Gervase Markham wrote:
Ian G wrote:
Good, I'm glad you understand what is meant by branding. By forcing VeriSign to brand themselves like Virgin, they are laid bare to their trusting public. Who knows, maybe they will surprise us all.
You expect Verisign to start taking out brand-building ads based on a change we make to Firefox?
For what it's worth, this is exactly what Verisign would like to do. The recognize that as more and more CA come on the market, their ability to charge a premium for their service diminishes. They *want* the user to know that this site is validated by Verisign and build a market where the home user trusts not just the lock, but the lock + the Verisign logo.
Of course Verisign would like the visibility in Firefox, but the have less interest in it other than a way to coorce Microsoft into doing the same thing.
These same arguments played around and around at Netscape (back when it mattered to Verisign) about wether or not to include the signer's brand. In the end it was UI realestate (or the lack thereof given to security) argument that won the day. In the arena where realestate was less of an issue, but security was, the signer's logo and name *WERE* included (remember the 'Grant' dialogs for signed apps). They still contain those logos today.
bob
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
