- From: Mary Ellen Zurko <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 08:30:25 -0400
- To: "Serge Egelman <egelman" <egelman@cs.cmu.edu>
- Cc: "'W3C WSC Public'" <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OFFD35F75C.4DC469D9-ON8525731E.0044A221-8525731E.0044B4E2@LocalDomain>
I would also recommend: http://cups.cs.cmu.edu/soups/2005/2005proceedings/p13-garfinkel.pdf to see it's use in a context (email), and get a sense of its strengths and weaknesses (not so hot for bootstrapping attacks, but great for the continuity thing it's named after). Mez public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org wrote on 07/19/2007 11:39:00 AM: > [image removed] > > Re: ACTION-240 :TLS errors... > > Serge Egelman > > to: > > Dan Schutzer > > 07/19/2007 11:44 AM > > Sent by: > > public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org > > Cc: > > "'Johnathan Nightingale'", "'W3C WSC Public'" > > > I haven't done any work on it. But this might help: > > http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1073003 > > Read the references as well, if you're not familiar with them. I'm sure > you can download the paper elsewhere if you google for it. > > serge > > > Dan Schutzer wrote: > > Can you send me some references to your work in Key continuity management? > > Thanks > > > > Dan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] On > > Behalf Of Serge Egelman > > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 10:11 AM > > To: Johnathan Nightingale > > Cc: W3C WSC Public > > Subject: Re: ACTION-240 :TLS errors... > > > > > > Righto, I now see what he meant and am in complete agreement. This is > > delving into not just keeping track of root certificates (which I think > > you all know my opinion on), to keeping track of every certificate. > > Peter Gutmann and Simson Garfinkel have done some work on this-- "key > > continuity management", and I think this would be a good recommendation > > for us to make. It's trivial to keep track of every host/certificate > > tuple, just as browsers already keep track of form information. > > > > serge > > > > Johnathan Nightingale wrote: > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > /* > Serge Egelman > > PhD Candidate > Vice President for External Affairs, Graduate Student Assembly > Carnegie Mellon University > > Legislative Concerns Chair > National Association of Graduate-Professional Students > */ >
Received on Friday, 20 July 2007 12:30:47 UTC