per-entity - Re: [Per-Entity] TLS private keys and CDNs
Subject: Per-Entity Metadata Working Group
List archive
- From: David Walker <>
- To: <>
- Subject: Re: [Per-Entity] TLS private keys and CDNs
- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 09:56:56 -0700
- Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) ;
- Ironport-phdr: 9a23:onsysBz/9632rUTXCy+O+j09IxM/srCxBDY+r6Qd0uMWIJqq85mqBkHD//Il1AaPBtqLra8fwLOL+4nbGkU+or+5+EgYd5JNUxJXwe43pCcHRPC/NEvgMfTxZDY7FskRHHVs/nW8LFQHUJ2mPw6aj2O/9wESGwnycE9cbqSwQ9aKzpf/6+fnr4XeeUBFgia8faJaLRO9qgDUsc9QhpFtfPUf0BzM91dBZeVajVxhIVGehV6o6ti5+J1u6QxRve4s7chNTf+8cqglG+8LRA86Onw4sZW4/SLIShGCsz5FCj0b
- Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
(Probably off-topic, but I don't see why, in concept, multiple
CDN nodes couldn't share the same HSMs and host names. There
would probably need to be multiple certs per host name, one per
HSM, but they'd all be signed by the same CA. Using TPMs in the
CDN nodes is a good idea, as it reduce overhead, but I think it
otherwise has the same security properties of an HSM for this use
case.) David On 09/21/2016 09:39 AM, Nick Roy wrote:
I actually like this better than them generating the key signing requests themselves. This lets us potentially share the same hostname across CDNs and front it with our own DNS strategy. Not writing to disk isn't a mitigation since key-in-memory is similarly risky, the only real mitigation there being key-in-TPM or something similar. |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- [Per-Entity] TLS private keys and CDNs, David Walker, 09/21/2016
- Re: [Per-Entity] TLS private keys and CDNs, Nick Roy, 09/21/2016
- Re: [Per-Entity] TLS private keys and CDNs, David Walker, 09/21/2016
- Re: Re: [Per-Entity] TLS private keys and CDNs, chubing, 09/29/2016
- Re: [Per-Entity] TLS private keys and CDNs, David Walker, 09/21/2016
- Re: [Per-Entity] TLS private keys and CDNs, Nick Roy, 09/21/2016
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.