Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Database Security
Authentication
Mobile
Privacy
Compliance
Careers and People
Identity & Access Management
Security Monitoring
Advanced Threats
Insider Threats
Vulnerability Management
Comments
How To (And Not To) Make the Online Trust Honor Roll
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
RetiredUser
50%
50%
RetiredUser,
 User Rank: Ninja
7/31/2017 | 2:46:22 PM
Re: impersonization, forgery, and fakes
100% behind you here, mack.  There is room for the Public Key Model to improve, of course.  Read an interesting paper "Soundness in the Public-Key Model" by Silvio Micali and Leonid Reyzin.  From the ABSTRACT:

The public-key model for interactive proofs has proved to be quite effective in improving protocol efficiency (see Canetti, Goldreich, Goldwasser, Micali, STOC 2001). We argue, however, that its soundness notion is more subtle and complex than in the classical model, and that it should be better understood to avoid designing erroneous protocols. Specifically, for the public-key model, we:

 
  • identify four meaningful notions of soundness;
  • prove that, under minimal complexity assumptions, these four notions are distinct;
  • identify the exact soundness notions satisfied by prior interactive protocols; and
  • identify the round complexity of some of the new notions.
macker490
100%
0%
macker490,
 User Rank: Ninja
7/18/2017 | 8:21:33 AM
impersonization, forgery, and fakes
what do the sites do to prevent the "Bad Guys" from impersonating them -- or transmitting fakes and forgeries?

sites focus tons of effort on identifying their customers.    but what do customers do in order to authenticate sites?

we rely on a large list of x.509 certificates -- published by our web browsers  -- and most of us -- have no clue what's in that list.

For Critical Sites Only:    we all need to COUNTERSIGN trusted certificates using our own PGP/GnuPG key

in the Public Key Model this step is required in order to validate a key.   Keys must be validated before a trust level can be assigned.

give this some thought.   "They" want to authenticate you -- but -- you need to authenticate them -- and the model we use today -- fails.   That's an F


News
Former CISA Director Chris Krebs Discusses Risk Management & Threat Intel
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  2/23/2021
Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
Security + Fraud Protection: Your One-Two Punch Against Cyberattacks
Joshua Goldfarb, Director of Product Management at F5,  2/23/2021
News
Cybercrime Groups More Prolific, Focus on Healthcare in 2020
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  2/22/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: "The truth behind Stonehenge...."
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
Building the SOC of the Future
Building the SOC of the Future
Digital transformation, cloud-focused attacks, and a worldwide pandemic. The past year has changed the way business works and the way security teams operate. There is no going back.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-27886
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-02
rakibtg Docker Dashboard before 2021-02-28 allows command injection in backend/utilities/terminal.js via shell metacharacters in the command parameter of an API request. NOTE: this is NOT a Docker, Inc. product.
CVE-2016-8153
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-02
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2016. Notes: none.
CVE-2016-8154
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-02
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2016. Notes: none.
CVE-2016-8155
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-02
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2016. Notes: none.
CVE-2016-8156
PUBLISHED: 2021-03-02
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: The CNA or individual who requested this candidate did not associate it with any vulnerability during 2016. Notes: none.