| That sounds like it was written by someone who doesn't completely understand Convergence, and also has an alternative agenda (they want their own solution adopted). > It is not very user friendly. Users are asked to manage a list of notaries. This list of notaries is stored locally on the computer, or even the browser. Managing this list is not feasible for most users. Browsers can replace the CA root certs with a notary list and pick notaries at random from the list. This is not a problem like with CAs as multiple notaries have to collude to form a consensus (you only need one rogue CA), and rogue notaries can be removed on a whim, unlike CA roots which are indentured (removing a CA breaks any site that uses it). > It's not clear how well it protects (or can protect) if some notaries haven't yet cached the latest SSL certificate for a particular website. This doesn't matter at all. The notary looks the cert, checks the signature and tells you if it matched what you're seeing. > It does not provide MITM protection on first visit. Yes it does. If your connection is MITM'd the notaries won't match your perspective. > Waiting for group consensus means all connections have higher latency (slower page loads). Only the first visit, before the notaries confirm the certificate signature you're seeing, and then you cache it and only need to check it again if it changes. > Both Convergence and Perspectives (see below) results in you sharing every website you visit with random third-parties. Bounce notaries exist for this reason. > With DNSChain, if privacy is a concern, you can run your own server and only rely on it Same with Convergence. |
> It does not protect you if the MITM is sitting in front of the server you are visiting. Notaries would see exactly the same key that you see (the one that belongs to the MITM).