←back to thread

482 points sanqui | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.239s | source
Show context
MattPalmer1086 ◴[] No.42287582[source]
Things like this make me wonder why certificates are not also signed by the certificate owner.

Right now, a CA can issue a certificate for any public key and domain they like. A rogue trusted CA can intercept all traffic.

If a certificate also included a signature by the owner of the public key signed by the CA (using their private key, signed over the CA signature), then a CA would no longer have this ability.

What am I missing?

replies(3): >>42287627 #>>42287710 #>>42292346 #
rhplus ◴[] No.42287710[source]
> What am I missing?

The chain of trust for all the certificates in your example is established by trusting the rogue CA root certificate. The CA (or a bad actor who misled the CA through real-world fraud) could be the “owner” of the key pair you’re trusting for the second signature.

replies(2): >>42288696 #>>42288799 #
1. ◴[] No.42288696[source]