After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 620852 - Lacking significant warning on bad certificates
Lacking significant warning on bad certificates
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 542454
Product: epiphany
Classification: Core
Component: General
2.30.x
Other All
: Immediate critical
: ---
Assigned To: Epiphany Maintainers
Epiphany Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2010-06-07 15:32 UTC by Jeremy Nickurak
Modified: 2010-06-08 15:16 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.29/2.30



Description Jeremy Nickurak 2010-06-07 15:32:15 UTC
When a bad/untrusted certificate is used, encryption is worse than useless, since it produces a false sense of security, while the medium is still subject to a trivial man-in-the-middle attack.

Right now, the only warning is a "broken" icon in the bottom-left corner, far from where the user's visual focus, and a subtly different color URL bar.

Chrome/firefox take the approach of a dialog page to educate the user about what's wrong, and continue if they opt to do so. (Ideally they also tie into the certificate manager to permanently trust a certificate, however, that's a much less important feature than protecting the user's confidential information).

Right now, I can interact with my online banking site, send my account number and password, and easilly not realise that my connection has been subverted.
Comment 1 Jeremy Nickurak 2010-06-07 15:34:27 UTC
Downstream at https://bugs.launchpad.net/epiphany-browser/+bug/589877

Related to, but not equivelent to, https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=594856
Comment 2 Jeremy Nickurak 2010-06-07 15:36:46 UTC
priority => "immediate", per bug life cycle documentation, "is a security issue in a released version of the software."

severity = > "critical", since it doesn't actually block development work.
Comment 3 Reinout van Schouwen 2010-06-08 13:22:34 UTC
Similar to bug 542454?
Comment 4 Jeremy Nickurak 2010-06-08 15:16:51 UTC
Thanks.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 542454 ***