[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Online Certificate Revocation Protocol



At 03:47 PM 6/8/01 -0700, Hansen Wang wrote:


> A question:  If one discovers that they have accidently destroyed their
> private key (and there is no evidence of compromise), are they under any
> particular obligation to request revocation?  Is there any liability, or
> other real "downside" to simply getting a new key and keeping mum about the
> fate of the former key?

Assuming that the entity which lost their private key wanted another
certificate with a new key pair but wanted the same name. What would
happen if their were two certificates in existance with the same name?
Wouldn't the CA not allow this? Or request documentation/proof (maybe
out-of-band methods) of ownership of the name and then the CA would
revoke the previous certificate base on the out-of-band proof and issue
a new one with the same name?

Hansen Wang <hansenw@xxxxxxxxxx>


I don't think so. X.509 supports "key-implies-name". You are suggesting that it also supports "name-implies-key". I don't believe there is such a restriction in general (although a CA may decide per policy).

Is there some specific threat enabled if the key/name relation is many-to-one?

___tony___



Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 <azb@xxxxxxxx>
Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA 94551-9900