BLU Discuss list archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Discuss] Why the dislike of X.509?
- Subject: [Discuss] Why the dislike of X.509?
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 16:45:38 -0400
- In-reply-to: <CAAbKA3W3-vTovRceaytyR57MxVH-9AL0MNV2dLBMg5kzveNg+A@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <53F9F6B9.4060505@stephenadler.com> <20140824161132.GE14848@randomstring.org> <be314521ab6bebb6add54d706b042f01.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com> <53FA1C3B.70908@gmail.com> <53FB19E5.4080602@aeminium.org> <53FB4A5D.2030305@gmail.com> <CA+h9Qs5GnC6d1ejBQC=crtHwxoDiFWo4Kn+xjt0eiA8Kr733_A@mail.gmail.com> <53FB70E6.50706@gmail.com> <sjmmwarchcd.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <53FE1FCB.7010405@gmail.com> <sjmvbpcbji2.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <53FF75C6.7@gmail.com> <CAAbKA3W3-vTovRceaytyR57MxVH-9AL0MNV2dLBMg5kzveNg+A@mail.gmail.com>
On 8/28/2014 2:49 PM, Bill Ricker wrote: > Kerberos KDC is limits the attack surface instead of concentrating it, > and implements session key negotiation without requiring asymmetric > (PubKey), although public key is available for authentication. pretty > slick. Very flexible, scalable, and designed to operate reliably on actively hostile networks. > ( Don't think it would scale to the whole internet though, as we have > other requirements there. ) It would require reversing how we typically handle authentication. Imagine a Kerberos realm deployed by Amazon. That's going to be a massively ginormous database. Not scalable short of throwing massive quantities of hardware at it. Turn it around. Instead of me joining Amazon's realm, what if Amazon joins my personal realm? My KDC is the origin of the service principal that Amazon uses when we (that is, my browser and Amazon's web servers) communicate with each other. My KDC is the trusted third party for our mutual authentication. It's not simple but it is very, very scalable. It's also much more secure as an entire system as the compromise of my KDC only affects me. That compromise cannot be used to exploit other private realms. -- Rich P.
- References:
- [Discuss] vnc
- From: adler at stephenadler.com (Stephen Adler)
- [Discuss] vnc
- From: dsr at randomstring.org (Dan Ritter)
- [Discuss] vnc
- From: markw at mohawksoft.com (markw at mohawksoft.com)
- [Discuss] vnc
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] vnc
- From: nuno at aeminium.org (Nuno Sucena Almeida)
- [Discuss] Why the dislike of X.509?
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] Why the dislike of X.509?
- From: jabr at blu.org (John Abreau)
- [Discuss] Why the dislike of X.509?
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] Why the dislike of X.509?
- From: warlord at MIT.EDU (Derek Atkins)
- [Discuss] Why the dislike of X.509?
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] Why the dislike of X.509?
- From: warlord at MIT.EDU (Derek Atkins)
- [Discuss] Why the dislike of X.509?
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] Why the dislike of X.509?
- From: bill.n1vux at gmail.com (Bill Ricker)
- [Discuss] vnc
- Prev by Date: [Discuss] Why the dislike of X.509?
- Next by Date: [Discuss] vnc
- Previous by thread: [Discuss] Why the dislike of X.509?
- Next by thread: [Discuss] Why the dislike of X.509?
- Index(es):