<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Hi Rich,<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Salz, Rich wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:32E56DFC-6B99-4F37-971C-B885A0FAE44C@akamai.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style>@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}</style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">> (In an
optimal world, we wouldn't have to trust the CDN, but this
will require a TLS without the 'T'...)<br>
The relationship between a business and its CDN is a
contractual agreement between the two parties. You shouldn’t
care about the CDN about as much as you care about what
gateways they have in their DMZ, and so on: in other words,
complain to the company if something is broken.<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Sorry for not being clear enough. By CDN I was not referring to the
legal entity selling CDN services, but to the system role of a CDN,
regardless of who owns it. As you say, that CDN should not be
treated differently than any other network equipment.<br>
<br>
Our role as security architects is to design systems that are
secure, such as by reducing the overall levels of trust in the
system to where and as much as is necessary.<br>
<br>
Regardless of whether the CDN is outsourced or not, it's a component
in the system that our current design of TLS requires us to trust
even though such trust might have been avoided. Once we introduced
this hop that needs its own trusted cert, combined with the fact
that the CA model allows almost-everyone to sign everything, we get
the dog poop effect. I see the issue as not that a cert has many
domains, but that this trusted cert is needed in the first place;
regardless of who owns the box.<br>
<br>
Hagai.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<div class="moz-signature"><i>Hagai Bar-El</i><br>
<a href="https://www.hbarel.com?med=sig" moz-do-not-send="true">www.hbarel.com</a><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>