").
> 
>> Is this the type of project that any other [TLS] members would be interested
>> in collaborating on?
> 
> Count me in.

Me too.

>> Ivan Ristic started addressing it from a pretty high level:
>> http://blog.ivanristic.com/2009/09/ssl-threat-model.html
> 
> That's a good start, I was thinking of something vaguely similar but built
> more around services that people require, so providing a shopping list like
> confidentiality, integrity, dispute (what's incorrectly referred to as
> "nonrepudiation" most of the time), availability, and so on, and then listing
> under which conditions TLS does and doesn't provide this.  It depends on what
> the target audience is, Ivan's attack tree is for people worried about how TLS
> might fail while the services-provided categorisation is for people who need a
> particular service from TLS and want to know whether they're getting it.