2 Aug 2004 15:36
Re: [Fwd: more comments on the "protecting naive browsers" paper]
Amir Herzberg <amir <at> herzberg.name>
2004-08-02 13:36:22 GMT
2004-08-02 13:36:22 GMT
Ian Grigg wrote: > Amir, > > here are comments, not particularly well reviewed. > > http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~herzbea//Papers/ecommerce/spoofing.htm Thanks! > > Mozilla people (2nd try), Please provide more comments... Here are some responses to your comments: > > Right, that idea. A couple of things - it's called a petname > which has a defined meaning, you can probably google for the > defining paper. It is a name that is explicitly not shared > with the rest of the world, so it is distinct by definition > with the nickname, which is shared. I didn't find the definition and didn't quite understand the distinction you made. > > SSL/TLS isn't used to confirm the public key. I think we use different terms here. When I say `confirm the public key` I simply mean `confirm that the site actually has the private key corresponding to this public key. Nothing to do with certificates, CA etc.... usually done using SSL. ... >> Existing web security mechanisms (SSL/TLS) may cause substantial >> overhead if applied to most web pages, as required for securing(Continue reading)
RSS Feed