Security:EV: Difference between revisions

From MozillaWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
== Introduction ==
== Introduction ==


The goal of this document is, to assist current discussions about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Validation_(High_Assurance)_SSL_Certificates Extended Validation (EV) SSL certificates] as proposed by the [http://www.cabforum.org/ CA/Browser forum]. Here we try to collect, structure and organize various aspects, arguments and solutions concerning the proposed [http://cabforum.org/EV_Certificate_Guidelines.pdf guidelines] and what this means for Mozilla at large and the Firefox Browser in particular.
The goal of this document is, to assist with current discussions about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Validation_(High_Assurance)_SSL_Certificates Extended Validation (EV) SSL certificates] as proposed by the [http://www.cabforum.org/ CA/Browser Forum]. Here we try to collect, structure and organize various aspects, arguments and solutions concerning the proposed [http://cabforum.org/EV_Certificate_Guidelines.pdf guidelines] and what this means for Mozilla as a whole and Firefox in particular.


Discussions are held mostly at the [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.security/topics Mozilla Dev-Security] mailing list. Before editing this page it is suggested to use the talk/discussion page and propose the addition/change.
Discussions about EV happen mostly in the [http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.security/topics mozilla.dev.security] newsgroup.


== Arguments ==


== Arguments ==
Many arguments have been made and discussed in favor of or against support of EV by the Mozilla project. This section should be a summary of them. More detailed argumentation and explanation can be made on additional pages. Please extend the list below:
Many arguments have been made and discussed in favor or against supporting EV by Mozilla in some form. This section should be a summary of them. More detailed argumentation and explanation can be made at additional pages. Please extend the list below:


=== Pro ===
=== Pro ===


* The EV guidelines removes proprietary procedures by current certification authority policies and provides a unified standard.
* The EV guidelines supercede proprietary validation procedures of unknown strength and provide a unified standard.
* The EV guidelines proposes higher validation of the organization and subscriber of the certificate.
* As far as we are aware, the EV guidelines provide a higher level of validation of the organization than current practices.
* Easier recognition of a site with EV certificate might prevent phishing (Pending a proposal by the UI team)
* With appropriate UI, the validated information in EV certificates may be presented to a user to help them be more sure of their location and so reduce phishing (pending a proposal by the UI team)


=== Contra ===
=== Contra ===


* The CA/Browser forum is mainly an interest group of commercial certification authorities.
* The CA/Browser forum, which maintains the standard, is not accessible to all the CAs in the Mozilla root certificate store, because of the requirement for a Webtrust audit.
* The EV guidelines can be diluted and changed over time, making them less effective.
* While the Mozilla project has one vote in the Forum, we cannot control for certain how the EV guidelines may change in the future.
* Audit procedures of the CAs can currently only be performed by four audit firms  authorized by [http://www.webtrust.org Webtrust], no real alternatives exist as in the [http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/certs/policy/ Mozilla CA policy] (Section 8 - 10).
* [http://www.usablesecurity.org/papers/jackson.pdf It has been suggested] that some UI presentations of EV are ineffective against phishing.
* EV suggested to be ineffective against phishing ([http://www.usablesecurity.org/papers/jackson.pdf Source]).


== Proposals and Suggestions ==
== Proposals and Suggestions ==


== Current Status ==
== Current Status ==
Currently EV certificates are not handled differently than other SSL certificates.


[[User:Eddyn|Eddyn]] 15:19, 12 February 2007 (PST)
Currently (in Firefox 2.0 and on the trunk) EV certificates have no distinguishing UI.

Revision as of 17:04, 13 February 2007

Introduction

The goal of this document is, to assist with current discussions about Extended Validation (EV) SSL certificates as proposed by the CA/Browser Forum. Here we try to collect, structure and organize various aspects, arguments and solutions concerning the proposed guidelines and what this means for Mozilla as a whole and Firefox in particular.

Discussions about EV happen mostly in the mozilla.dev.security newsgroup.

Arguments

Many arguments have been made and discussed in favor of or against support of EV by the Mozilla project. This section should be a summary of them. More detailed argumentation and explanation can be made on additional pages. Please extend the list below:

Pro

  • The EV guidelines supercede proprietary validation procedures of unknown strength and provide a unified standard.
  • As far as we are aware, the EV guidelines provide a higher level of validation of the organization than current practices.
  • With appropriate UI, the validated information in EV certificates may be presented to a user to help them be more sure of their location and so reduce phishing (pending a proposal by the UI team)

Contra

  • The CA/Browser forum, which maintains the standard, is not accessible to all the CAs in the Mozilla root certificate store, because of the requirement for a Webtrust audit.
  • While the Mozilla project has one vote in the Forum, we cannot control for certain how the EV guidelines may change in the future.
  • It has been suggested that some UI presentations of EV are ineffective against phishing.

Proposals and Suggestions

Current Status

Currently (in Firefox 2.0 and on the trunk) EV certificates have no distinguishing UI.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.allizom.org/index.php?title=Security:EV&oldid=48991"