On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Philip Whitehouse <phi...@whiuk.com> wrote:
> Let me just see if I get where you're going: > > So essentially you've increased the number of CAs to the number of > companies without really solving the PRISM problem. The sheer number mean > it's impractical to do much more than a cursory check before approval. > The number of CAs would not need to be very large, I would expect it to be in the hundreds in a global system but that is pretty much a function of their being hundreds of countries. If example.com wanted to run their own CA for their own email certs then the way to do it would be to issue them a cert signing cert that has name constraints to limit its use to just n...@example.com. The idea is that there are multiple CAs but their actions are all vetted for transparency and they all check up on each other. Any one CA can be served with an NSL, but if they issue a coerced certificate it will be immediately visible to the target. So a government can perform a DoS attack but not get away with an impersonation attack. > PRISM for email is bad because we don't even know who we can trust. I > can't trust the provider because they could have been served an NSL. The > provider has to see the metadata or they can't route the email. So I'm > doomed. Best case is I can secure the contents and use an alternate name. > At that point I need an organization I trust to act as my Omnibroker who > for some reason I don't trust with the mail itself. > > One other question: PPE = Prism Proof Email? > > Nor do I think key chain length was the problem - initial key > authentication and distribution is the first issue. > > Philip Whitehouse > Well the way that was solved in practice for PGP was Brian LaMachia's PGP Key server :-) Which turned into a node of very high degree... -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ The cryptography mailing list cryptography@metzdowd.com http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
