W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wsc-wg@w3.org > April 2007

Re: DNSSEC indicator

From: Stuart E. Schechter <ses@ll.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:58:17 -0400
To: Web Security Context WG <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C2440799.FF16%ses@ll.mit.edu>

I just realized I followed suit in sending this to the wrong address. -s

------ Forwarded Message
From: "Stuart E. Schechter" <ses@ll.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: DNSSEC indicator

> From: <michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com>

> One issue SwedBank has run into as DNSSEC rolls out in Sweden (quoting Kjell's
> presentation): "Will Microsoft and Mozilla implement a DNSSEC indicator in
> their browsers?"
...  
> My personal opinion is DNSSEC should probably be another input to the agent
> security context display along with the others we've talked about (e.g.,
> SSL/TLS).  There are some practical obstacles to overcome -- for instance the
> name resolver built into the client OS or browser has to be DNSSEC-capable as
> a prerequisite for this -- but it seems it ought to be on the roadmap.  I
> believe DNSSEC has more potential benefit if it's visible to end users.

Michael:

   I'm a strong advocate of DNSSEC, but I'm certain it will fail users are
required to notice an indictor of its presence or absence.  SSL indicators
are visible to end users and users don't notice them.

   I have been working on a new standard that would employ DNSSEC to reduce,
rather than increase, the amount of security information that users need to
be made aware of.  The standard removes the need for users to pay attention
to the browser padlock icon and other HTTPS indicators.  When I've talked to
folks at Mozilla and on Microsoft's IE team, I've found the generally agree
that this is the area where DNSSEC can provide value to them.  Alas, because
it introduces a new record into the DNS, it is out of scope for this working
group.

   When it comes to security indicators, more is not necessarily better.

   Cheers

   Stuart
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2007 20:03:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 February 2008 03:52:46 GMT