Static Signing: An Alternative to SSL(jonmah.tumblr.com)

4 pointsby jmah14 yıl önce4 comments

jonmah.tumblr.com

http://jonmah.tumblr.com/post/18281110021/static-signing

4 comments

geal14 yıl önce

This looks nice, but it has a few problems:

-first, relying on DNS for certificate distribution might not be a good idea. It adds complexity, would not be secure without stuff like DNSSEC, and places too much responsibility on DNS.

-second, you could have gained a lot of CPU time in 1995 when static pages were the norm, but right now, for apps using AJAX heavily, you will not gain much.

-third, it does not prevent MITM. I can mount a server between you and the website, and keep serving you outdated content with its valid signature. Or serve you prepared content that I received earlier.

-last but not least, TLS certificates are cheaper and cheaper these days (not necessarily a good thing, though), and encryption doesn't cost much anymore.

Apart from that, I agree that would have been a cool idea :)

jgrahamc14 yıl önce

Very similar to a proposal I made a few years ago for signing of SCRIPT tags: http://blog.jgc.org/2009/09/solving-xss-problem-by-signing-t...

jmah14 yıl önce

Indeed, looks like an extension of that to HTML and images. With the HTML is signed, then scripts just need to be hashed, not signed with your key.

michaelmior14 yıl önce

It's an interesting idea. I'm curious about the point (²) about cache hits where there are currently misses. What scenario would this happen in? If you're pointing to the same cachable resource on different pages, it should be cached anyway.