Malicious Links

[nervuri]

On Tue, 2021-07-13, mbays wrote:
> "MUST prompt" seems too strong to me. For redirects an explicit prompt
> is necessary, but for just following a link into the scope of a new
> certificate, I think it is sufficient if the link to be presented in
> a way which makes explicit the precise URI and what certificate would be
> used for it. (This is how diohsc works currently, and I think it's
> fine.)

Good point.  What we really want is for the user to be clear on "the
precise URI and what certificate would be used for it", as you said.
I think your client is unique in how it presents the two together.
Diohsc [1] looks very interesting, by the way.

OK, let's change the wording.  How about this:

"Before following a URI which is in scope of a client certificate from a
page (or via a redirect) outside of that scope, clients MUST display the
target URI and what client certificate will be used to connect to it."

We may need to go into more detail, though, since:
- multiple client certificates can be in the same scope
- one scope can be the "parent" of another in the path tree
- the rule should apply if *any* URI in the redirect chain is outside of
 the client cert's scope

[1] gemini://gemini.thegonz.net/diohsc/