▲ | cmeacham98 2 days ago | |
This math only looks good because you're adding an arbitrary unsubstantiated 12x multiplier to the CA numbers. Of course, neither of us have actual numbers but my gut instinct is that registars are probably about as secure if not less secure than CAs, and there are nearly 10x as many of them. | ||
▲ | 0xbadcafebee a day ago | parent [-] | |
Registrars are less secure because CAs have to follow a strict guideline for security. We could just apply that same standard to the registrars. It would be easier for them to follow since it would be far simpler to use 1 validation method, and using cryptographic verification it's easier to automate validating that it was done successfully. The 12x multiplier comes from the number of attack vectors to validation methods. The whole system is public knowledge; if you know how each part works, and you know about all the possible security exploits out there, you can just count them. Here's a brief list off the top of my head, it's not exhaustive:
And this is just the run-of-the-mill exploits most experienced hackers can pull off remotely. Haven't gotten into more advanced things like supply-chain attacks, timing attacks, protocol/algorithm flaws, espionage, social engineering, etc.The big problem is that since validation uses no cryptography whatsoever, all the attacks are fairly trivial. A BGP attack is so easy that it happens by accident on a monthly basis. MITM is easy. Stealing credentials is easy (ask any botnet admin). Attacking DNS is easy (most people don't uses DNSSEC and even if they do their clients/resolvers aren't enforcing validation). Do an end-run around all this bullshit by asking the people who actually know who owns the domain (the Registrar) to validate it cryptographically. |