Subject: Re: [certid] Bad certificate handling

From: =JeffH <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 16:01:26 -0700

> > Given all this, I suggest we change the last part of the last sentence of
 > > the "Security Note" quoted above to something like..
 > >
 > >         ..., by forcing the user to view the entire certification path
 > >         and only then allowing the user to choose whether to accept the
 > >         certificate on a temporary or permanent basis. See [WSC-UI] for
 > >         further guidance.
 > >
 > > ..and leave it at that in -tls-server-id-check. We should also consider
 > > making [WSC-UI] a normative reference now that it is at Recommendation
 > > maturity level.
 >
 > OK.  I suggest s/to choose whether //; the point is that the user
 > accepts the certificate.

I tend to think we ought to at least mention the notion that the cert can be 
accepted either temporarily or permanently.

 > Another issue with WSC-UI that I neglected to point out earlier: it only
 > discusses pinning of certificates with untrusted issuers

hm, indeed. This would be an issue if we were to cite WSC-UI normatively, but 
not if we do so only informatively, so I'm now thinking we ought to keep it as 
the latter.

 > if the omission of pinning for name mismatches from WSC-UI was
 > intentional (i.e., the authors thought it was a bad idea).  Does anyone
 > know if this is case?

don't know, but it's easy to ask.

=JeffH

---

From: Matt McCutchen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 11:28:10 -0400

> accepted either temporarily or permanently.

And that remains after my proposed edit.  If you want to emphasize that
it's the user's choice, try this:

"...and only then allowing the user to accept the certificate on a
temporary or permanent basis, at his/her option."

The problem with the current text is that its negation could be that
someone else does the choosing, when it should be that the certificate
is not accepted.

-- 
Matt