[cap-talk] Firefox breaks the principle of identifiability

[marcs]

> > Ian G wrote:
> > > You need more than just pet names.  The central
> > > issues surround the domain as a trust vector,
> > > and its relationship to the certificate.  If the
> > > domain matches ("is signed by") the cert, then
> > > it is accepted, and that domain is good.
> >
> > Huh? How is it that Pet Names don't solve this problem?
> >
> 
> Firstly, as above, the browser needs to index from the cert, 
> and currently does not.  (I'm not sure what amount of work is 
> required for this, but I'd anticipate some work there.)
> 
> Secondly, petnames may "solve" the problem in theory, but are 
> not as well as logos.  The ergonomics of graphical 
> presentations work much better than just words.  
> Intiutivelly, just looking at the research done on the 
> graphical presentations indicates that, and there's been no 
> research done on the effect of the petnames to my knowledge.
> 
> The main issue here is that petnames are just one idea that 
> could assist.  What will be required is experimentation along 
> different lines, trying petnames along side other methods.

And pet icons should be introduced into the mix as well. In CapDesk, users
pick both a pet name and a pet icon for an application. The pet icons
exploit the value of graphical presentations too.

--marcs