Re: Certificate proposal

[Hal <hfinney@shell.portal.com>]

Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com> writes:

>As far as privacy goes, this set of keys and certifications lets you create
>private communications (using signed DH, etc.) with the entity that owns
>the private key for Bank Account X.  No, you don't know if that entity
>is really Alice or really MITM; in fact you don't know Alice's name, if it's
>done right.  You just know that the Bank says it will honor requests for money
>from Bank Account X (assuming you know where to find the Bank, which is a
>separate
>but similar problem.)  So assuming you're selling politically correct
>widgets and not
>pharmaceuticals or financial privacy consulting services, you probably don't
>care too much about who's on the other end - the person who's giving you
>the money is the person you want to be talking to.

Still, there is a problem here: how did the bank know that it _should_
honor requests to withdraw money from bank account x if they are signed
with a certain key?  How did it determine that that is a valid key, if it
never had a secure channel to the person opening the account?  I think
the answer is clearly that it cannot, that it must have had a secure
channel.  Would a certificated key presented by Alice have been
sufficient to create such a channel, do you think, or would a face to
face meeting have been necessary?  (Or would an uncertificated key be
adequate?)

>In the case of the Bank, the reason you trust the Bank isn't that you know
>them physically (though it was interesting when I started dealing with a
>local bank where the tellers knew me by name after only two or three visits);
>knowing your local Savings and Loan by name doesn't guarantee you can get any
>money out of them if there's a bank run, nor does it really guarantee that they
>won't embezzle the funds and head for Argentina.  The reason you trust them
>is that they (in this case the "they" identified by their key) are doing
>business
>dealings with a lot of people and it's more profitable not to abscond.
>And the reason you know it's really the Bank and not MITM is that they've
>always identified themselves by their key from the beginning.
>Just like the credit card who's owner we've been calling Alice has.
>And because you've successfully withdrawn money from the Bank before,
>and because you're clearing Alice's credit card transaction reasonably promptly.

What if you are accessing the bank via a MITM?  Consider this example:
Alice writes you a check, signed with a key (without her name) which
has a credential from the bank saying that it will back up the check.
But you need the bank's key to check the credential, so Alice gives it
to you, or you get it from a public cache.  Suppose the bank's key is
fake, and Alice is defrauding you.  How do you tell?  Wouldn't a
certificate on the bank's key be necessary, one which ties the bank's
name and reputation to the key?

Or what if the bank really is and has always been behind a MITM?  You say
that it is more profitable for the bank not to abscond with your money.
What about the MITM?  He doesn't make any profits until he cheats.  He
might well be collecting information which will allow him at some point
to abscond very successfully.  Would you really trust a bank which was
known to you only by a key and by a record of never having defaulted,
knowing this was a possibility?

>Checks and credit cards are especially good examples for this - the current
>systems need your name on them, because your name and signature are the
>closest they have to an authentication system.  However, with digital
>signatures,
>the fact that you can sign a document verifiable by the public key is
>all the authentication that's needed; your name isn't.  If the card has an
>account number for convenience, and Alice substitutes Carol's account number
>for hers on a statement, her signature won't match the public key the bank
>wants on the request, and it'll bounce.  (In this case, the certificate
>from the bank would probably include the account number as well as the key,
>but it's not critical for on-line systems, just more efficient.)

Same problem as before: how does the credit card company know that the
key it is putting on the card is really Alice's?  What if Alice discovers
unauthorized charges because Carol was a MITM and substituted her key?
We can't just ignore this possibility.

It seems to me that a lot of protocols assume the existence of secure
channels.  Yet the MITM attack shows that public key cryptography does
not in and of itself provide a secure channel.  This is a problem which
IMO should not be ignored simply because it is inconvenient.

Hal