> Forcing their customers to install government-affiliated alternative CAs, in turn allowing the government to spy on its citizens more easily via mis-issued certs?
How's the support for X.509 "Name Constraints" these days:
One possible alternative might be to add the ability for user configuration to substitute one certificate for another one (both will need the same public key and subject name, but the substitute will not be self-signed (since you do not have the private key)), and to use the data in the substitute certificate instead of the original. If the name constraints extension is implemented, then it would make this and other things possible. Since the substitute certificate will be considered trusted, it is not necessary for the substitute certificate to have a signature (if it does (e.g. because you got it from somewhere else instead of making it yourself), then the signature can be ignored), nor is it necessary for the substitute certificate to be issued by anyone (this applies even if it is the end certificate being substituted).
I think some servers do not send a copy of the root certificate to the client. In this case, what I described above might already be possible even if that feature has not already been added to existing implementations, as long as it does not require the installed certificate to be self-signed.
It would be simple today to abolish the use of CAs but it just a big cargo biz that makes money on nothing as usual based on peoples incompetence. For 99% of all sites today security would be handled better without CAs. People simply don't understand how it works.
All that was true until fairly recently. Today, you can get certificates for free and there’s more transparency than ever thanks to CT.
What would you suggest as an alternative? TOFU?
I could see that for local applications (e.g. making mDNS/.local and private IP certs TOFU capable by default would be amazing, and maybe even for some explicit hobbyist public TLDs?), but I don’t think I’d love it for my bank or email provider.
> It would be simple today to abolish the use of CAs […]
The main technical way I know of doing this would be by putting TLS public keys in DNS (DANE, RFC 6698), but then you have to make sure that DNS packets are not fiddled with, so you need to bring in DNSSEC.
That's a false concern, because the names the CAs are certifying are still DNS names. If your TLD reasssigns your DNS name out from under you, or even if your TLD starts returning false data on only selected queries, the CAs will be happy to issue a cert to the new holder.
It would be great to have a widely-recognizable pseudodomain out there where the names were key hashes. It would actually graft really easily into DNSSEC. The zone format doesn't have to change at all; you just declare that if the KSK hash matches the domain label under this specific TLD, you don't need to check upstream of that. Then you add a P2P protocol for getting the actual data, and start slowly pushing that protocol down the resolver tree to incrementally decentralize everything.
No disrespect to you for posting this, but those iOS/iPadOS/MacOS are almost identical launch pages. Feels like a waste of time even having them be separate.
I was at WWDC for the Vision Pro launch and asked someone a technical question about tvOS. He said, 'ah, [Jim] could answer that, but he isn't here today'. When I asked if anyone else from tvOS was here the reply was, '[Jim] is the only person on tvOS' and I am pretty sure he was serious.
I’ve heard this kind of thing about Apple fairly regularly (the iTunes Remote app comes to mind). While there are issues to large teams, I feel like there is a middle ground that doesn’t result in a single point of failure. What happens when Jim wins the lottery?
It seems like Apple could very easily turn the AppleTV into a proper game console, but not with only one person on it. I guess it’s still just a “hobby” for them.
> It seems like Apple could very easily turn the AppleTV into a proper game console
Apple could turn the Mac, iPad or Vision Pro into a proper gaming console, too. It's just not something they are willing to do, no matter how well-positioned they are for it.
Apple wants you to buy your games through the App Store, so they can take the 30%, which means competing with Steam. Which means getting licensed games on the App Store.
Apple already fought one such license war over music and won. They're currently doing Apple TV as well.
However, for the gaming industry they're complete strangers. Unlike music (which is mostly made on Mac) and TV/Movies (which are often made on Mac, at least partly), gamedev is very much Windows focused.
Pushing for ports and licenses is an uphill battle, and probably not one Apple wants to take on. They have plenty of other profitable ventures.
Bloomber's Odd Lots podcast had an episode on rope a little while ago, "How the Invention of Rope Gave Us Modern Civilization":
> Rope is easy to take for granted. It seems obvious and straightforward. But of course, it had to be invented. Early humans discovered that by twisting fibers around each other, the resulting structure would be something durable and strong. Without rope, all kinds of things aren't possible, from lifting objects into the air to whaling or modern bridges. So how was rope developed and what were the big breakthroughs in its history? On this episode, we speak with Tim Queeney, the author of 'Rope: How a Bundle of Twisted Fibers Became the Backbone of Civilization.' He walks us through the history of the technology, and its ongoing evolution, including how it might one day allow us to build elevators into outer space.
You're right. I'm glad the very next sentence in my comment landed.
The problem with turning it off is that the system and applications have been architected assuming that it will be on, so things like fork/execing a memory heavy processes or allocating memory inside a cgroup (which still pretends overcommit is enabled and there's still no way to disable that assumption) that used to work fine might break with no good way to get them to work again. This comment (and siblings) have more specifics: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27794237#27795199
> Whether it is called “Department of War” or “Department of Defense”, it’s still the same organization maintaining the same mission operating under the same budget.
The mission of the Department of War, which was its name pre-WW2, and the mission of the Department of Defence (post-WW2) is completely different: this is evidenced by the number of military personnel in the two time periods (and the draw-down in personal post-1990, after the Cold War ended):
How's the support for X.509 "Name Constraints" these days:
* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5280#section-4.2.1....
Would restricting it to only dot-ir domains be a mitigation?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.ir
reply