Slashdot Mirror
Free Certificate Authority Unveiled by Aussies
SonOfGates writes "Well, the Aussies have invaded Boston but at least they're not throwing tea into the harbor. AU-based nonprofit CAcert Inc has spent the last few days at USENIX '04 registering new users by the truckload. They bill themselves as a 'Community-Based CA.' Could this be the begining of a true 'open' certificate authority? See the O'Reilly story and press release."
Many ISP's and low-budget group have self-signed certs. They're easy to make. Hopefully this project will make it easier. I have quite often seen sites with a self-signed cert and another page giving the fingerprint of the cert. Most vendors allow these, but they aren't "trusted".
The only reason the big companies charge so much (their claim, not mine) is the insurance they provide, and the fact that they are "trusted" by the various vendors.
Any new group wanting to be a trusted CA will face the liability issue -- if one of your customers sues you, even if you try to disclaim all liability up front, you will still face massive court fees. Even if you won in court, you would lose financially if not insured.
There is no technical or logistical problem with setting up a Free (and free) common-geek's CA, the problems are entirely legal ones. I know because I looked into it right after SSL came out. It looks like a good business plan, right up until someone takes you to court.
Thank you for your support.
Yea, you can do it in IE too. The problem is that end-users do not know how to, and the whole concept is completely foreign to them.
Sad as it may be, IE is still used by something like 85% of the world.
bash: rtfm: command not found
Verisign acquired Thawte in late 1999. Though they acknowledge the fact on their corporate website, they don't exactly make it obvious they no longer compete with Verisign.
I know it's not non-profit, but Thawte does provide personal certificates for free. You can use them for email encryption and signing without any difficulty. As for server certificates (https, etc), I think you'd have to pay for, but for personal email usage, Thawte is a pretty good option.
Here's a summary of a proposal I wrote for canadian provinces...
The Governor General's office acts as the root CA for Government Ministries & Crown Corporations and Professional Associations.
Any professional association (Bar Association, College of Physicians & Surgeons, Engineers, etc) acts as a CA for it's members and corporations working in their field (Law firms (lawyers, paralegals, legal secretaries), Medical Clinics (Doctors, Nurses, X-Ray Techs, Appointment Clerks), etc)
Certified Accountants act as a CA for Corporations, Societies, Partnerships, etc.
The Notaries public act as a CA for individuals.
I use a Thawte p.cert to sign my email - there's a good writeup on configuring it to work with OSX's Mail.app here -- also a good example on how to provide visually appealing technical documentation that I can talk non-technically inclined people into reading.
-- YLFIOne god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
Denmark has free digital signatures for all citizen, for use in email, to sign in on sites, etc...
URLs:
- http://www.digitalsignatur.dk/
- http://privat.tdc.dk/digital/
(both in Danish, though...)
The technicalities are run by the largest phone company/ISP, TDC, but otherwise it's fully a government thing.
Services for Unix is widely known to use BSD licensed code and utilities from the OpenBSD project. The TCP/IP stack in early NT products was BSD code, and its possible some of the utilities, the ftp client for example, is still BSD code.
Microsoft doesn't like the GPL, but the GPL is not the be all and the end all of Free Software. Microsoft has no problems with other open licenses.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
For example, see the TrueSite Relying Party Agreement. "The Service is provided on an as-is basis without warranties of any kind".
Even Verisign's Relying Party Agreement, while it does offer some warranties, has a complicated scheme for weaseling out of Verisign's obligation to verify the certificate holder's identity. The relying party agreement refers you to the CPS Section 11, says "Issuing authorities (and VeriSign, to the extent specified in the referenced CPS sections) warrant and promise to ... perform the application validation procedures for the indicated class of certificate as set forth in CPS Section 5, Validation of Certificate Applications." There, Verisign says "The IA shall confirm that ... the information to be listed in the certificate is accurate, except for nonverified subscriber information (NSI)." The linked definition of "nonverified subscriber information" is "Information supplied to a certification authority as part of a certificate application". So Verisign doesn't actually stand behind any of the information in their certificates.
This is much weaker than a signature guarantee by a commercial bank, where the bank guarantees to other parties that the person was properly identified. But it costs more.
I'd like to see banks belonging to Visa International and MasterCard issue digital certificates, and require that their certificates had to be on a page that accepted their credit cards. Certificates from banks would actually be worth something.
Quote from the article:
He goes on to describe the process of getting the root cert, hopefully, included into the Mozilla project through a Bugzilla feature enhancement request. From what I read from the article, the discussion about this is still going on.