Re: Self-signed certificates

[Carl Ellison <cme@cybercash.com>]

Here's some trouble-making I'm doing on another list (one that believes in
X.509 certs and CAs).... :)

 - Carl

>Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 17:34:46 -0400
>To: Greg.McPhee@Software.com (Greg McPhee)
>From: Carl Ellison <cme@cybercash.com>
>Subject: Re: Self-signed certificates 
>Cc: ssl-talk@netscape.com

>
>At 01:51 PM 7/2/96 -0700, Greg McPhee wrote:
>>>
>>>If you have encountered an old friend of yours on the net and want to make
>>>sure that you can exchange keys with her without some active eavesdropper
>>>getting in the path and substituting keys, then a CA's cert is probably
>>>worthless to you.  [I have a paper at this month's USENIX Security Symposium
>>>on this subject.]
>>
>>I want to understand why the "CA's cert" above is worthless.  Assuming the
>>"CA's cert" is a self signed certificate identifying a CA, then is it
>>worthless because it is an untrusted CA, or because my old friend and I
>>don't have personal certificates signed by this CA?
>>
>>Couldn't wait for the paper :-)
>
>OK -- at the risk of boring the list... :)
>
>There are many definitions for "identity".  In this one case, I'm using the
>example of an old friend.  We meet again on the net and want to trade keys,
>for private communications.  Much of the loose talk over the years about
>certificates says that if she and I have certificates from a good CA, then
>we can be assured we aren't being spoofed.  That statement isn't true.
>
>To state it more formally, a CA's certificate in this case is neither
>necessary nor sufficient.
>
>The CA binds a key to *its name for a person* -- trying to make that name
>globally unique and meaningful -- but all it can promise is to make the name
>unique.  It can't promise to make it meaningful *to me*.  The CA is not
>aware of my existence, much less of what I know about each person in the
>world.  There might be 100 certificates for "Sue Robinson" -- with various
>other information to distinguish them from one another -- but when I knew
>her she was going under the name of Laura and I have no clue what her other
>distinguishing information is.  I had lost touch with her.
>
>I could ask her, over the net, and she would tell me all those new bits of
>information.
>
>Trouble is, I need an authenticated channel to her in order to be sure I'm
>not being spoofed while she tells me her SNail address (or whatever makes
>her cert unique).  I can't get an authenticated channel without the cert.
>Impasse.
>
>Thus the cert from the CA is not sufficient.
>
>It is also not necessary.  The paper I'm presenting gives a protocol with
>which Sue and I can use our shared memories (what makes us old friends in
>the first place and, in a real sense, the *true* definition of "identity")
>to prove to each other that there is no eavesdropper over a confidential
>channel we create.  Once we've done that, we then we can tell each other our
>keys and each issue a cert for the other's key.  At that point, we have
>certified keys for each other without involving a CA.  What's better, I have
>her certified key from a "CA" I can trust above all others -- myself.
>
>[QED]
>
> - Carl