Slashdot Mirror
Extended Validation SSL, More Secure or Just a Racket?
Nalfeshnee writes "The Register is reporting on the new 'Extended Validation SSL' cert currently being touted by Verisign. Vista and IE7 will be using this but not, apparently, Firefox anytime soon. For this the Verisign Product Marketing Director Tim Callan squarely blames the Firefox dev team for 'not keeping up' with their new technology. However, the whole thing just seems to be a way for Verisign to enjoy ridiculous markup on selling 'more secure' certs."
Hey Verisign, it's called "open source". If you'd like the feature added submit a patch and they'll consider it. Until then the people working on it will finish when they can. Thanks.
Developers: We can use your help.
Definitely sounds like a racket to me. If you get the green bar by paying Verisign 150%, how does that differ from today's security certificates? Other than having to pay more money, and only being able to be verified by Verisign, that is. (Doesn't sound racket-y at all. Or was that rickety?) While they make it sound like the Green Bar is an excellent method of knowing that Amazon is really Amazon, I think it's actually a reverse attempt. By getting Amazon to use this spiffy new green bar, Verisign is attempting to legitimize their new technology in the eyes of the consumer. Little will actually change for the consumer, as he already knows when he's surfing Amazon.
The only place it would supposedly help is with Phishing. But since Phishing sites can't get certificates anyway, what does this help? If the lock isn't good enough, just change the URL Bar green for every VERIFIED certificate received. That will have the EXACT same effect.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Err, excuse me.. isn't the verification of the identity of the applicant of the certificate exactly what the CAs are meant to be doing anyway?
I thought that that is why we had these 'trusted' third-parties, to vouch for the identity of the certificate owner - that is the fundamental basis of PKI and certificates. If they weren't doing that before (which they clearly weren't doing properly), what the hell were they doing?
So, we're paying them extra to get a 'fixed' version of something that they caused to be broken in the first place because they couldn't do their job properly. WHy should paying an extra 50% on top of their fees all of a sudden make us able to trust them now?
This is coming from the people who stole DNS, and sell certificates for hundreds of dollars which take milliseconds to make....
Now we're supposed to get a more "trustworthy" cert and make our address bar green?
Fuck you Verisign.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Has anyone actually been able to find the specification for "high assurance" certificates? Apparently this is being closely held. The spec comes from something called the "CA Browser Forum", which is invitation-only and doesn't seem to have a web site. A standard was supposed to be issued in August, but apparently agreement wasn't reached until a meeting in September. There are many press releases, but no hard data.
So that's why it's not in Mozilla.
It's actually a good idea. Early in the history of SSL, getting a certificate required presenting appropriate business identification info to the certificate issuer. The problem is that some issuers (GoDaddy comes to mind) started issuing "domain only" SSL certificates; the only verification is that the domain can get email. Then, instead of revoking GoDaddy's root certificate for this, the other cert issuers copied GoDaddy's approach. Now anybody can get a meaningless certificate with a meaningless Relying Party Agreement.
The way it's supposed to work is that the certificate issuer bears financial responsibility for misidentification of the certificate owner. Some certificates from Verisign have a Relying Party Agreement that does provide a financial guarantee to the party relying on the certificate - $100 for a class 1 cert, $5000 for a class 2 cert, and $100,000 for a class 3 cert. Most of the other issuers have relying party agreements which promise nothing and deliver less.
So what's happening is that, soon, you'll be able to tell the difference between the crap certificates and the good ones. Before you buy. The idea is that if you put your credit card into a site that showed a green toolbar in IE, and it wasn't really the company it should have been, you can collect from the certificate issuer. This puts certificate issuers on the hook for phishing losses.
Unfortunately, the rules and the Relying Party Agreements for the new certificates haven't yet appeared, so we can't tell if the rules are tough enough to make this work. Since they're being drafted by the certificate issuers, there will probably be some loophole that lets them off the hook.
I used to work at a certain SSL place, so here's what I could gather.
Right now to get a cert it's a phone call verification or something else that can be done remotely.
For High Assurance CAs, the issuer has to fly a person out to the physical site, take pictures of the site, go inside, take pictures of at least two(?) employees, get names of workers, get signatures, and so on. At least that was the idea last I heard.
Rather than a remote validation, which I guess is easier to forge and easier to issue a mistake to by accident, this requires in person validation and lots of other crap you can't do without actually going there and checking it out. You decide if it's worth it. If not seeing that "special green color" stops just a few customers from using your site, it probably is.
Mozilla.org should get into the SSL certificate reselling business and set the location bar to green when one of the mozilla signed certs is present. Verisign could then have the option of paying a royalty to mozilla.org for each extended certificate if they want green URL bars too.
"Technology?" Give me a break. They're looking at what authority signed the cert, and if the web browser has been told to dogmatically trust that authority more than others, then it turns something green.
Actually, it's not a bad idea. There are degrees of trust, and showing it to the user is fine. But you bet your ass this is mostly just a cashgrab from Verisign.
Good news. There's a way to do this, that will absolutely embarrass MSIE, making its version of https look completely insecure by comparison, and screw Verisign over, in the process.
Support an OpenPGP-based cert model (perhaps using GNU TLS library, perhaps not). Suddenly, you can have certs that are signed by multiple authorities, including users themselves, and display a whole spectrum of trust metrics. Equifax can make mistakes and issue an incorrect cert to a bank, but can three CAs all make the same mistake, without a conspiracy? And what if you get the bank's fingerprint on your snailmail statements, or there's a sign showing the fingerprint when you walk into it, and thus you can cert it yourself? What if you haven't ever been to the bank (ok, I can't imagine that) but you have 3 friends who have, and you have certified them, and told your computer they are each marginally trusted, and they all certify the bank? Three friends are sure as hell a lot more trustworthy than some faceless corporation named Verisign, whose identification policies you don't even know, whose private key storage policy you don't even know, and in fact doesn't have a single employee you have even met, assuming they have any employees at all and aren't a robot in the basement of a building at the NSA.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.