User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Extended validation certificates

Extended validation certificates

Posted Nov 4, 2006 21:18 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)
In reply to: Extended validation certificates by kleptog
Parent article: Extended validation certificates

the only way the user is going know the difference is the different fingerprint and the fact that it's not signed by the real verisign.

The fact that it's not signed by Verisign should be enough. That will cause the browser to pop up a message saying, "He says he's acme.com, but I have no proof of that. Do you believe him?" Anyone aware enough to check a fingerprint against something on his mailed statement would be aware enough to say, "no way" in this case.

Most users won't distinguish this from a normal annual certificate change due to expiry.

I never get anything like this, in the beginning or anually, from a website operated by a major company; I don't think others do either.

Now I don't doubt that millions of people will blow right past the warning from the browser, having no idea what it means. But all we're claiming in this thread is that a user can make the system work.

I have to trust Verisign to not give out a bad certificate

That's true, and is discussed in other threads here. But the level of trust you must have in Verisign is very, very small. Imagine the level of negligence or evil required of Verisign for it to sell an acme.com certificate when it has already sold one to someone else.


(Log in to post comments)

Extended validation certificates

Posted Nov 4, 2006 21:57 UTC (Sat) by pimlott (guest, #1535) [Link]

But all we're claiming in this thread is that a user can make the system work.
Thank you, giraffedata, for helping explain exactly what I meant.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds