Re: New EU requirement to display monetary limits for SSL pages

2005-02-25 Thread Ian G
Jean-Marc Desperrier wrote: Ian, I have not much time now, but the hungarian cert in question is *not* using the monetary limit extension, only the extension to say it is a qualified certificate, which consists just of an OID and is therefore easy to parse. OK, that's good to know that there is

Re: New EU requirement to display monetary limits for SSL pages

2005-02-25 Thread Jean-Marc Desperrier
Ian G wrote: [...] So the task for the Euro cert in question [...] [...] What planet are these guys on? What are we supposed to do, run it through a web translation engine? It certainly opens a can of worms. I asked around for any experience of these things, but got no answers on the cryptography

Some people keep trying to fool you, here's another example

2005-02-25 Thread HJ
http://202.108.69.147/webscr/ ___ Mozilla-security mailing list Mozilla-security@mozilla.org http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-security

Re: Long Term IDN/punycode spoofing strategy concept

2005-02-25 Thread HJ
Jean-Marc Desperrier wrote: Gervase Markham wrote: - The text used to explain the feature isn't at all clear to average users. What is an "encrypted security key"? What does it mean if it's missing? The message bar doesn't say. +1 I thought it would be *really* obscure for the average user. Ok,

Re: Long Term IDN/punycode spoofing strategy concept

2005-02-25 Thread HJ
Gervase Markham wrote: HJ wrote: Anyway, you may, or may not, nitpick about the used text and what not, but a fact is a fact, this works for MultiZilla users, but what do you think about this? So this is an implementation of "New Site", from http://www.gerv.net/security/phishing-browser-defences.

Re: Long Term IDN/punycode spoofing strategy concept

2005-02-25 Thread Jean-Marc Desperrier
Gervase Markham wrote: - The text used to explain the feature isn't at all clear to average users. What is an "encrypted security key"? What does it mean if it's missing? The message bar doesn't say. +1 I thought it would be *really* obscure for the average user. _

Re: Flexible security control models for Firefox

2005-02-25 Thread Anthony G. Atkielski
CarlosRivera writes: > I disagree with you. If you have only session cookies allowed, a > browser in one process would have a much more difficult time accessing > the cookies in the other process whereas being in the same process it is > very easy for a browser javascript security permission to

Re: Flexible security control models for Firefox

2005-02-25 Thread CarlosRivera
I disagree with you. If you have only session cookies allowed, a browser in one process would have a much more difficult time accessing the cookies in the other process whereas being in the same process it is very easy for a browser javascript security permission to allow it. This is merely on