On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 08:15:43AM +0000, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> Matt Palmer <[email protected]> writes:
> >On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 09:56:11AM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> >> I share your concern over short-lived certificates, but for a
> >> different reason: key continuity. Key continuity has proven to be a
> >> much better security property than gratuitous key rotations based on
> >> reading of tea leaves by tasseomancers.
> >
> >Do you have any citations you can share?
>
> Google "SSH", that's been running for about the same time as TLS using key
> continuity.  TLS has a booming global cybercrime industry built around the
> failure of certificates to deal with spoofing, SSH has very little in the way
> of spoofing (granted they're very different protocols serving different
> purposes).

Yes, they're very, _very_ different protocols, serving very, _very_
different purposes.  I do a lot of SSHing, but its to a fairly stable,
rarely-changing set of names.  The set of machines I make HTTPS
connections to is far broader and ever-changing.  TOFU for HTTPS would
be... really something.

> >From a brief web search, I'm not finding very much on the topic of key
> >continuity.  The most relevant-looking result is
> >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gutmann-keycont/, which is an I-D that
> >expired in 2009, and does not appear to have been pursued since.
>
> Bit of an odd choice to take an ancient expired RFC draft given the large
> amount of research publications around this,

The research publications areen't coming up on DDG, but your draft was
-- that's why I made the "odd choice" of mentioning it.  Would you be
able to share links to some more relevant reading material?

- Matt

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"[email protected]" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/mozilla.org/d/msgid/dev-security-policy/e44b7949-122e-45a6-8fb0-5bc9e6247fd2%40mtasv.net.

Reply via email to