Charles Lindsey:
> On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 13:44:21 -0000, Wietse Venema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > On a friendly internet with only cooperating parties, this might
> > make sense. But the world has changed. With today's internet it
> > would be a fundamental mistake to make more distinctions than:
> >
> > the signature was verified
> > other
> >
> > If the verifier gives different treatments to different types of
> > "other", then the bad guys will exploit the verifier's behavior.
>
> And how do you stop verifiers doing that?
There is no cure for stupidity, but I can try to educate.
> Verifiers will do as they think fit (i.e. what their clients will pay
> for), whatever our standards say. If some likely (though deprecated)
> verifier behaviour leads to exploits by the Bad Guys, and there is an easy
> way to counter the exploit (e.g. by clearer information in the SSP), then
> it would be wise to dopt it.
>
> "Defence in depth" is the term, I believe.
SSP is not a cure for exploitable verifiers.
"Wrong solution for the wrong problem" is the term, I believe.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
