logoalt Hacker News

0xbadcafebeetoday at 4:20 PM1 replyview on HN

> once a web host uses a particular CA you are stuck trusting them forever otherwise the internet will break.

If you switched CAs you would only need to trust the old one until the previous cert expired, or when you get a newer cert. Once the cert expires there's no point in trusting the old CA - for that domain. (In my solution you still keep all the CAs in your cert store, but they can't validate a cert that wasn't also signed by the domain owner's and registrar's keys)

> it also means that registrars could force you to use VeriSign

The check on that is the combination of the CA/Browser Forum and ICANN. The CA/Browser Forum is a proxy for Google, Apple and Microsoft, who control the browser market, and ICANN who controls the accreditation of domain registrars. A single registrar has a lot less money and influence today than back in the day.

> would want to have the US government decide who they can get certificates from

Because of the aforementioned bodies I don't believe registrars would be allowed to enforce specific CAs (architecturally they would just be signing requests on a REST API based on the CA keys the domain owner authorized, so there's no need to integrate into specific CAs). I also think CA/Browser Forum would want to enable Let's Encrypt to be used everywhere (LE usage is in the interest of the CA/Browser Forum) so that would mean they need rules to allow CAs independent of registrars.

DANE and DNSSEC are not a good solution architecturally or security-wise. DANE is duct tape; duct tape is a temporary fix, not a permanent one.


Replies

tptacektoday at 4:35 PM

I think a lot of people who work on the root programs would push back on the idea that the CAB Forum is a proxy for Google, Apple, and Microsoft.