[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOPXC2=q20yPwyodpNyyQVnj=+UOz0rJWc6ExRpUZdU4VJpj3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:18:52 +0200
From: Gregor Pintar <grpintar@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: High-priority library replacements?
2013/4/30, Nicolas Braud-Santoni <nicolas.braudsantoni@...il.com>:
> On 25/04/2013 08:43, Gregor Pintar wrote:
>> Hello.
>> [...]
>>
>> I think best way is not to trust any certificate authority.
>> Maybe some certificate p2p protocol could be done?
>
> Hello,
>
> Are you aware of DANE (RFC6698, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DANE) ?
> It is a RFC which suggests holding certificates fingerprints in special
> DNS records.
> Since DNSSEC allows us to establish trust of these records, this is a
> simple and robust alternative to CA-based trust models.
>
> However, and AFAIK, it doesn't cope with entities that aren't accessed
> through a hostname.
>
>
> Have a good day,
>
>
Thanks, I was not aware of it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
