Papers › Aggregation-Based Gossip for Certificate Transparency
Aggregation-Based Gossip for Certificate Transparency
Rasmus Dahlberg, Tobias Pulls, Jonathan Vestin, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen, Andreas Kassler
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Certificate Transparency (CT) requires that every CA-issued TLS certificate must be publicly logged. While a CT log need not be trusted in theory, it relies on the assumption that every client observes and cryptographically verifies the same log. As such, some form of gossip mechanism is needed in practice. Despite CT being adopted by several major browser vendors, no gossip mechanism is widely deployed. We suggest an aggregation-based gossip mechanism that passively observes cryptographic material that CT logs emit in plaintext, aggregating at packet processors (such as routers and switches) to periodically verify log consistency off-path. In other words, gossip is provided as-a-service by the network. Based on 20 days of RIPE Atlas measurements that represent clients from 3500 autonomous systems and 40% of the IPv4 space, our proposal can be deployed incrementally for a realistic threat model with significant protection against split-viewing CT logs. We also show that aggregation-based gossip can be implemented for a variety of packet processors using P4 and XDP, running at 10 Gbps line-speed.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections