and constrained subordinate CA costs?

[Matt Crawford]

On Mar 25, 2005, at 16:06, Adam Back wrote:

>> There's an X.509v3 NameConstraints extension (which the higher CA 
>> would
>> include in the lower CA's cert) but I have the impression that ends
>> system software does not widely support it.  And of course if you 
>> don't
>> flag it critical, it's not very effective.
>
> Well I would say downright dangerous -- if its not flagged critical
> and not understood, right?
>
> Implication would be an intended constrained subordinate CA would be
> able to function as an unconstrained subordinate CA in the eyes of
> many clients -- free ability to forge any domain in the global SSL
> PKI.

Exactly.  (Just like the root CAs in the browser's shipped list.  :-)

And if it's marked critical, the certificate is no damn use to almost 
anyone.  Chicken, meet egg.  Egg, chicken.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com