- From: Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:29:25 -0800
- To: Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>
- Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>, blink-dev <blink-dev@chromium.org>, security-dev <security-dev@chromium.org>, mozilla-dev-security@lists.mozilla.org
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org> wrote:
> I think this is a good idea - in fact, it's essential if we are to make
> secure the 'new normal'.
Woo hoo! :)
> I agree that a phased transition plan based on telemetry thresholds is
> the right thing. This is a collective action problem ("Chrome tells me
> this site is insecure, but Firefox is fine - so I'll use Firefox") and
> so it would be awesome if we could get cross-browser agreement on what
> the thresholds were and how they were measured.
We don't currently have any hard thresholds, just numbers that I kind
of made up. Any suggestions?
Also, shall we measure resource loads, top-level navigations, minutes
spent looking at the top-level origin, ...? Probably all of those and
more...
> I wonder whether we could make a start by marking non-secure origins in
> a neutral way, as a step forward from not marking them at all. Straw-man
> proposal for Firefox: replace the current greyed-out globe which appears
> where the lock otherwise is with a black eye icon. When clicked, instead
> of saying:
>
> "This website does not supply identity information.
>
> Your connection to this website is not encrypted."
>
> it has a larger eye icon, and says something like:
>
> "This web page was transferred over a non-secure connection, which means
> that the information could have been (was probably?!) intercepted and
> read by a third party while in transit."
>
> There are many degrees of this; let's start moving this way.
Yeah, that sounds good.
Thanks!
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2014 19:29:53 UTC