ImperialViolet

This is something that I wrote up internally, but which Chris Palmer suggested would be useful to post publicly for reference. It presents some, somewhat artificial, axis on which I believe that all proposed solutions to addressing weaknesses in the current certificate ecosystem fall. By dividing the problem into those decisions, I hope to make the better solutions clearer.

Axis 1: Private vs public signing

At the moment we have private signing. A CA can sign a certificate and tell nobody about it and the certificate is still valid. This is the reason that we have to go crawl the Internet in order to figure out how many intermediate CA certs there are.

In public signing, certificates aren't valid unless they're public.

There are degrees of how public schemes are. Convergence is a public scheme: certificates have to be visible to the notaries, but it's a lot less public than a scheme where all certificates have to be published. And published where? Highly public schemes imply some centralisation.

Private schemes don't protect us from CAs acting in bad faith or CAs which have been compromised. Public schemes help a lot in these cases, increasingly so the more public they are. Although a certificate might be valid for a short time, evidence of misbehavior is recorded. Public schemes also allow each domain to monitor all the certificates for their domain. Fundamentally, the only entity that can answer the question of whether a certificate is legitimate is the subject of the certificate itself. (See this tale of a Facebook certificate.)

Private schemes have the advantage of protecting the details of internal networks (i.e. not leaking the name www.corp.example.com).

Axis 2: Side channels or not

Revocation checking which calls back to the CA is a side channel. Convergence notaries are too. OCSP stapling is not, because the server provides the client with everything that it needs (assuming that OCSP stapling worked).

Side channels which need to be a hard fail are a problem: it's why revocation checking doesn't actually work. Private networks, hotel networks and server downtime are the issues. Side-channels are also a privacy and performance concern. But they're easier on the server operator and so more likely to be deployed.

In the middle are soft-fail side-channels. These offer limited protection because the connection proceeds even when the side-channel fails. They often queue the certificate up for later reporting.

Axis 3: Clocks or not

OCSP with nonces doesn't need clock sync. OCSP with time stamps does.

Keeping clocks in sync is a problem in itself, but it allows for short lived statements to be cached. It can also be a useful security advantage: Nonces require that a signing key be online because it has to sign a constant stream of requests. With clocks, a single response can be served up repeatedly and the key kept largely off-line. That moves the online key problem to the clock servers, but that's a smaller problem. A compromised clock server key can be handled by querying several concurrently and picking the largest cluster of values.

Examples

OCSP today is {private,side-channel,clock}. The 'let's fix OCSP' solutions are typically {private,side-channel,no-clock} (with an option for no-side-channel). Convergence is {mostly-public,side-channel,no-clock}.

I think the answer lies with {public,no-side-channel,clock}, but it's a trek to get there. Maybe something for a future post.