- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:54:16 +0200
- To: peter williams <home_pw@msn.com>
- Cc: <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <8EDBF00A-E3F8-4754-9C73-1F19F4850BD3@bblfish.net>
On 21 Apr 2011, at 02:53, peter williams wrote: > “Both of these technologies should help bring about an increasingly secure Web, whilst avoiding the dystopia of excessive centralization” says the bard in the paper. > > DANE centralizes – in DNS. Just like ICANN centralized naming authority (in some US commerce committee, which holds special power over ICANN), and the top level roots are centralized (in VeriSign/NetworkSolutions, on the territory of the USA). It is not as centralised as it appears, as I argues a few weeks ago on this list in the thread "Certificate Authorities under increasing spotlight" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-webid/2011Mar/0126.html So on that view DNSsec is as (de)centralised as CAs. But I'll add a twist to the paper. > You cannot have it both ways. Stuffing a self-signed cert is de-centralized; but if you counter-sign it using a zone-delegation system that is hierarchical, its STILL centralized. No amount of spin will change this reality, to engineers interested in survivability and resilience, etc. > > Remember, a huge amount of work went on to DECOUPLE certs from name servers (otherwise we could have had a signed directory response do what DANE does… about 25 years ago). > > One of the nice things about DANE, though, is that it legitimizes ldaps. If the logic of DANE makes it fine for a DNS zone authority to counter-sign a self-signed cert for a “domain-cert_, its equally legitimate for an ldap authority under a self-appointed zone (dc=com, dc=us - run by someone called “peter”) to also store a self-signed cert – named identically to the domain-name used by DANE for the same self-signed cert, in the public DNS tree. Then, one lets the SSL cert(s) of the ldaps endpoint(s) speak as a counter-signature (just as does a DNSSec signature that chains up hierarchically to a top-level zone controlled CENTRALLY, by US vendors by and large). > > Did I say wikileaks, yet , this week? How quickly we forget, how the tentacles of control work through the naming and DNS system – something that did NOT impact the wikileaks SSL certs (note). > > > > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Thursday, 21 April 2011 08:54:47 UTC