1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <luke@dashjr.org>) id 1Td9Hf-0005dt-0a
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:44:19 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1Td9He-00048Y-0m for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:44:18 +0000
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [173.170.188.216])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CB1B327A296E;
Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:44:10 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:44:03 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.5.4-gentoo; KDE/4.8.5; x86_64; ; )
References: <CABsx9T0PsGLEAWRCjEDDFWQrb+DnJWQZ7mFLaZewAEX6vD1eHw@mail.gmail.com>
<201211262344.03385.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAAS2fgTacBqX7_YpGzUxtqt9okeCeeufsG8d0CYnwVXPF_bu7w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgTacBqX7_YpGzUxtqt9okeCeeufsG8d0CYnwVXPF_bu7w@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201211270044.05489.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain -0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1Td9He-00048Y-0m
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal:
Invoices/Payments/Receipts
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:44:19 -0000
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:16:07 AM Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> > On Monday, November 26, 2012 11:32:46 PM Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> >> Would you find it acceptable if something supported a static whitelist
> >> plus a OS provided list minus a user configured blacklist and the
> >> ability for sophisticated users to disable the whitelist?
> >
> > How is this whitelist any different from the list of CAs included by
> > default with every OS?
>
> Because the list is not identical (and of course, couldn't be without
> centralizing control of all OSes :P ) meaning that the software has to
> be setup in a way where false-positive authentication failures are a
> common thing (terrible for user security) or merchants have to waste a
> bunch of time, probably unsuccessfully, figuring out what certs work
> sufficiently 'everwhere' and likely end up handing over extortion
> level fees to the most well established CAs that happen to be included
> on the oldest and most obscure things.
There is a common subset of CAs which are included in all OSs.
That's the "whitelist equivalent". We or someone else could even setup a list
of these common CAs for merchants if that is needed.
The fees CAs charge for certs is a flaw in the CA model in general, I don't
see that it's important for us to solve it.
|
