Re: quick & dirty (but not too dirty) homograph defense

>On the other hand, if some actual IDN phishing starts to occur under 
>.com, VeriSign might have to tighten up their policy. They might 
>eventually lose money on any lawsuits that are filed. So, in the 
>long term, this IDN spoofing might not be in their best interests.
>
>It's too bad they don't make any comments on this mailing list and 
>take some kind of action, to put our minds at ease.
>
>Erik

Erik:

Well... the problem is not totally Versign's, is it?

On one hand, the list wants to solve the homograph attack (glyph 
look-alike) problem, but on the other hand when confronted with a 
clear solution to a specific problem, the list ignores it.

Case in point, the lower and upper case omega. Clearly the upper case 
omega would not be confused with any other glyph -- it's unique. 
However, the list mandates that all characters shall be lower case. 
As such, the lower case omega looks like a lower case "w" and thus 
presents a look-a-like problem.

Now, I'm not in favor of allowing both upper and lower case 
characters for each glyph into the mix, BUT, I think it wise to look 
at one -- OR-- the other to see if a solution for each glyph presents 
itself. Is this not reasonable?

As I understand it, this would only require a change in mapping. That 
should solve at least one "glyph look-alike" problem -- shouldn't it?

tedd
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://sperling.com/