Re: What we're trying to protect...

Everything we're talking about thus far is browser making statements to 
the user about a site.  So I'm not sure confidentiality applies, but 
perhaps you can expand?

--Brad

Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Doesn't that ignore confidentiality requirements? (Although I like
> the line of thinking.)
>
> Brad Porter wrote:
>>
>> In general, with the web, the goal of security is to transparently 
>> protect the user.  Browsers that support sandboxing are trying to 
>> transparently protect the user from malicious applications.   The 
>> only two cases where the browser needs to make any assertions to the 
>> user are the following:
>>
>> 1) Establishing the veracity of the information on a site
>> 2) Establishing that you are submitting your information to the party 
>> you intended
>>
>> I would argue that people are generally aware of the veracity of any 
>> information on the web is questionable.  So the question becomes, are 
>> we trying to make any statements about the veracity of information on 
>> a site?  If not, then we can punt on #1 and focus instead on #2.
>>
>> Number two only occurs when submitting information and is a very 
>> active instead of passive act.  (I'm intentionally ignoring 
>> click-stream type data leaks as they could be handled by proper 
>> sandbox restrictions.)  This suggests that for 98% of what people do, 
>> they don't need any security indicators from the browser.  They only 
>> need to verity the security when submitting their data.  This 
>> suggests that presentation of security context information could be 
>> late-binding instead of omnipresent and integrated into the task-flow 
>> instead of passive, which might help address a number of the problems 
>> with the current mechanisms.
>>
>> --Brad
>>
>>
>

Received on Monday, 12 February 2007 17:16:47 UTC