ge0rg

Joined 16 years ago

Karma
3,510
Submissions
566
Member since
Apr 1
Ph.D., IT Security consultant, geek.

[ my public key: https://keybase.io/ge0rg; my proof: https://keybase.io/ge0rg/sigs/IbGDkSaF88bGZ5TR2pBfzVgSpIjQIR2ujem0AQx0qms ]

View on Hacker News

Recent submissions

Comment · 8 months ago
This is technically true, and nobody contested the CABF's focus on HTTPS TLS.

However, eventually, the CABF started imposing restrictions on the public CA operators regarding the issuance of non-HTTPS certificates. Nominally, the CAs are still offering "TLS certificates", but due to the pressure from the CABF, the allowed certificates are getting more and more limited, with the removal of SRVname a few years ago, and the removal of clientAuth that this thread is about.

I can understand the CABF position of "just make your own PKI" to a degree, but in practice that would require a LetsEncrypt level of effort for something that is already perfectly provided by LetsEncrypt, if it wouldn't be for the CABF lobbying.

Comment · 8 months ago
Let's Encrypt also provides value by providing signed TLS certificates that are enrolled in all major operating systems, and that can be used to authenticate any TLS server.

This is a significant and important use case that's totally ignored by the "WebPKI" proponents, and there is no alternative infrastructure that would provide that value if WebPKI would e.g. decide to add certificate constraints limiting issued certificates to TCP/433.

Comment · 8 months ago
The public TLS PKI was never supposed to serve every use case and you know it. But let me point out when it was possible to get a public CA certificate for an XMPP server with SRVname and xmppAddr:

  Certificate:
    Data:
        Version: 3 (0x2)
        Serial Number: 1096750 (0x10bc2e)
        Signature Algorithm: sha256WithRSAEncryption
        Issuer: C = IL, O = StartCom Ltd., OU = Secure Digital Certificate Signing, CN = StartCom Class 1 Primary Intermediate Server CA
        Validity
            Not Before: May 27 16:16:59 2015 GMT
            Not After : May 28 12:34:54 2016 GMT
        Subject: C = DE, CN = chat.yax.im, emailAddress = [email protected]
        X509v3 extensions:
            X509v3 Subject Alternative Name: 
                DNS:chat.yax.im, DNS:yax.im, xmppAddr:chat.yax.im, dnsSRV:chat.yax.im, xmppAddr:yax.im, dnsSRV:yax.im
Ironically, this was the last server certificate I obtained pre-LetsEncrypt.
Comment · 8 months ago
Yes, this is what is happening. It isn't happening fast enough, so some implementations (especially servers that don't upgrade often enough, or running long-term-support OS flavors) will still be affected. This is the impact that the original article is warning about.

My point was that this is yet another change that makes TLS operations harder for non-Web use cases, with the "benefit" to the WebPKI being the removal of a hypothetical complexity, motivated by examples that indeed should have used a private PKI in the first place.

Comment · 8 months ago
Can you point out, at which point in time exactly, the public TLS PKI infrastructure has been reduced to WebPKI?
Comment · 8 months ago
A federated ecosystem of servers that need to verify each other based on their domain name as the identity is the prime use-case for a public CA to issue domain-verified client certificates. XMPP happens to be this ecosystem.

Rolling out a private PKI for XMPP, with a dedicated Root CA, would be a significant effort, essentially redoing all the hard work of LetsEncrypt, but without the major funding, thus ending up with an insecure solution.

We make use of the public CAs, that have been issuing TLS certificates based on domain validation, for quite a few years now, before the public TLS CAs have been subverted to become public HTTPS-only CAs by Google and the CA/Browser Forum.

Comment · 8 months ago
Comment · 9 months ago
The interop was a nice feature implemented by their engineers, but it violated the lock-in operational principles of the gatekeeper services, so it had to be abandoned. Let's see if the EU Digital Markets Act will bring back XMPP interfaces to the big ones... ;)
Comment · 1 year ago
Yeah, I've documented a thing or two about the NX series on https://op-co.de/blog/tags/samsung-nx/

Regarding the RTOS, I took my NX300 from the shelf some weeks ago to make a few shots for the live demo at https://programm.froscon.org/froscon2025/talk/fc37ae17-9264-... and OH MY FSCKING GOD IT'S SLOW! I made a burst shot of a model train approaching, and the camera was busy processing it for multiple minutes. The NX500 is lightning fast in comparison, and the NX1 is even snappier.

So what do you plan to do with the ARM hook? I've poked at different places of di-camera-binary, but never at the processing pipeline, and there are soooo many things to reverse-engineer, and I'm but one person!

Comment · 1 year ago
The other half of the problem is what to gain from a root shell. You can't influence the stages of the image processing without a PhD in Sony DSP Reverse Engineering, and so what remains is probably hooking into the camera controls and injecting key events to re-invent time-lapse timers or bulb exposures, and removing the 30min video recording limit.

This is where the NX mod project arrived - additional hooks into the camera controls and a few changes to internal registers left over by Samsung engineers for debugging, like silent shutter or the 30min limit.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton