I have always used the term "hard fail" to mean the browser makes the determination for the operator - if validation fails, the operator is given no option to over-ride.
I use the term "fail open" when the browser interprets inability to obtain revocation information as "not revoked". It's not really relevant that locks don't appear if the desired page shows up in the main window (especially if I put a picture of a closed lock on my main page, as some do :( I don't like the term "soft fail". If I did, I would use it for the case where the determination is handed from the browser to the operator (the get-me-out-of-here/i-understand-the-risks choice), which I don't consider a failure, it's the way things are supposed to work. I realize that's currently a somewhat academic interpretation, but it also leaves room for the operator to decide how hard he wants the browser to try (how much time to spend on this connection, how many mechanisms to invoke) and perhaps how much information the operator wants to broadcast in order to make this connection work, should alternative validation mechanisms be built into browsers. On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Ben Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > In working on the next version of the Certificate Processing document, I > have come across two different uses of “hard fail.” I am also concerned > that use of the phrase, “soft fail,” might encounter similar problems. > Also I’ve seen “Retry” or “Reload” messages, which are hard fail, but with > an option to try loading again. > > > > I’ve seen “hard fail” used (1) when referring to a session that is stopped > because of certificate revocation, where the user is prevented from > proceeding, and also (2) when referring to intentional client behavior when > encountering other problems with the certificate that indicate it is not > trustworthy. (I suppose it could also mean a crash or other unintentional > behavior because of a bug in code.) With respect to (2), I have called > this a “fatal error” - A behavior in which the browser detects an abnormal > condition and halts (or technically cannot complete) session negotiation > and drops the connection or otherwise blocks the user from continuing (also > referred to as “hard fail”).” However, in Phill’s paper on revocation > behavior, he uses “hard fail”, too. > > > > I have used the term “bypassable error” instead of “soft fail”, defined as > “behavior in which the browser detects an abnormal condition and asks the > user whether to proceed with (i.e. click-through to) the SSL/TLS > connection.” Is this the same as “soft fail”? (I’m assuming that a > negative visual indicator or a “downgrade” of security indicators like > removal of the lock icon, removal of EV indication, etc., are not “soft > fail.” I hope that everyone agrees.) > > > > Any thoughts? Does it matter what kind of “next step” is provided in the > dialogue presented to the user? For instance, the distinction between hard > and soft fail might be as simple as whether the error window lacks or > contains buttons or links that allow the user to proceed toward making the > SSL/TLS connection. > > > > For “hard fail,” here is what I’ve seen: > > > > [Error Message] > > Firefox - “Fix connection problems” > > Opera – “This webpage is not available” > > Chrome – “This webpage is not available” > > Internet Explorer – “IE cannot display the webpage” “What you can try: > Diagnose Connection Problems” > > Internet Explorer – “This page cannot be displayed. Fix connection > problems” > > > > In looking at soft fail / bypassable errors, here are some of the buttons > provided for a variety of different conditions, such as invalid > certificates: > > > > [Error Message] > > > > Firefox – “Get me out of here” “Technical Details” “I understand the risks” > > Safari – “Show Certificate” “Cancel” “Continue” > > Internet Explorer – “Click here to close” ““Continue to this website (not > recommended)” “More Information” > > Chrome - “Proceed anyway” or “Back to safety” and “Help me understand” > > > > Opera – “Show Certificate” “Continue Anyway” and “Cancel” or “Back to > Safety” > > > > A third option I’ve noticed is a “reload request”, which I think is > different than a bypassable error or hard fail. Am I right? > > > > Here are some messages: > > > > Chrome - “More” or “Reload” > > Firefox – “Try again” > > > > Thanks, > > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > wpkops mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops > >
_______________________________________________ wpkops mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops
