- From: Johnathan Nightingale <johnath@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:58:24 -0400
- To: Serge Egelman <egelman@cs.cmu.edu>
- Cc: W3C WSC Public <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
On 18-Jul-07, at 9:48 AM, Serge Egelman wrote: > Well, you said that this "is the poster child for exploiting browser > state." For it to be a serious threat that warrants consideration, > you > must assume that most users read certificate data (regardless of > whether > the browser is actually throwing a warning). If we can assume that > most > users do *not* read this information, then there's a plethora of much > easier/likelier attacks. > > That is, it's a waste of time worrying about how a burglar might pick > your fancy new lock when you regularly leave all the windows open. Serge, I might be wrong here, but I think you are talking past each other because I think you are misunderstanding Thomas' use of the word "exploiting". His original quote, in response to the discussion about using a self-signed cert to facilitate a man in the middle attack, was: > Isn't this a poster child use case for exploiting browser state? > E.g., exploiting the knowledge that a certain domain in connection > with HTTPS used to have a CA-based cert, and warning when that > changes? By which I believe he meant: "This nicely illustrates why it would be useful for browsers to maintain state about prior SSL connections so that, in the event - however unlikely - that you visit a site which used to have a CA-signed cert, but which now instead presents a self-signed one, the browser can make all manner of noise/aggressive blockage, since that scenario is magnificently unlikely for any legitimate bank, webstore, etc." I think he meant "exploiting browser state" as "leveraging browser state to do good things for users" not "attacking browser state, here's a new threat for us to consider." As I say, maybe I'm wrong, and you're reacting to the idea as I (re-) expressed it, but one of us is being tripped up by email-fail, because I'm having trouble following your arguments against (what I understand to be) his point. Cheers, Johnathan --- Johnathan Nightingale Human Shield johnath@mozilla.com
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2007 13:58:38 UTC