Go Back   Wireless and Wifi Forums > News > Newsgroups > comp.security.misc
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 09-11-2006, 12:30 PM
ttm
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default SSL CA signed certficates

Hi,

My first post to this group, pls bear with me. I'm working with Java
and various network services, some of which are secured with SSL, both
with self-signed and CA signed certificates.

It surprises me that SSL certificates signed by CAs are (fully
qualified) hostname based and not wildcard based, i.e. when I request a
signed certficate I have to state the full name. If I need to secure
another host, I have to generate a new request and have that hostname
signed for as well. This can't be other than a commercially driven
procedure. Surely, if Verisign authenticates company ACNE Inc. and sign
a certificate for foo.acne.com, then what it really /could/ do is sign
*.acne.com and this certificate should be accepted by all clients that
trust Verisign. I guess all SSL APIs are programmed to perform a pure
equality check between DNS name and the certificate's common name, but
what it /should/ do is compare the top-domain/sub-domain (acne.com)
part of the domain name and compare it to the certificate's common name
(which should be acne.com and not having to be foo.acne.com,
bar.acne.com etc).

Why isn't it so? Is it purely commercial, or does it provide any
stronger security this hostname driven signing model?

Any input would be much appreciated.

--

Thomas


Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 09-12-2006, 03:17 PM
Juha Laiho
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: SSL CA signed certficates

"ttm" <ttm@online.no> said:
>It surprises me that SSL certificates signed by CAs are (fully
>qualified) hostname based and not wildcard based, i.e. when I request a
>signed certficate I have to state the full name. If I need to secure
>another host, I have to generate a new request and have that hostname
>signed for as well. This can't be other than a commercially driven
>procedure.


Wildcard certificates are available (or have been, at least), but
at a price significantly higher than that of fully qualified certificates.
There has also been terms of use in certificates limiting in how that can
be used. So, it's pretty much a commercial driver, as you state.

However, with the current proxy technology, what would be the driver
for several SSL-enabled hosts on a single domain? Just do the namespace
division in URL path instead of using several host names.
--
Wolf a.k.a. Juha Laiho Espoo, Finland
(GC 3.0) GIT d- s+: a C++ ULSH++++$ P++@ L+++ E- W+$@ N++ !K w !O !M V
PS(+) PE Y+ PGP(+) t- 5 !X R !tv b+ !DI D G e+ h---- r+++ y++++
"...cancel my subscription to the resurrection!" (Jim Morrison)

Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
client authentication failed in IE browser(only in Win98) for self signed certificate ashok.dhananjeyan@gmail.com comp.security.misc 0 12-02-2006 04:46 AM
Just signed up with Three... Badass Scotsman uk.telecom.mobile 2 11-23-2006 10:19 PM
Jamie Baillie Kevin McClave alt.cellular.verizon 2 11-11-2006 05:53 PM
Cancelling an Orange contract ahead of time John B uk.telecom.mobile 15 09-14-2006 09:51 AM
Sipgate: signed up, brilliant (for 5 minutes). OM uk.telecom.voip 8 09-27-2005 09:38 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45