[145468] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: A mighty fortress is our PKI, Part II
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nicolas Williams)
Wed Jul 28 12:24:46 2010
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:23:16 -0500
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@oracle.com>
To: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com
In-Reply-To: <20100728162051.GW566@oracle.com>
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:20:51AM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:18:56PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > Again, I understand that in a technological sense, in an ideal world,
> > they would be equivalent. However, the big difference, again, is that
> > you can't run Kerberos with no KDC, but you can run a PKI without an
> > OCSP server. The KDC is impossible to leave out of the system. That is
> > a really nice technological feature.
>
> Whether PKI can run w/o OCSP is up to the relying parties. Today,
> because OCSP is an afterthought, they have little choice.
Also, requiring OCSP will probably take less effort than switching from
PKI to Kerberos. In other words: eveything sucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
