Alternative pinning scheme. Re: Proposing: Interactive Domain Verification Approval

2013-01-05 Thread Anders Rundgren
On 2012-12-31 16:18, Kai Engert wrote: I propose to more actively involve users into the process of accepting certificates for domains. If we get away from garbage like keygen, PKI-based authentication becomes a natural feature for mobile devices. This in itself render the mentioned attacks

Secure credit-card payments? Re: Proposing: Interactive Domain Verification Approval

2013-01-01 Thread Anders Rundgren
On 2012-12-31 16:26, Kai Engert wrote: I propose to more actively involve users into the process of accepting certificates for domains. Although the recent CA failures cast a shadow over the web they have AFAIK not led to any major losses for anybody. The credit-card system OTOH is a major

Proposing: Interactive Domain Verification Approval

2012-12-31 Thread Kai Engert
I propose to more actively involve users into the process of accepting certificates for domains. I envision a UI where users are required to approve once, whether the combination of a CA and a domain is acceptable to the user. The following UI would be shown whenever a user starts a connection

Re: Proposing: Interactive Domain Verification Approval

2012-12-31 Thread Eitan Adler
On 31 December 2012 10:18, Kai Engert k...@kuix.de wrote: I propose to more actively involve users into the process of accepting certificates for domains. I envision a UI where users are required to approve once, whether the combination of a CA and a domain is acceptable to the user. The

Re: Proposing: Interactive Domain Verification Approval

2012-12-31 Thread Kai Engert
On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 10:38 -0500, Eitan Adler wrote: * user gets confused: what the heck is this screen? It's good if users are educated what is going on. We could have a switch to completely turn this off, if the user really doesn't care. * user realizes that pressing yes usually works so

Re: Proposing: Interactive Domain Verification Approval

2012-12-31 Thread Eitan Adler
On 31 December 2012 11:06, Kai Engert k...@kuix.de wrote: On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 10:38 -0500, Eitan Adler wrote: * user gets confused: what the heck is this screen? It's good if users are educated what is going on. How is adding another annoying not-going-to-be-read dialog educating users?

Re: Proposing: Interactive Domain Verification Approval

2012-12-31 Thread Kai Engert
On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 11:17 -0500, Eitan Adler wrote: Expect the user to click yes to every dialog if prompted without reading. [*] note, I am not talking about people like you or I that have an understanding of the implications here. I am talking about the typical user that studies have

Re: Proposing: Interactive Domain Verification Approval

2012-12-31 Thread Eitan Adler
On 31 December 2012 11:23, Kai Engert k...@kuix.de wrote: It could be an opt-in feature, advertised through some kind of notification popup. http://patrol.psyced.org/ ? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/certificate-patrol/ ? -- Eitan Adler -- dev-tech-crypto mailing list

Re: Proposing: Interactive Domain Verification Approval

2012-12-31 Thread Kai Engert
On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 16:26 +0100, Kai Engert wrote: I propose to more actively involve users into the process of accepting certificates for domains. I propose the following in addition: Each CA certificate shall have a single country where the CA organization is physically located (they

Re: Proposing: Interactive Domain Verification Approval

2012-12-31 Thread Ryan Sleevi
On Mon, December 31, 2012 10:23 am, Kai Engert wrote: On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 16:26 +0100, Kai Engert wrote: I propose to more actively involve users into the process of accepting certificates for domains. I propose the following in addition: Each CA certificate shall have a single

Re: Proposing: Interactive Domain Verification Approval

2012-12-31 Thread Julien Pierre
Ryan, On 12/31/2012 11:43, Ryan Sleevi wrote: So far, the two proposals are: 1) Nag the user whenever they want to make a new secure connection. This nag screen is not shown over HTTP, so clearly, HTTP is preferable here. 2) Respect national borders on the Internet. If anything, the more user