Recently, the Shmoo Group discovered that Firefox is vulnerable to precisely the exploit that i predicted in my 2002 paper—Ping

➡

You need more than just pet names.—Ian

➡

Huh? How is it that Pet Names don’t solve this problem?—Mark

➡

Firstly, as above, the browser needs to index from the cert, and currently does not.—Ian

➡

I have no problem with Pet Logos, so long as they follow the Pet Name logic.—Mark

➡

Yes, if the user ignores words. Or, are you saying that using logos is a subset of petnames, in your lexicon?—Ian

➡

A logo is only a Pet Logo if the choice of which logo to display follows Pet Name logic. In that case, fine.—Mark

➡

Is there anything anywhere that expands the pet names concept to logos? Or is this something that evolved without anyone really thinking about it?

Also, where is the "Pet Name logic" ? I’ve seen some views of this in PNML document, but the logic seems more assumed than written.

"pet names are understood to be specific (and private!) to the relationship between two people."

<erights.org>

Random question:

Under what conditions does an agent release a petname? Under what conditions does an agent translate a petname? How does an agent deal with an incoming petname?—Ian