Per-Entity Metadata Working Group

[Nicholas Roy <>]

On 9/6/16 2:52 PM, Cantor, Scott wrote:
> > Just for the background information, another concern was the server
> > security which is assumed in TLS.  I'm not suggesting md.incommon.org is
> > not secure but it was difficult to quantify and it was certainly less
> > secure than the signing operation.  Ops also wanted to reserve the
> > flexibility of hosting its stand-by servers in co-locations without
> > special requirements on its physical security.
> Right, that's the fundamental difference.
>
> Signing Pro:
> - self-contained / portable security model
> Con:
> - subject to MITM threats
>
> Transport Pro:
> - end to end security
> Con:
> - highly dependent on physical deployment characteristics that are difficult 
> to replicate widely
>
> I wouldn't necessarily argue that both don't have their place, but we 
> implement both and long experience has led us to believe that it's better to 
> attack the MITM problem with signing somehow than give up the flexibility.
>
> I think probably the best option is to sign, use TLS, but not go overboard 
> trying to lock down the TLS part. That provides reasonable protection against 
> low-cost active attacks without relying on it exclusively.

Strong +1 from me.

Nick

> -- Scott