Last week, Chrome 68 began a new era in the way browsers communicate with users about security. The Google Chromium team has decided to simplify the green padlock indicator that has been confusing at best, and misleading at worst. Often, consumers were unclear what the security indicators were trying to tell them, especially since the way they were used widely varied by browser and/or platform (and still does). In practical terms, this means you can receive a different message about the security of a specific website, depending on which browser or platform you use at the time.
For the longest time, the only common element in the way different browsers communicated security indicators to users was the beloved “padlock” – indicating only that the connection between browser and web server was encrypted using SSL/TLS. The digital certificate used to identify the website and support TLS communication was either Domain Validated (DV) or Organization Validated (OV) – it didn’t matter which type; both triggered the display of a browser’s “padlock” icon.
With the introduction of Extended Validation (EV) certificates, web browsing became a little more complicated for the average consumer. Initially, for sites using EV certificates, a completely “green” address bar and the name of the organization validated as the domain owner were introduced as additional browser security indicators. The intention was to distinguish sites using EV certificates from sites using DV or OV certificates (which remained acutely ‘not green’….but still got the padlock treatment). The underlying encryption for sites using EV certificates remained the same as sites using DV/OV certificates, but EV certificates were advertised to provide better security for websites and consumers. This security boost was primarily claimed because of the additional (extended) identity validation performed upon the certificate requestor. The security value of EV versus DV/OV is a blog for another time…
Over time, the “wholly green address bar with organization name” morphed to a “partially green address bar with organization name”, or a “green padlock with organization name”, or just the organization name (in green, of course), or sometimes just a padlock (yes….a green padlock) with the word “Secure”. Oh….and almost none of those changes to the browsers’ treatment of EV certificates happened in unison; each browser made its own decision on the style of the EV indicator and when the indicator would morph yet again. Between the multiple types of TLS certificates and the various ways in which each browser displays security indicators (based, in part, on the type of certificate), consumers were left confused – if not apathetic – to the information presented.
So, when is the connection ‘secure’ ? When a padlock is displayed? When the padlock is green? When there’s an organization’s name next to the padlock? Of equal importance, what should we look for to determine whether the session is encrypted or not?
If all of this seems confusing to you, you’re not alone. Most consumers simply ignore browser indicators, if they notice them at all. A study from BYU, in collaboration with Google Chrome engineers, showed that 90% of people ignore browser security warnings, including those that indicate problems with certificates. Since most users don't make browsing decisions based on whether the bar is green or there's a padlock, Google has decided to take meaningful action within the Chrome browser.
In order to promote and speed the continued adoption of an encrypted Web andto reduce consumer confusion surrounding security indicators, Google introduced a significant change the indicators in Chrome. They have introduced the “Not Secure” chip for any non-HTTPS (unencrypted) browsing session.
TLS-encrypted (HTTPS) browsing sessions continue to offer the same experience in Chrome 68 as they did in Chrome 67 – green padlock and the “Secure” chip for sites using DV/OV certificates or the green padlock and organization name for sites using EV certificates. But the seismic shift in user experience is the direct and easily understood “Not Secure” chip that will be displayed when browsing non-HTTPS sites in Chrome.
This was a logical, evolutionary change for Chrome. The end game for the Web is that everything will be encrypted by default. Everything will be HTTPS. When we reach this state is there really a need to warn users unlessthe connection is not HTTPS?
That's the position that Google has taken. Warnings will only happen for non-encrypted connections. The advantage of this approach is that it's very clearly presented to the user – the display of the “Not Secure” chip should give pause to any user who values their own browsing security.
Look for more changes to come in the Chrome browser’s security indicators. Chrome 69 appears to cease differentiating between DV/OV and EV certificates – only a padlock will indicate the connection is encrypted; no more “green”, no more “Secure” chip, no more organization names. Additionally, Chrome 70 plans to introduce the color red to the “Not Secure” chip when users enter data on unencrypted pages (i.e. login screens, payment forms).
I agree with Google on this point: simple indicators are more effective; they’re simply easier to understand. Plus, this move will further encourage all websites to use TLS encryption. Eventually, everything is encrypted…everywhere. What do you think?
Related posts
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur elit.
Thank you for subscription
Scroll to the bottom to accept
VENAFI CLOUD SERVICE
*** IMPORTANT ***
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BEFORE CONTINUING WITH REGISTRATION AND/OR ACTIVATION OF THE VENAFI CLOUD SERVICE (“SERVICE”).
This is a legal agreement between the end user (“You”) and Venafi, Inc. ("Venafi" or “our”). BY ACCEPTING THIS AGREEMENT, EITHER BY CLICKING A BOX INDICATING YOUR ACCEPTANCE AND/OR ACTIVATING AND USING THE VENAFI CLOUD SERVICE FOR WHICH YOU HAVE REGISTERED, YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU ARE ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF A COMPANY OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY, YOU REPRESENT THAT YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO BIND SUCH ENTITY AND ITS AFFILIATES TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, IN WHICH CASE THE TERMS "YOU" OR "YOUR" SHALL REFER TO SUCH ENTITY AND ITS AFFILIATES. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE SUCH AUTHORITY, OR IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, YOU MUST NOT ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT AND MAY NOT USE THE SERVICE.
You shall not access the Service if You are Our competitor or if you are acting as a representative or agent of a competitor, except with Our prior written consent. In addition, You shall not access the Service for purposes of monitoring its availability, performance or functionality, or for any other benchmarking or competitive purposes, and you shall not perform security vulnerability assessments or penetration tests without the express written consent of Venafi.
This Agreement was last updated on April 12, 2017. It is effective between You and Venafi as of the date of Your accepting this Agreement.
The Venafi Cloud Service includes two separate services that are operated by Venafi as software as a service, each of which is separately licensed pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and each of which is considered a Service under this Agreement: the Venafi Cloud Risk Assessment Service or the Venafi Cloud for DevOps Service. Your right to use either Service is dependent on the Service for which You have registered with Venafi to use.
This License is effective until terminated as set forth herein or the License Term expires and is not otherwise renewed by the parties. Venafi may terminate this Agreement and/or the License at any time with or without written notice to You if You fail to comply with any term or condition of this Agreement or if Venafi ceases to make the Service available to end users. You may terminate this Agreement at any time on written notice to Venafi. Upon any termination or expiration of this Agreement or the License, You agree to cease all use of the Service if the License is not otherwise renewed or reinstated. Upon termination, Venafi may also enforce any rights provided by law. The provisions of this Agreement that protect the proprietary rights of Venafi will continue in force after termination.
This Agreement shall be governed by, and any arbitration hereunder shall apply, the laws of the State of Utah, excluding (a) its conflicts of laws principles; (b) the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods; (c) the 1974 Convention on the Limitation Period in the International Sale of Goods; and (d) the Protocol amending the 1974 Convention, done at Vienna April 11, 1980.
In the meantime, please explore more of our solutions
In the meantime, please explore more of our solutions
This site uses cookies to offer you a better experience. If you do not want us to use cookies, please update your browser settings accordingly. Find out more on how we use cookies.