[15046] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Ousourced Trust (was Re: Difference between TCPA-Hardware and a smart card and something else before
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter Gutmann)
Sun Dec 28 12:01:51 2003
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 14:29:39 +1300
From: pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann)
To: ereed@novell.com, lynn@garlic.com
Cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com, iang@systemics.com
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> writes:
>1) x.509 certificates broadcast all over the world attacked to every
>transaction were in serious violation of all sorts of privacy issues
>2) certificates were fundamentally designed to address a trust issue in
>offline environments where a modicum of static, stale data was better than
>nothing
>3) offline, certificate oriented static stale processing was a major step
>backward compared to online, timely, dynamic processing.
X.509 certs were designed to solve the problem of authenticating users to the
global X.500 directory. So they're good at what they were designed for
(solving a problem that doesn't exist [0]), and bad at everything else
(solving any other sort of problem).
Peter.
[0] Actually they're adequate at what they were designed for. The original
directory authentication work was really just a bunch of suggestions as to
how you'd do it, ranging from passwords through to certs, and a lot of the
cert stuff was more a set of suggestions than any firm guideline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
