| |||||||||||||
.onion vs .secure.onion vs .securePosted May 12, 2012 21:56 UTC (Sat) by slashdot (guest, #22014)In reply to: .onion vs .secure by wahern Parent article: My own private Internet: .secure TLD floated as bad-guy-free zone (Ars Technica)
SSL provides all of these.
In fact, it appears this ".secure" thing is mainly these guys attempting to replace the SSL CAs and monopolize that market.
This is only beneficial for mankind if they are indeed a better CA, and if their monopoly power is restricted either by themselves (with a legally binding pledge) or ICANN.
Unfortunately, I suspect these things aren't terribly likely.
(Log in to post comments)
.onion vs .secure Posted May 13, 2012 23:28 UTC (Sun) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
Indeed. I read this as "certificate authority offers to actually do its job for once, news at 11."
Which... actually might have some value. Of course, browser vendors would have to enforce the idea that only iSec partners could hand out certs for .secure, but that seems relatively straightforward.
The stuff about enforcing good site security among customers seems a little far-fetched. If some large bank hands them a fat sack of cash, is iSec really going to decline because their site missed a few best practices? It's kind of hard to believe.
.onion vs .secure Posted May 14, 2012 1:07 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] The whole "security certificate" stuff being what it is, anybody could just set up their own CA which undercuts prices for .secure (presumably by doing a clown's job on checking), so... Wait, that is how this racket works today.
|
|||||||||||||