Preferences

throw0101a parent
Okay, the key is compromised: that means they can MITM the trust relationship. But with modern algorithms you have forward security, so even if you've sniffed/captured the traffic it doesn't help.

And I would argue that MITMing communications is a lot hard for (non-nation state) attackers than compromising a host, so trust compromise is a questionable worry.


>And I would argue that MITMing communications is a lot hard for (non-nation state) attackers than compromising a host, so trust compromise is a questionable worry.

By that logic, we don't really need certificates, just TOFU.

throw0101d
> By that logic, we don't really need certificates, just TOFU.

It works fairly well for SSH, but that tends to be a more technical audience. But doing a "Always trust" or "Always accept" are valid options in many cases (often for internal apps).

tptacek
It does not work well for SSH. We just don't care about how badly it works.
throw0101d
> It does not work well for SSH. We just don't care about how badly it works.

How "should" it work? Is there a known-better way?

tptacek
Yes: SSH certificates. (They're unrelated to X509 certificates and the WebPKI).

This item has no comments currently.