logoalt Hacker News

eqvinox • today at 4:27 PM • 2 replies • view on HN

> It's strictly worse than this.

Maybe if people implemented name constraints and the CA/B forced CAs to use them. But not as it is; unconstrained sub-CAs are a scourge on the Web PKI.


Replies

agwa • today at 7:21 PM

Name constraints are intended for organizations which want to issue publicly-trusted certificates for their own domains. Name constraints are already widely supported and name constrained sub-CAs exist for this purpose in the WebPKI.

eMudhra is not such a case. They are a root CA that issues certificates to the general public all over the world. In fact, they are now the preferred vendor for numerous US universities via InCommon[1]. There is no way to meaningfully name constrain them.

[1] https://incommon.org/certificates

➕ show 1 reply
tptacek • today at 6:11 PM

I like constraints too, but listen carefully to EKR and 'agwa on this, because a lot of things that seem like straightforward fixes are much more complicated in reality. The most important thing I want from the WebPKI is expensive entry and the death penalty for fuckups, and I think we basically have that now.