RE: Is the padlock a page security score?

Whether we use numbers, or "low, medium, high", at best, it's
incomplete.  Instead of calling it a "Security Score", if we called it a
"browser connection security score" and in some kind of education and
documentation, state that the score ignores both content and/or
application and any of the security principals around them, then it may
have some value.  However if someone sees a high score and they land on
a horrible site that steals all of their information, we would
definitely be doing them an injustice because at best the
high-medium-low is misleading.  

 

So, if we agree with Ian... and I do, browser real estate is just so
limited , there is no way we could communicate all of this information.
And understanding that benchmarking is only good if you describe what
you're benchmarking then our benchmark of security score is not useful,
and should be done away with.

 

Bill

 

From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Doyle, Bill
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 10:04 AM
To: Mary Ellen Zurko; Mike Beltzner <beltzner
Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Is the padlock a page security score?

 

I was think that instead of a numeric score it would be simpler to point
to a robustness or assurance level in terms of high, medium, low. One
thing to keep in mind is that the capabilities of the protocols and
underlying IA mechanism keep changing, going to be difficult to keep
numeric score consistent. What happens to page score when a new TLS/SSL
version comes out or new ciphers are added. 

 

Be easier to present a consistent UI if it is noted that site meets high
assurance, medium assurance or low assurance. This would still alert the
user that something has changed - 72 to 38 would be a change in
assurance level.

 

 

 

 

	 

________________________________

	From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mary Ellen Zurko
	Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 9:09 AM
	To: Mike Beltzner <beltzner
	Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
	Subject: Re: Is the padlock a page security score?

	
	Great conversation, all the way around. I particularly
appreciate those posts that, while taking a strong stance, also try to
explore other points of view, how their stance relates to it, and what
might be some sort of reasonable middle ground. Kudos to all of you!
	
	> Where the number *would* come in handy is when they're used to

	> seeing a "72" for their bank or online shopping site, but all
of a 
	> sudden they see a "38". It's the change in the security values
that 
	> become interesting. At that point, though, why would we
require that
	> the user remember that theirshoppingsite.com is usually a 72,
but 
	> all of a sudden became a 36. Why would we not, instead, just
alert 
	> them to the fact that there's something suspicious, and they 
	> shouldn't use the site at this time (with links to more detail
for 
	> those who wish to know what tipped us off).
	
	That would tie into the Change of Security Level (or CoSL as I
started to call it in my review comments) in xit. 
	
	As I think does some of the discussion of warnings on top of
passive indicators (although as my review comments indicated, it was
hard to find the part of CoSL where that was specified, and should be
made clearer). 
	
	





The information in this transmittal (including attachments, if any) is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the recipient(s) listed above.  Any review, use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this transmittal is prohibited except by or on behalf of the intended recipient.  If you have received this transmittal in error, please notify me immediately by reply
 email and destroy all copies of the transmittal.  Thank you.