Re: Slightly OT: What SSL cert do you consider strongest?

[John Adams <jna () twitter com>]

You're forgetting about certificate pinning which defeats MiTM if the
certificate is issued by an unauthorized CA.

For example, here at Twitter we have certificate pinning in all of our
clients to ensure SSL certificates are only signed by trusted CAs and as
well as Chrome.

Emerging standards like TACK and DANE will help greatly with this issue.

-j



On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:12 AM, <gremlin () gremlin ru> wrote:

> On 22-Oct-2013 16:14:00 -0400, David Miller wrote:
>
>  > After the PRISM and other Snowden leaks, inquiring minds want to
>  > know: whose SSL certs are to be trusted?
>  > Is a self-signed cert likely to be stronger?
>
> Obviously, yes: any issuer in any country may be forced (by local
> authorities) to issue a valid certificate for any host or domain,
> so no one will be able to distinguish between original host with
> updated certificate and MitM proxy operated by feds.
>
>
> --
> Alexey V. Vissarionov aka Gremlin from Kremlin <gremlin ПРИ gremlin ТЧК ru>
> GPG: 8832FE9FA791F7968AC96E4E909DAC45EF3B1FA8 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/