On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Matthew Hardeman <[email protected]>
wrote:

> As I pointed out, it can be demonstrated that quality ECDHE exchanges can
> happen assuming a stateful DPRNG with a decent starting entropy corpus.
>

Agreed - but that's also true for the devices Tim is mentioning.

Which I guess is the point I was trying to make - if this can be 'fixed'
relatively easily for the use case Tim was bringing up, what other use
cases are there? The current policy serves a purpose, and although that
purpose is not high in value nor technically rigorous, it serves as an
external check.

And yes, I realize the profound irony in me making such a comment in this
thread while simultaneously arguing against EV in a parallel thread, on the
basis that the purpose EV serves is not high in value nor technically
rigorous - but I am having trouble, unlike in the EV thread, understanding
what harm is caused by the current policy, or what possible things that are
beneficial are prevented.

I don't think we'll see significant security benefit in some circumstances
- I think we'll see the appearances of, but not the manifestation - so I'm
trying to understand why we'd want to introduce that risk?

I also say this knowing how uninteroperable the existing key delivery
mechanisms are (PKCS#12 = minefield), and how terrible the cryptographic
protection of those are. Combine that with CAs repeated failure to
correctly implement the specs that are less ambiguous, and I'm worried
about a proliferation of private keys flying around - as some CAs do for
their other, non-TLS certificates. So I see a lot of potential harm in the
ecosystem, and question the benefit, especially when, as you note, this can
be mitigated rather significantly by developers not shoveling crap out the
door. If developers who view "time to market" as more important than
"Internet safety" can't get their toys, I ... don't lose much sleep.
_______________________________________________
dev-security-policy mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy

Reply via email to