Subject: RE: Certificate / CPS issues

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 15:12:26 -0700

Pkix is busy grafting the pgp model on top in the shape of cross
certificates.

I dispute the lower risk claim. You have more control. More control does not
mean less risk.

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Haren Visavadia
Sent:	Mon Jun 09 10:35:58 2003
To:	'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'; [email-masked]
Subject:	RE: Certificate / CPS issues 

> serious problems with the PGP model. 

PGP model offers a lower risk, since I can choose to trust the claimed
person or not.

I know PGP, may not scale globally.

---

From: "Haren Visavadia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:32:54 +0100

The risk is reduced by starting with an empty keystore, when I have
enough trust in the person then I added the person. When the trust is
comprised, I remove the person. And before using my private key, I must
enter a pass phrase as the private key is encrypted with this pass
phrase.

In X.509, it gives me a keystore with lots of certificates that I may
not be able to trust. How do trust these certificates?

I can not simply, they could be fake, and there is no establishment of
trust, especially if the keystore component is written by Microsoft.

"Make a determination in your mind whether this key actually belongs to
the person whom you think it belongs to, based on available evidence."

---

From: "Haren Visavadia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:35:50 +0100

>You have more control. More control does not
> mean less risk.

You can not gain trust by someone showing me a certificate.

Trust is something that has to be controlled by the user and not trust
chains in the certificate.

---

From: "Haren Visavadia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:46:32 +0100

>You have more control. More control does not

Control is needed in risk management.

---

From: "Haren Visavadia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:14:44 +0100

Christian Huitema wrote:
> The PKI and the PGP model both have risks, just different risks. The
PGP
> model only involves the two parties; it brings the risk that the two
> parties misidentify each other.  The PKI model involves a third party,
> supposedly trusted by both players; it brings the risk that the third
> party may make mistakes, or that the two parties mistakenly assign too
> much trust to a third party. Also, any large centralized service is
> bound to become a target for government and other entities.

Absolutely!

The risk is narrower in PGP.

We have already had a case were the third-party made a mistake. 

Some CA has sold their private key to get out of bankruptcy.

---

From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 14:16:06 +0200

Haren writes:

> I can not simply, they could be fake, and there
> is no establishment of trust, especially if the
> keystore component is written by Microsoft.

Why are keystore components written by Microsoft peculiarly unworthy of
trust?

---

From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 14:16:47 +0200

> Some CA has sold their private key to get out

Which one?