- From: Doyle, Bill <wdoyle@mitre.org>
- Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 08:58:33 -0500
- To: "Thomas Roessler" <tlr@w3.org>, "Mary Ellen Zurko" <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>
- Cc: "George Staikos <staikos" <staikos@kde.org>, "W3 Work Group" <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
Agree that providers "should not" implement weak ciphers, but it is up to the provider to properly configure the servers to negotiate the use of medium or high strength ciphers. It may also be informational to the user if the site complies with NIST standards and is FIPS 140-2 compliant. If a use is on a banking site, it may be useful to know if the bank implements NIST cryptographic standards noted as Low, Medium and High robustness. http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips140-2/fips1402.pdf In reading replies I can think of two situations where low grade cipher suites can be negotiated and impact the user. 1. A site is improperly configured and the browser negotiates a lower grade cipher suite in order to complete the connection. This can happen on a "trusted" site due to a botched upgrade, improper configuration change or due to a system compromise. 2. A site has not upgraded is security cipher suite. a. the user may care, data needs to be secure. b. the user may not care, the risk is low, the data does not need to be secure. My feeling is that if the browser blocks the site and does not provide feedback as to why and how to proceed, the user will find another browser that works and will stop using the "broken" browser. If feedback is not provided, the user learns nothing other than a particular browser blocked the site. Bill Doyle wdoyle@mitre.org -----Original Message----- From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Roessler Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 12:54 AM To: Mary Ellen Zurko Cc: George Staikos <staikos; W3 Work Group Subject: Re: Action Item 18 - understand/visualize the strength of SSL On 2006-12-07 18:11:04 -0500, Mary Ellen Zurko wrote: > While I do not believe "raw" information about SSL strength to be > usable (for the general populace; it might have a place on some > sort of "more details" area), recommendations on removing ciphers > would be out of our charter. Agree for specific ciphers. However, I could imagine a recommendation that says "don't bother users with cipher strength; if you think a cipher is so weak you need to warn users about it, you probably don't want to implement it in the first place." Cheers, -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 8 December 2006 13:58:55 UTC