- From: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 12:16:29 +0100
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- CC: Sebastian Trueg <trueg@openlinksw.com>, public-webid@w3.org, public-xg-webid@w3.org
Several years ago we published an alternative option, which was to include a revocation URL inside the certificate along with the URL of where the certificate could be obtained from. Only one of these URLs will ever be active (the Internet acts as a state machine) as the certificate either exists or is revoked. We did have a PKIX draft for it, but it never progressed to standard. However the scheme is described in this paper http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/pubs/2007/2791/index.html A variation of this could be used by WebID regards David On 01/10/2012 11:01, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > > > On 1 October 2012 11:47, Sebastian Trueg <trueg@openlinksw.com > <mailto:trueg@openlinksw.com>> wrote: > > When I was introduced to WebID in my head it was mostly about > authentication-related scenarios, situations in which one needs to > authenticate to get access to something. Let's call them "immediate > identity-proof" scenarios. > In these situations a compromised private key is no big deal: you > simply remove the public key from your profile and you are safe. > > However, when it comes to email-signing this is not practical > anymore. If you would do that then suddenly all the emails you sent > before the change of the key will show up as unverified in the > recipients' inboxes. > > I briefly discussed this problem with Henry who told me that it had > been discussed before[1]. In the light of us all signing our emails > with WebID-enabled certificates I would like to bring this up again, > find a solution, and start implementing it. > > The simplest way to go AFAICS would be to introduce a new property > to add "expired" keys to a profile. This would retain compatibility > with existing implementations which are mostly about authentication > and do not need to be bothered with this extension. > > To get the ball rolling let me throw some Turtle at you: > > <#me> cert:expiredKey [ > a cert:RSAPublicKey, cert:ExpiredKey; > rdfs:label "Key from back when" ; > cert:modulus "...." ; > cert:exponent 65537 ; > cert:expired "2012-06-12T12:42"^^xsd:__datetime ] . > > (IMHO it would be much cleaner to use the good old cert:key property > and just make the key another type but that might break > implementations.) > > Using this extension email clients could still verify old emails > even though the key has been compromised in the meantime. > > Regards, > Sebastian > > [1] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/public-webid/2012Jan/__0031.html > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2012Jan/0031.html> > > > I wonder if "Cool URIs dont change" is related to this. > > IE cool keys dont change? > > I have set my key for 100 years expiry which I will try to take care of. > > Of course you can have multiple keys and throw away keys. > > Perhaps we should have a preferred or canonical key much like we have a > preferredURI > > ... just thinking out loud ... > > > -- > Sebastian Trueg > Technical Consultant > OpenLink Software > trueg@openlinkws.com <mailto:trueg@openlinkws.com> > http://openlinksw.com > http://trueg.wordpress.com > http://www.linkedin.com/in/__trueg <http://www.linkedin.com/in/trueg> > >
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 11:17:01 UTC