[9front] Re: "Insecure" icon in gmail

[Anthony Martin <ality@pbrane.org>]

Dave MacFarlane <driusan@driusan.net> once said:
> 1. Am I missing something obvious?

Nope. The thumbprint(6) style PKI system is simpler but more
tedious compared to the certificate authority system if you're
interacting with a lot of foreign servers that you don't personally
trust but still want to set up a "secure" channel with them. You
have to go with something like the CA system for third party
verification or raw dog it with a trust on first use policy.

> 2. Is there a better way to do this?

Not currently. Note that webfs, ftpfs, aux/wpa, dns over tls, and
probably others do not bother checking the validity of a server's
certificate. This is not ideal. No one has done the work. Alas.

> 3. Would it make sense to add a flag to use startls but not
> validate certificates for upas/smtp?

Perhaps. But it would still be "insecure" even if the Google borg
doesn't show the super serious (see, it's even colored red) flag
on your messages.

Cheers,
  Anthony