| |||||||||||||
.onion vs .secure.onion vs .securePosted May 13, 2012 23:28 UTC (Sun) by cmccabe (guest, #60281)In reply to: .onion vs .secure by slashdot Parent article: My own private Internet: .secure TLD floated as bad-guy-free zone (Ars Technica)
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.
(Log in to post comments)
.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.
|
|||||||||||||