Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Whatever thing you're talking about, it does not appear to be DANE stapling.




It does? The idea was to staple the DNSSEC chain to the TLS, so that clients wouldn't have needed to do the whole DNS pointer chasing themselves.

The problem is that the MITM-ing adversary can just strip the DNSSEC chain and then replace the certificate. Without having a DNSSEC-enabled resolver, the client can't detect that. So stapling doesn't provide any additional security over the self-signed certificates.

The only proposed fix was to pin the DNSSEC-enabled URLs, using TOFU (Trust On First Use). And nobody wanted that.

There was no real discussion about adding the stapling in _addition_ to CA-signed certificates. Because at that time there was no point in doing that, no CA wanted to provide free signing.

This is changed now. The self-signed certificates are no longer status quo.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: