Ben -

 

I am familiar with Google's Origin Bound Certificate (OBC) work, it in many
respects is similar to the BrowserID proposal; and you are right that this
happens at a layer below the user experience if there is no pin/password
protecting the key.

 

That said, unless something has changed recently (I have spent the last few
years focusing on securing ad networks) since it's done as part of the TLS
negotiation the authentication is persisted in the TLS session cache meaning
a mechanism is still needed to "log-out" or "reset that session" and I don't
believe one exists today.

 

One problem I have with both BrowserID and OBC is that they don't really
solve the initial authentication problem, this is true to a lesser extent
for BrowserID because at least until recently they didn't even have a
concept of a password.

 

But as I understand OBC initial authentication happens via a traditional
methods (aka passwords) and it is persisted via the "origin certificates";
this approach is better cryptographically than BrowserID in that you get the
cryptographic binding of user authentication to the session-plus today
BrowserID relies on Javascript based cryptography implementations which has
a ton of shortcomings.

 

With that said, on the surface OBC feels like it's not really trying to
address authentication but a gap in cryptographic cookie support.

 

One of the things I like about BrowserID as an approach is that I agree with
others that the portability of key material in today's world is important
and by them including the vetting of the ownership of an email in their key
provisioning workflow they kind of address this problem.

 

To be clear I am a fan of anything that moves the ball forward here, though
I really wish as an industry we could align behind a problem statement and
work towards it together instead of having so many competing approaches but
it is human nature ;)

 

Ryan

 

 

From: Ben Laurie [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 9:49 AM
To: Ryan Hurst
Cc: Stephen Kent; Joe St Sauver; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [therightkey] Client Certificate Usability (was RE: Will the
real RPF please stand up?)

 

 

On 8 February 2012 17:18, Ryan Hurst <[email protected]> wrote:

Steve,

Thank you.

I actually contributed to RFC 3709 and I believe made Windows the first
platform to support it, that said the branding element I am referring to in
this case is different.

When designing a user experience one picks colors, typefaces, layout and
workflow; for example consider Coke "red" and type typical Coke typography;
if the authentication experience is not consistent with the design goals of
a site adoption will only happen when security is seen more important that
design and ease of use.

As long as that is the case in this world of consumerization of IT I don't
expect client certificates to be used outside of closed communities.

 

Client certs do not need to interfere with the branding experience.

 

For example, http://www.browserauth.net/ shows how to use them without
touching the site's ability to fully control the user experience.

 


Ryan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Stephen Kent

Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 8:57 AM
To: Ryan Hurst
Cc: 'Joe St Sauver'; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [therightkey] Client Certificate Usability (was RE: Will the
real RPF please stand up?)

Ryan,

That's a good list of additional problems associated with widespread use of
client certs.

Note that re the "branding" issue, there is a cert extension that allows for
logos to be embedded in certs, although the focus for this is really server
vs. client certs.

Steve
_______________________________________________
therightkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey


_______________________________________________
therightkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey

 

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
therightkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/therightkey

Reply via email to