W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > January 2009

Re: ACTION-893: Start putting together a set of guidelines that could help address the security issues triggered by links rewriting.

From: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:28:46 +0100
Message-ID: <49765E2E.6070604@eunet.no>
To: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>

No. Those cases do not exist.

I don't think that solving a problem that still does not exist and 
probably never will deserves any of my time.

What keeps me here is just checking that W3C does not demolish the 
foundations of the web.


Tom Hume wrote:
> On 20 Jan 2009, at 22:54, Luca Passani wrote:
>> wrt Whitelist, this is a problem for transcoder vendors to solve. 
>> They may decide to create a common sire where companies can authorize 
>> all transcoders to break their HTTPS logins in one fell swoop.
> Is there nothing we can do about this, particularly if it's in the 
> interest of content providers?
>> Anyway, the fact that one content provider approves that one 
>> transcoder breaks HTTPS on its site, does not mean that the same 
>> content provider is OK with all transcoders breaking HTTPS on its site.
> I completely agree; in fact I think I pointed that out :) But it does 
> mean that such cases exist.
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 23:29:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:53 UTC