- From: Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:22:52 -0400
- To: dan.schutzer@fstc.org
- CC: "'Thomas Roessler'" <tlr@w3.org>, michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com, ses@ll.mit.edu, public-wsc-wg@w3.org, kjell.rydjer@swedbank.se, steve@shinkuro.com, public-usable-authentication@w3.org
- Message-ID: <46334AAC.3020901@secure-endpoints.com>
Hi Dan: Dan Schutzer wrote: > Here is my take > > If they got the mapping from the domain name to the IP address securely, it > indicates that they are at the correct web site (the site belonging to the > url they typed in), so if they send sensitive information to the site, it is > going to the correct site. This is not entirely correct. What the use of DNSSEC provides is evidence that a specific class of attacks against the DNS protocol have not been performed. The use of DNSSEC tells the user that she has received without modification the result of the query that the authoritative database reports. It says nothing about whether or not IP spoofing attacks have been performed or whether or not the contents of the authoritative database are correct. > However, if the connection is not secured, then > the information can be intercepted by a man in the middle attack. However, > if the link is TLS secured, then the information cannot be intercepted in > transit. To be confident one's personal information is not being stolen, one > would need to look at both indicators. TLS, when secured by a server side certificate that has been properly verified, protects against MITM attacks. If the user enters https://www.citicard.com and gets a certificate containing the name "www.citicard.com" which has been issued by a CA trusted by the user (or the user's knowledgeable IT staff) and the certificate chain verifies, then DNSSEC adds nothing useful. DNSSEC can show a reduced risk when all of the factors necessary to establish trust are not present. 1. The certificate that is received from the server contains "www.citibank.com" instead of "www.citicard.com". [I'm using this example because it is real.] 2. The user didn't specify "https". [I think that there should be a way for a web server to instruct the browser as part of a redirect that only "https" should be used in the future.] 3. The CA certificates in the trusted CA list are not in fact trusted by the user (or his knowledgeable IT staff) but were simply preloaded by the browser vendor. 4. When self-signed certificates are in use as part of a "Leap of Faith" authentication scheme. [With Leap of Faith the client caches the self-signed certificate presented by the server the first time it is seen and the user can trust it has returned to the same server in the future.] 5. When certificates are not used as part of the TLS authentication. (Anonymous mode) The problem with locks or other symbols to indicate security is that they are binary. The lock is either there or not there. Adding multiple symbols for different risk avoidance mechanisms that the user doesn't understand will only take up more screen real estate and create further confusion. What I believe would be valuable from the user's perspective is a visual display showing the results of a risk assessment of the current connection based upon past connection history, the security of the DNS lookup, the use of TLS, the verifications applied to the certificate, the trust level of the CA, etc. This visual indicator should provide access to a risk assessment tool that explains to the user the details of the analysis. This would provide a level of education to the end user as well as provide a framework for adding additional security techniques in the future as they become available. Jeffrey Altman Secure Endpoints Inc.
Received on Saturday, 28 April 2007 13:21:32 UTC