- From: Robert Yonaitis <ryonaitis@hisoftware.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:43:59 -0500
- To: "Dan Schutzer" <dan.schutzer@fstc.org>, "Mike Beltzner" <beltzner@mozilla.com>
- Cc: "michael mccormick" <michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com>, <hahnt@us.ibm.com>, <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>, "Ian Fette" <ifette@google.com>
Dan: That is great and NIST has some good open test cases as well that can be shared. Perhaps if we consider content and application as any good mark will do, then we should consider OS. I am only concerned regarding one thing. Every study I have read says that people have no idea what the padlock means exactly even if they see it, so why replace this with another icon that all studies show would most likely be misrepresented. HiSoftware has been tentative at this point because it is at best incomplete I have missed the fact that most people don't know what it means if they look at it (According to what I read on this working group pages). Cheers, rob -----Original Message----- From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dan Schutzer Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 9:30 AM To: Robert Yonaitis; 'Mike Beltzner' Cc: 'michael mccormick'; hahnt@us.ibm.com; public-wsc-wg@w3.org; 'Ian Fette' Subject: RE: Is the padlock a page security score? The web page application should ultimately be included in the score. This means that two web applications using the same web protocols may not be equally secure. I am planning to write a short paragraph to explain one way this can be implemented. Dan -----Original Message----- From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robert Yonaitis Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 9:32 AM To: Mike Beltzner; Dan Schutzer Cc: michael mccormick; hahnt@us.ibm.com; public-wsc-wg@w3.org; Ian Fette Subject: RE: Is the padlock a page security score? Hello All: One last note on the scores. I think this is important. Since we have neglected by design to cover the content or applications then the weather analogy does not work. This is because the weather takes into account many items like atmospheric soundings, dew points, trends, pressures and more. (Disclaimer: I received a C in my advanced meteorology course at erau.edu) Since we are by design ignoring the place where most security flaws can and do happen the application and or content then clearly our score would be meaningless. Cheers -----Original Message----- From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mike Beltzner Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 11:33 PM To: Dan Schutzer Cc: michael mccormick; hahnt@us.ibm.com; public-wsc-wg@w3.org; Ian Fette Subject: Re: Is the padlock a page security score? ----- "Dan Schutzer" <dan.schutzer@fstc.org> wrote: > I am not sure. If there were scores and competing services so that I > had a choice then security might actually improve. Suppose I had two > competing social networks with vastly different security scores; for > example, One with a 70 and one with a 90 security score - I just might > not use the service with the 70 security score. Perhaps if we had > reliable scores and people started picking one service over another > based upon the scores, we might get services that are more serious > about security. I don't think that's where the problem exists, though. It's not the case that people are trying to choose between which of N different social networking sites they want to work with (they'll go to the ones that their friends are using). 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). Again I say: the message needs to be meaningful and actionable. A summary statistic isn't thus. (Earlier we talked about 70% chance of rain, and I applauded it as an interesting analogy. I realize, actually, that the liklihood of rain isn't the same as a summary statistic for security, as rain is one aspect of the weather. A more appropriate analogy would be if weather reports told us that tomorrow would be "72% nice".) cheers, mike 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.
Received on Monday, 14 January 2008 14:44:06 UTC