It's an assumption of Gervase's current anti-phishing proposal that
everything starts with SSL. Indeed, sites really should have no
business slinging around passwords and credit card numbers in
cleartext -- it's pretty irresponsible. Here are a few thoughts
on how we might encourage the use of SSL and move towards a world
in which users come to expect it.
1. As mentioned in my last message, a transient warning could
appear when the user is typing text into a form on an unencrypted
site. The warning would appear below the text field while the
focus is in the field, and disappear automatically (no extra user
effort needed) when the focus moves elsewhere. The warning could
say something like "The text you enter here will be visible to the
public" if the connection is unencrypted.
2. Currently, typing in password fields shows a bunch of stars to
give the impression that what you type is secret. Well, if we
are really serious about the necessity of SSL for keeping passwords
secret, then why should we give that impression when there's no
encryption? Suppose that, if there's no SSL, password fields
*don't* blank out the text with stars -- they just behave like
normal visible text fields. That would be instant, unmistakable
feedback, and i think it would be a pretty intuitive way to show
that the password isn't being kept secret.
3. Consider these three cases:
(a) Unencrypted connection.
(b) SSL connection with a self-signed certificate.
(c) SSL connection with a certificate signed by a known CA.
Of these three options, (a) is the riskiest context in which
to submit an HTML form; (b) and (c) are safer. (If you trust
centralized CAs, then you might also believe that (c) is safer
than (b). I *don't* trust the CAs, but that is an issue for
a separate thread. In any case, i hope we can agree that (b)
is still safer than (a).)
Compare this ranking of risk to the user experience. (b) is
heavily penalized by a pop-up warning, but (a) and (c) are
not penalized at all. It may be worth thinking about how to
bring these user-experience costs more in line with the actual
risks, so that sites are encouraged to use encryption without
being required to pay the extortion^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfees
demanded by centralized CAs.
4. What if the browser chose SSL by default first? As in, when
you type "paypal.com" in the location bar, the browser *first*
tries https://paypal.com/. If that fails, then it falls back
to http://paypal.com/. In a world where self-signed certificates
aren't penalized with a big scary warning, this might go a long
way toward encouraging more widespread use of SSL.
Your thoughts?
-- ?!ng
[1] http://www.gerv.net/security/stay-safe/discussion.html
_______________________________________________
Mozilla-security mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-security
