On Tue, 4 Dec 2001 16:29:24 -0500, Darryl Green wrote:

>For
>these types the benefit right now is just avoiding the scary security
>messages that come up if the certificate is not blessed by an authorized CA
>and not in the underlying securities that certificates provide.

I think that's a big misconception, that having positive
identification of the cert owner somehow adds some additional
underlying security to the transaction. IMO, it doesn't. The
entire value of the SSL cert is in the protection of the data
communications and the prevention of the 'scary dialogs'. Many
large-scale CC data thefts have occured from well-known sites
that had "blessed" certificates - which were no help at all in
preventing the crimes. 

The bottom line is that it's up to the consumer to decide who
they will deal with and having a CA vouch that a particular
vendor is who they say they are really adds very little of value
to the process. Identity validation does nothing to ensure that
the vendor is honest, reliable, or more importantly, that their
stored data is secured and used appropriately. 

The current system only serves to keep the cert prices
inappropriately high and much less convenient for server
operators and domain owners to implement than they need to be. I
find nothing at all wrong with a class of certs (QuickSSL) that
allows web users to easily (ie: no scary dialogs) make use of
SSL data encryption without server identity validation. It's
still up to consumers to make smart decisions about who to do
business with. 


=========================================================================
Jim Whitelaw                                         tel: +1.780.975.1534
jim-at-pdsys-dot-com                                 fax: +1.780.484.9239
Pathways Data Systems Inc.                           http://www.pdsys.com
=========================================================================
"It is best to assume that the network is filled with malevolent entities
 that will send packets designed to have the worst possible effect."
                                                  - F.Baker, RFC1812


Reply via email to