Robert Sayre wrote:
I understand what the goals are. I don't share them. I think telling our
users that EV cites are "more secure" is a mistake.
Presumably because you don't believe the additional vetting presents a
higher barrier to fraudsters? If so, could you elaborate on why it doesn't?
So, I would expect our policy to be
I thought you were asking what our policy should be. Isn't that the
point of this thread?
I had (perhaps erroneously) assumed that, were we to decide to support
EV, we would support it for those CAs and only those CAs who had passed
an EV audit. This stops us being in the impossible position of having to
manually audit every CA ourselves - which is one thing EV is trying to
avoid, compared to the current situation.
We could allow EV for all CAs, whether or not they had passed the audit
- however, that would negate any security benefits that EV had, and lull
our customers into a false sense of security.
Alternatively, we could allow EV for a subset of the audited CAs - which
is a possibility I mentioned might happen in exceptional circumstances -
but on what grounds (other than obvious disregard for the guidelines)
would we exclude CA A and include CA B?
However, perhaps I have missed something. If your position is that we
should support EV, but for a different set of CAs than the ones which
have passed the audit, please set out how you would decide which CAs we
should support.
Gerv
_______________________________________________
dev-security mailing list
dev-security@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security
