Re: [Trans] Threat model outline, attack model

Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org> Mon, 29 September 2014 13:23 UTC

Return-Path: <gerv@mozilla.org>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27A9B1A1A78 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 06:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.257
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.257 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
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 21B4ptwGbyr8 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 06:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.mozilla.org (mx2.corp.phx1.mozilla.com [63.245.216.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C8B01A6F8F for <trans@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 06:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.101] (93.243.187.81.in-addr.arpa [81.187.243.93]) (Authenticated sender: gerv@mozilla.org) by mx2.mail.corp.phx1.mozilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 18012F26FE for <trans@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 06:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <54295D52.5020000@mozilla.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:23:30 +0100
From: Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:33.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/33.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: trans@ietf.org
References: <54173589.3000404@bbn.com> <CABrd9SRShqm1r-2ajbqD5w1s686ciyjcEvywsXZaapgmi57NsA@mail.gmail.com> <54242F8A.2080602@bbn.com> <CABrd9SSwAdv-mAgofNT6bMWky7q=bZhAaX=L4gZUQDkROQ-3ZA@mail.gmail.com> <54258AF0.7090602@bbn.com> <4842B04F-A058-4F3C-9DA3-F29735EC7570@taoeffect.com> <alpine.LFD.2.10.1409262236210.27616@bofh.nohats.ca> <FC4A18E2-A42C-472F-B9FE-2278BB5A0BBA@taoeffect.com> <CABrd9SQBuQO1wrv7s06aT-GGyeWmu2sFzJrH6a+t81aq-dei+w@mail.gmail.com> <77D4B290-D2C8-44D7-AF84-A0A1B91B9557@taoeffect.com> <20140927211940.GP28050@hezmatt.org> <FDC8E60C-4CB4-447D-8562-FDB7B755B0B4@taoeffect.com> <5427FC62.2000207@net.in.tum.de>
In-Reply-To: <5427FC62.2000207@net.in.tum.de>
OpenPGP: id=9DF43DBB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/FG4zHUFwJ6l8DG-T_aOspgBbcog
Subject: Re: [Trans] Threat model outline, attack model
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list <trans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trans/>
List-Post: <mailto:trans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:23:41 -0000

On 28/09/14 13:17, Ralph Holz wrote:
> * That leaves us with an undisclosed number of intermediate certificates
> issued by CAs.

And why would any of those want to run a log anyway, more than a random
person? I'd expect them in most cases to submit their certs to the log
run by the parent CA.

I wonder also if small CAs would pool resources to run a log. After all,
it's not a customer-facing function.

So I'd be surprised if we see 60 logs.

Gerv