[cap-talk] Firefox breaks the principle of identifiability

[Mark Miller]

Ian G wrote:
> Mark Miller wrote:
> 
>>
>>> Secondly, petnames may "solve" the problem in theory, but are
>>> not as well as logos.
>>
>> I have no problem with Pet Logos, so long as they follow the Pet Name 
>> logic. (CapDesk uses Pet Icons in such a fashion in addition to Pet 
>> Names.) In any case, could you explain a scenario where Pet Names are 
>> insufficient?
> 
> Yes, if the user ignores words.  

If the user ignores words, then they can't be misled by them. What threat 
model are we addressing?


 > Or, are you saying that
> using logos is a subset of petnames, in your lexicon?

A logo is only a Pet Logo if the choice of which logo to display follows Pet 
Name logic. In that case, fine. I've only skimmed 
http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~herzbea//Papers/ecommerce/spoofing.htm , but, as far 
as I could tell, they don't use Pet Name logic to determine what logo to 
display. If indeed they don't, then these wouldn't be Pet Logos, and I fail to 
see how this system would then solve the problem.

-- 
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain

     Cheers,
     --MarkM