On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 08:58:23AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > 1. This is not principally a protocol problem but rather a UI problem.
I've not read Sam's I-D yet, but he did present to me last week, so perhaps I can comment. This is not just a UI problem, and there are several problems. Sam seems to assume that enrolment is not the problem he should be solving, but that it is already solved (even if it isn't). Given this assumption then the principal problem is about tying the UI and the protocols. And I couldn't agree more. Now, that pesky enrolment problem... Except it's not quite so pesky; it requires that the user not get confused (conned) once [per-site?], at enrolment. Beyond that, users don't want to have to enroll every time, at least not with passwords. But now I must go read Sam's I-D. > The protocol problems are generally well understood. If the UI > problems are solved, nearly any protocol will work. In particular, > there have been a number of published designs [1] [2] that have mostly > adequate (though not perfect) protocols, though without complete > solutions to the UI problem. Indeed, a slightly different design > for Digest (in which the absolute URI was hashed) combined with > a secure UI would pretty much defeat current phishing attacks. So, the protocols and the [secure] UI have to be "combined" -- can you expand on this? How is this not what Sam proposes? Or are you two in violent agreement? :) Nico -- _______________________________________________ dix mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
