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

RE: Clarifying "reputation service" in section 7.7 of the Note

From: Mary Ellen Zurko <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:03:19 -0500
Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1E999BBB.E34A3AE1-ON85257288.00734DC1-85257288.0073A8E9@LocalDomain>
To: tyler.close@hp.com
IMO 5.5 covers algorithms for doing the checks. IMO it is in scope for us 
to consider best practices for displaying security context information 
based on those checks, should the web user agent make them, particularly 
if they end up directly addressing use cases that are in our Note.  Black 
list, white list, and incident tracking can be added as sub bullets under 
reputation service. Site metadata seems more like a peer of reputation 
service than a sub bullet. 

          Mez

Mary Ellen Zurko, STSM, IBM Lotus CTO Office       (t/l 333-6389)
Lotus/WPLC Security Strategy and Patent Innovation Architect




"Close, Tyler J." <tyler.close@hp.com> 
Sent by: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
02/12/2007 08:01 PM

To
<public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
cc

Subject
RE: Clarifying "reputation service" in section 7.7 of the Note






Does the WG want items 1,2,3 and 5 below added to section 7.7 of the Note? 
If so, we also need some text on how this relates to Out of Scope section 
5.5, see:
 
http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/note/#filters
 
Tyler

From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] 
On Behalf Of michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 10:01 AM
To: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Clarifying "reputation service" in section 7.7 of the Note

Responding at Mary Ellen's request. 
I'm not the most qualified participant to supply detail for the Note on 
reputation services.  If we have any participants from the phishing 
toolbar vendors (?) then I gladly defer to them.  Here's what I can offer:
----------------------- 
Web reputation services in the past typically were provided via so-called 
phishing toolbars from companies ranging from Cloudmark & Whole Security 
to Norton & Symantec to Google & Yahoo.  Building reputation services 
directly into the base browser is a fairly new phenomenon; MSIE 7.0 and 
Firefox 2.0 have incorporated native reputation services for the first 
time.
Certain features are generally found in web reputation services.  From 
most to least common: 
1. Black listing.  The services maintains a list of known illegitimate 
sites, mostly forged sites creating for phishing.  The black list is 
maintained by the web reputation service provider (WRSP) sometimes as part 
of a network in partnership with other providers.  In addition end users 
are typically allowed to submit URLs for potential inclusion on the black 
list.  When a user browses a black-listed site, a warning indicator 
appears.  Access may also be blocked or made contingent on an "Are You 
Sure?" dialog.
2. White listing.  The service maintains a list of known legitimate sites, 
mostly sites of well known financial institutions and other common 
phishing targets.  Companies who pass a vetting process (defined by the 
WRSP) can request their site be added to the white list.  Some WRSPs may 
charge a fee for vetting & white-listing companies who make such requests. 
 When a user browses a white-listed site, a safety indicator or "seal of 
approval" may appear.  The safety indicator may be contingent on SSL with 
a certificate name matching the white list (see item 4 below).
3. Intel & incident tracking.  A reasonably sophisticated WRSP has the 
capability to perform intelligence gathering and incident tracking.  Some 
WRSPs may partner with another company for this (such as iDefense or 
Websense).  Some WRSPs operate honeypot mailboxes to attract phishing 
attacks and thereby gather intelligence and potential black list sites. 
The WRSP updates its white & black lists in response to incoming 
intelligence as rapidly as possible.  For example, a phishing incident 
involving a spoof site at a particular IP address will cause that IP to go 
on the black list.  Or a database breach at a major online retailer might 
trigger its removal from the white list.  The end user may be offered 
dynamic links to web site intelligence when trying to access such sites 
(see item 5 below also).
4. SSL certificate analysis.  The WRSP may tie in reputation to the 
strength of the SSL session a web site establishes (if any).  SSL strength 
runs from none to low (e.g., self-signed cert) to moderate (trusted CA, 
good cipher) to high (EV certificate, OCSP check passed, etc.). Reputation 
correlates proportionally to SSL strength because the latter measures 
likelihood that the site is who it appears to be, and any white or black 
list checks must rely on that site authentication.  When a user browses a 
site the WRSP may offer a visual indicator of SSL strength, or the WRSP 
may modify its normal reputation indicators (see items 1, 2 above) based 
on SSL strength.
5. Site metadata.  The WRSP may provide metadata about a web site to help 
the end user make his/her own decisions about site authenticity and risk. 
Real world examples include WRSPs that display "whois" information about 
the site and geo-location information about the site (e.g., "site hosted 
in Ukraine").
----------------- 
I invite comments.  Underlined terms are those I feel should be linked to 
a glossary definition or some other section of the Note for further 
explanation.  I have not placed any of the above in the wiki.  Cheers Mike
From: Close, Tyler J. <tyler.close@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 12:07:25 -0600 
http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/note/Overview.html#third-party-source 
The "reputation service" item seems too vague to me. The other entries 
in section 7 are very specific. Could someone expand "reputation 
service" into a list of specific security information available in 
current web user agents? It could be that this item is actually already 
covered by other parts of section 7. For example, installed CA 
certificates are already listed in section 7.5. If so, we should remove 
the "reputation service" item from section 7.7. 
Thanks, 
Tyler 
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 21:19:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 February 2008 03:52:45 GMT