- From: Mary Ellen Zurko <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 07:29:48 -0400
- To: "<michael.mccormick" <michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com>
- Cc: ifette@google.com,public-wsc-wg@w3.org,tlr@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF7EF8F0AF.796D1AF0-ON852575BE.003F61D7-852575BE.003F8AF9@LocalDomain>
Hi Mike,
The issue will not be reopened. It was decided by WG consensus process.
Mez
From: <michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com>
To: <tlr@w3.org>, <ifette@google.com>
Cc: <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
Date: 05/20/2009 01:36 PM
Subject: RE: EV hack
Sent by: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
Thanks Thomas.
For what it?s worth, I agree with Opera?s position on this issue as stated
by Yngve on his blog. The compromise position that WSC ultimately took in
Oslo is disappointing. I?m glad Opera still gives me the option to
configure a stronger EV policy than what WSC recommends.
Purists can debate about ?EV or nothing? but I take a pragmatic view.
Attackers are hijacking EV pages while spoofing the agent?s EV/AA
indicator, and the reason these attacks work is because the EV indicator
only reflects the top level document. These attacks severely undermine EV
and degrade the trustworthiness of the EV/AA indicator.
Mike
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:tlr@w3.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 5:46 AM
To: ifette@google.com
Cc: McCormick, Mike; public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: EV hack
On 20 May 2009, at 01:16, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
We discussed this at length in the f2f (Oslo?).
Oslo indeed. See Yngve's notes at the time:
http://my.opera.com/yngve/blog/2008/05/23/lowering-the-ev-bar
I strongly oppose changing this. If DV is not relaible for DV then it
needs to be fixed. I for one am not ready to say it's EV or nothing.
2009/5/19 <michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com>
Friends,
Many of you are no doubt aware of green bar spoofing attacks against EV
SSL indicators like this one:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/28/ev_ssl_spoofing/
Agents could prevent this in most cases by requiring all displayed content
to be AA secured (not just top level document) before displaying the AA
indicator. In private discussions with Wells, one browser manufacturer
has already agreed to do exactly this in a future release.
Section 5.3 of WSC-UI (current working draft) says:
A Web User Agent that can display an AA indicator MUST NOT display this
indicator unless all elements of the page are loaded from servers
presenting a validated certificate, over strongly TLS-protected
interactions.
This helps mitigate the spoof risk, but I urge you to add a statement such
as:
A Web User Agent that can display an AA indicator SHOULD NOT display this
indicator unless all elements of the page are loaded from servers
presenting an Augmented Assurance Certificate (AAC) over strongly
TLS-protected interactions.
Regards, Mike
Michael McCormick, CISSP
Lead Architect
Strategic Information Security Architecture
Wells Fargo Bank
?THESE OPINIONS ARE STRICTLY MY OWN AND NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF WELLS
FARGO"
This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If
you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee,
you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message
or any information herein. If you have received this message in error,
please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this
message. Thank you for your cooperation.
Received on Friday, 22 May 2009 11:34:55 UTC