←back to thread

482 points sanqui | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
danpalmer ◴[] No.42285229[source]
This is a bad look. I expected the result would be Chrome and Firefox dropping trust for this CA, but they already don't trust this CA. Arguably, Microsoft/Windows trusting a CA that the other big players choose not to trust is an even worse look for Microsoft.
replies(8): >>42285389 #>>42285408 #>>42285431 #>>42285622 #>>42286061 #>>42286142 #>>42286897 #>>42287654 #
jsheard ◴[] No.42285389[source]
What is even the point of a web CA that isn't trusted by all of the major players? Is there one?
replies(3): >>42285424 #>>42285444 #>>42285550 #
tialaramex ◴[] No.42285444[source]
These are generally government CAs, so, typically the situation is Microsoft sold the government Windows, and as part of that deal (at least tacitly) agreed to the CA being trusted, and so every system that's trusting these certificates is a Windows PC anyway, running Edge because the whole point was the government will only use Windows and pays Microsoft $$$.

Why bake it into everybody else's Windows? If you make say a Brazil Government-only Windows which trusts this CA instead, I guarantee somebody crucial in Brazil will buy a 3rd party Windows laptop independently and it doesn't work with this CA's certificates and that ends up as Microsoft's problem to fix, so, easier to just have every Windows device trust the CA.

They'll have an assurance from the CA that it won't do this sort of crap, and that's enough, plausible deniability. Microsoft will say they take this "very seriously" and do nothing and it'll blow over. After all this stuff happened before and it'll happen again, and Windows will remain very popular.

replies(4): >>42285464 #>>42285561 #>>42285818 #>>42285942 #
awinter-py ◴[] No.42285561{3}[source]
what's the state's interest in having their CA built into windows?
replies(7): >>42285580 #>>42285679 #>>42285705 #>>42285808 #>>42285814 #>>42285837 #>>42286935 #
tptacek ◴[] No.42285580{4}[source]
States are themselves extraordinarily large IT enterprises, they generally want control of traffic and its transparency or protection, and they are large enough to get arrangements for that, though usually not this particular arrangement.

Large enterprises in the US generally have the same capability, but not loaded into operating systems by default (that is: Walmart's ability to do this on its own network in no way impacts you, who have never worked on that network).

replies(1): >>42285936 #
adra ◴[] No.42285936{5}[source]
If you're a large enterprise, then it's trivial to add yourself your own custom CA and save the cost/hassle of needing to deal with outside companies. The tradeoff being you need to manage it yourself vs basically paying this third party company to survive?
replies(2): >>42286218 #>>42287574 #
1. tptacek ◴[] No.42286218{6}[source]
That's true, but in the bad-old-days of the antidiluvian WebPKI it was somewhat routine to sell big companies CA=YES certs simply to allow them to do this universally without pushing out updates to all their endpoints. It was a terrible, bad practice, and so far as I know it's completely dead now --- except for Microsoft, I guess.