Op 16 feb. 2014, om 05:26 heeft Tedd Sperling <tedd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> het volgende geschreven: > Hi gang: > > I wrote this Friday, but forgot to send it and don't want to wait until next Friday. So, if you ppls would be so kind as to enlighten me and before I shoot my mouth off and make a complete fool of myself, please tell me if I am wrong. > > I claim that a SSL Certificate is nothing more than a software instrument used by Browsers to alert users that the site they are visiting is indeed the site being reported -- IOW, the identify of the site can be trusted. > > I also claim that s SSL Certificate has absolutely nothing to do with actual HTTPS communication between the Browser and the Server. For example, I can use HTTPS communication by simply placing a script in a HTTPS directory or using a .htaccess directing such -- all without a SSL Certificate. > > Now, am I wrong? > > Thanks, > > tedd Yes, you are wrong. A SSL Certificate is NOT (repeat not) an identification of a site. If anything, identificationwise, it is a signed statement by the provider of the certificate, that the provider feels the Certificate details are right, and therefore the site claim to be who the Certificate says it is, could be right. The trustworthiness of the claim that the certificate that it belongs to the site serving it, and thereby establish its identity, is dependent of the trustworthiness of all certificates in the chain of certificates, all the way up to the root certificate. Thus if any certificate in the chain is compromised, the end certificate is not to be trusted. And this happens, more often than we want. Certificate authorities get compromised, more that you think. The most notable compromised authority was Diginotar. Besides the compromise, there are CA's that do not check of the person, company or whatever, is actually representing who they claim to represent. This is common for personal certificates. And, finally, there is a beast called 'self signed certificate'. These are mainly used to ensure encryption can take place, and do not identify the server as being the server they claim to be. As far as encryption goes, de HTTPS encryption is based on PKI. Therefore the server has two certificates, the private one, which should never be served, and the public one, which always is served. The certificate is used for the first part of the handshake for encryption. So, technically, you got it reversed. Although one goal of the certificate in HTTPS is identification, it is in itself not trustworthy, although lots of times it can be trustworthy. It is however needed to setup the encryption, between client and server in HTTPS. Disclaimer, the bove is a very rough, very very rough, sketch of the role of the certificates. It is more complex than I described, but basically it is how encryption and identification work. And my state ment that the certificatie is not an identification, is a very non nuanced statement. Jasper
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
