Gervase Markham wrote:
> Nils Maier wrote:
>> Gervase Markham schrieb:
>>> Nils Maier wrote:
>>>> Disallowing those "corrupt LF" request is in fact what I wouldn't like
>>>> to see.
>>> When they get a "link fingerprint check failed" error, how is a user to
>>> tell the difference between "Oh, the webmaster screwed up" and "Someone
>>> has trojaned this download"?
>>>
>>> Hard fail is the right way to go.
>>
>> Why would a trojan writer want to produce a corrupt LF link?
>> I was talking about links here, not downloads ;)
> 
> The point of Link Fingerprints is to tell you if the data you receive is 
> not the data the link provider wanted you to get. If the website gets 
> hacked and the download is trojaned, then the link fingerprint will fail.

Which are you talking about here?

If a hacker has control over a box, and is interested in distributing a 
trojan, then he will most certainly know about the link fingeprinting 
and change the hash code as well, or otherwise all his work is useless.

>> A corrupt LF link just means that there is no way to verify said 
>> download.
> 
> Right. And the link provider obviously thought it was important that the 
> link was verified - otherwise they would not have used a link 
> fingerprint. So therefore the right course of action is not to give the 
> user some random data which could be anything, but to refuse to 
> download. As if the link actually led to a 500 Server Error, for example.
> 
>>>> Even SSL will let you continue if there is something wrong like
>>>> non-matching hostnames; and SSL provides reliable security.
>>> We are changing this.
>>
>> This gets off-topic, but: Honestly? I fairly doubt it unless mozilla/FX
>> want to loose a huge chunk of users.
>> Do I need to switch over to IE just to load one of those damn common
>> self-signed-to-localhost-certs "protected" sites?
> 
> Self-signed is different to non-matching hostname. It's perfectly 
> possible to do a correct self-signed certificate. The current plan is 
> for those to appear just like an HTTP site - because they provide no 
> additional identity verification.
> 
> Gerv


_______________________________________________
dev-tech-network mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-network

Reply via email to