5 ms·

Frankly, I have yet to see a typical user point out EV as a problem solver. Usually, when I try to explain my work with EV to an average user, nobody knows what

Frankly, I have yet to see a typical user point out EV as a problem solver. Usually, when I try to explain my work with EV to an average user, nobody knows what I'm talking about.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
I would argue that's because the companies that should be using EV aren't, so users don't see EV often/enough. Google, Microsoft, etc. have no excuse to not be using, and emphasizing EV certificates. Consider how many "Microsoft support" scams would fall flat on their face if people were taught to look for the company they're dealing with was in a green box near the URL, and EV certs were shored up so that only major Fortune 500 or so companies were able to participate. And before someone suggests that users can't be taught this, there's precedent: We've been trying to teach users not to trust that "Secure" badge/lock icon they've gotten used to. The difference is, the secure icon never represented that they were communicating with someone trustworthy, but the EV designation would. EDIT: Also, hi Ian! stripe.ian.sh makes you a minor celebrity, and I'm honored by your presence. ;)
- dagenix 8y ago
  Its not Google's job to prop up CA vendor's business selling snake-oil certs. They don't see them as useful. There is compelling evidence that they aren't. So, Google is absolutely right not to encourage people to drop $2k+/year on Comodo for worthless certs and a "warranty" that means nothing.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    But pushing snake oil certs is exactly what they've been doing by forcing people to use HTTPS to avoid scare tactic "Not Secure" warnings. HTTPS is far less helpful than something like EV that includes identity, rather than an ethereal statement that you have an encrypted connection to "someone".
    - dagenix 8y ago
      The article makes a pretty compelling point that EV certs are worthless. Google and Apple seem to think that EV is worthless - that is why they are removing special treatment for them from their browsers. Many of the largest sites in the world that are the most appealing targets to phish have voted that they are worthless by not purchasing them. > forcing people to use HTTPS to avoid scare tactic "Not Secure" warnings. "Not Secure" is a literal description of the state of the connection. Its not secure. What should a browser say? I guess nothing because your site is so special that its users should be ok with having someone MITM the connection and inject who knows what into the page. Whether or not that is OK isn't your decision to make - its the right of your users to make that decision and saying "Not Secure" helps them. That you find that inconvenient for you is well ... inconvenient for _you_. > HTTPS is far less helpful than something like EV that includes identity The article makes a pretty compelling point that EV certs are worthless and do no better a job at providing security than regular certs.
      - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
        I don't find the articles' arguments compelling at all, hence my statements contrary to it. Many of the arguments against EV, including in this article, are circular and depend on appeal to authority towards companies who don't like them.
        dagenix 8y ago
        What about the article isn't compelling? We have an expert here, writing they are useless. We have various case studies of different websites using them and then switching away from them without any user outcry - again, showing they are useless. We have various examples of CAs making highly misleading claims with a clear intent to financially benefit themselves. We have a "warranty" that no one will explain what it means. We have major browsers, saying they are worthless by removing their special treatment. We have major websites voting with their feet, never using them, indicating they are useless. Its extremely unclear to me exactly what you are objecting to. Maybe if they were useful, then, they would be useful, but, that's circular.
        8y ago

Frankly, I have yet to see a typical user point out EV as a problem solver. Usually, when I try to explain my work with EV to an average user, nobody knows what I'm talking about.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

I would argue that's because the companies that should be using EV aren't, so users don't see EV often/enough. Google, Microsoft, etc. have no excuse to not be using, and emphasizing EV certificates. Consider how many "Microsoft support" scams would fall flat on their face if people were taught to look for the company they're dealing with was in a green box near the URL, and EV certs were shored up so that only major Fortune 500 or so companies were able to participate. And before someone suggests that users can't be taught this, there's precedent: We've been trying to teach users not to trust that "Secure" badge/lock icon they've gotten used to. The difference is, the secure icon never represented that they were communicating with someone trustworthy, but the EV designation would. EDIT: Also, hi Ian! stripe.ian.sh makes you a minor celebrity, and I'm honored by your presence. ;)

dagenix 8y ago
Its not Google's job to prop up CA vendor's business selling snake-oil certs. They don't see them as useful. There is compelling evidence that they aren't. So, Google is absolutely right not to encourage people to drop $2k+/year on Comodo for worthless certs and a "warranty" that means nothing.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  But pushing snake oil certs is exactly what they've been doing by forcing people to use HTTPS to avoid scare tactic "Not Secure" warnings. HTTPS is far less helpful than something like EV that includes identity, rather than an ethereal statement that you have an encrypted connection to "someone".
  - dagenix 8y ago
    The article makes a pretty compelling point that EV certs are worthless. Google and Apple seem to think that EV is worthless - that is why they are removing special treatment for them from their browsers. Many of the largest sites in the world that are the most appealing targets to phish have voted that they are worthless by not purchasing them. > forcing people to use HTTPS to avoid scare tactic "Not Secure" warnings. "Not Secure" is a literal description of the state of the connection. Its not secure. What should a browser say? I guess nothing because your site is so special that its users should be ok with having someone MITM the connection and inject who knows what into the page. Whether or not that is OK isn't your decision to make - its the right of your users to make that decision and saying "Not Secure" helps them. That you find that inconvenient for you is well ... inconvenient for _you_. > HTTPS is far less helpful than something like EV that includes identity The article makes a pretty compelling point that EV certs are worthless and do no better a job at providing security than regular certs.
    - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
      I don't find the articles' arguments compelling at all, hence my statements contrary to it. Many of the arguments against EV, including in this article, are circular and depend on appeal to authority towards companies who don't like them.
      - dagenix 8y ago
        What about the article isn't compelling? We have an expert here, writing they are useless. We have various case studies of different websites using them and then switching away from them without any user outcry - again, showing they are useless. We have various examples of CAs making highly misleading claims with a clear intent to financially benefit themselves. We have a "warranty" that no one will explain what it means. We have major browsers, saying they are worthless by removing their special treatment. We have major websites voting with their feet, never using them, indicating they are useless. Its extremely unclear to me exactly what you are objecting to. Maybe if they were useful, then, they would be useful, but, that's circular.
      - 8y ago