Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1V7ld9-0002Eg-0b for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 09 Aug 2013 12:17:19 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.48 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.48; envelope-from=melvincarvalho@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f48.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.219.48]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1V7ld5-0003Ov-Kk for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 09 Aug 2013 12:17:18 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id o17so6621346oag.7 for ; Fri, 09 Aug 2013 05:17:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.144.8 with SMTP id si8mr266640oeb.97.1376050630265; Fri, 09 Aug 2013 05:17:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.23.9 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Aug 2013 05:17:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 14:17:10 +0200 Message-ID: From: Melvin Carvalho To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff2485502911004e382c1a3 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (melvincarvalho[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1V7ld5-0003Ov-Kk Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Idea for new payment protocol PKI X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 12:17:19 -0000 --e89a8ff2485502911004e382c1a3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 9 August 2013 14:08, Mike Hearn wrote: > Bitcoin sought to reduce dependence on trusted third parties, where as, >> persona is increasing the reach of trusted third parties. The keys and >> passwords are stored on mozilla's servers, sometimes on your email >> providers. Persona, is however, a progression and will hopefully improve >> its security and decentralization as it goes along. >> > > When Persona is supported by all the key players in a transaction Mozilla > doesn't get anything, do they? You can easily run your own IDP on a > personal server if you're the kind of person who likes to do that, then run > Firefox so you have a native implementation and the Mozilla servers aren't > involved. The keys never leave your computers. > You'd need to run your own email server and/or change email address, which is not in the reach of the average user, and maybe not even of some businesses. > > Whilst X.509 certs can indeed be issued for any arbitrary string, you > still need a CA that will do it for you, and that's typically not so > trivial. CAs aren't meant for widespread end user adoption, really, whereas > Persona is. > You can self sign X.509 certificates quite easily (e.g. one click via ), then rely on a decentralized web of trust to remove browser warnings. A few people are working on this. > > I don't think Persona is any more or less centralised than other PKIs, > really, just easier to use. Ultimately the string you're verifying is a > user@host pair, so the host is centralised via DNS and to verify the > assertions it vends, you must use SSL to connect to it, so under the hood > the regular SSL PKI is still there. > > > It is easier to use, that's a great plus. But convenience is often a trade off with security. I dont user user@host, I use my home page because it's easy to dereference and get a public key. Email is hard to dereference. Yes, there is a reliance on DNS, which Tim calls the 'Achilles heel' of the web, but it's held up quite well so far (fortunately for us). Mozilla also have a master key to most email accounts, so if anyone got access to that they could impersonate the vast majority of users that have not opted in. I would not use persona for financial stuff, but if I made a casual app with non sensitive information it would be one of the top choices, imho --e89a8ff2485502911004e382c1a3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On 9 August 2013 14:08, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> w= rote:
=
Bitcoin sought to reduce dependence on trusted third parties, where as= , persona is increasing the reach of trusted third parties.=A0 The keys and= passwords are stored on mozilla's servers, sometimes on your email pro= viders.=A0 Persona, is however, a progression and will hopefully improve it= s security and decentralization as it goes along.

When Persona= is supported by all the key players in a transaction Mozilla doesn't g= et anything, do they? You can easily run your own IDP on a personal server = if you're the kind of person who likes to do that, then run Firefox so = you have a native implementation and the Mozilla servers aren't involve= d. The keys never leave your computers.

You'd need to run yo= ur own email server and/or change email address, which is not in the reach = of the average user, and maybe not even of some businesses.
=A0

Whilst X.509 certs can indeed be issued for any arbitra= ry string, you still need a CA that will do it for you, and that's typi= cally not so trivial. CAs aren't meant for widespread end user adoption= , really, whereas Persona is.

You can self sign X.509 = certificates quite easily (e.g. one click via <KEYGEN>), then rely on= a decentralized web of trust to remove browser warnings.=A0 A few people a= re working on this.
=A0

I don't think Persona is any more or less centralis= ed than other PKIs, really, just easier to use. Ultimately the string you&#= 39;re verifying is a user@host pair, so the host is centralised via DNS and= to verify the assertions it vends, you must use SSL to connect to it, so u= nder the hood the regular SSL PKI is still there.



It is easier to use= , that's a great plus.=A0 But convenience is often a trade off with sec= urity.=A0

I dont user user@host, I= use my home page because it's easy to dereference and get a public key= .=A0 Email is hard to dereference.

Yes, there is a reliance on DNS, which= Tim calls the 'Achilles heel' of the web, but it's held up qui= te well so far (fortunately for us).=A0

Mozilla also have a master = key to most email accounts, so if anyone got access to that they could impe= rsonate the vast majority of users that have not opted in.=A0 I would not u= se persona for financial stuff, but if I made a casual app with non sensiti= ve information it would be one of the top choices, imho
--e89a8ff2485502911004e382c1a3--