![]() Given that Mozilla implements a version different than the HTML spec, and given that Microsoft has made it clear they have no desire to implement, the compatibility risk is believed to be low in practice. While there is no doubt that remains used in the wild, both the use counters and Google's own crawler indicate that it's use is extremely minimal. This highlights that even at the time of introduction, was inadequate for purpose. This MIME handling, unspecified but implemented by major browsers, represents yet-another-way for a website to make persistent modifications to the user system.Ħ) Mozilla (then Netscape) quickly realized that was inadequate back in the early 2000s, and replaced it with, to compete with the CertEnroll/XEnroll flexibility, but recently removed support due to being Firefox only. This can't easily be changed w/o breaking compatibility with UAs.ĥ) just generates keys, and relies on application/x-x509-*-cert to install certificates. For example, Firefox ships with a number of extensions not implemented by any other browser (compare to )Ĥ) itself is problematically and incompatibly insecure - requiring the use of MD5 in a signing algorithm as part of the SPKAC generated. Microsoft has made it clear, in no uncertain terms, they don't desire to support Keygen Ģ) is unique in HTML (Javascript or otherwise) in that by design, it offers a way to persistently modify the users' operating system, by virtue of inserting keys into the keystore that affect all other applications (Safari, Chrome, Firefox when using a smart card) or all other origins (Firefox, iOS, both which use a per-application keystore)ģ) itself is not implemented consistently across platforms, nor spec'd consistently. Issues: There are a number of issues with today that make it a very incompatible part of the Web Platform.ġ) Microsoft IE (and now Edge) have never supported the tag, so its cross-browser applicability is suspect. It was then retro-spec'd into the HTML spec. When iOS appeared on the scene, got a boost, as being the initial way to do certificate provisioning, and along with it brought support into Safari. During the First Browser Wars, Microsoft provided an alternative, via ActiveX, called CertEnroll/XEnroll. Originally Firefox exclusive, it was adopted by several mobile platforms (notably, Nokia and Blackberry), along with support for the certificate installation mime-types. ![]() History: was an early development by Mozilla to explore certificate provisioning. ![]() This is a pre-intent, to see if there are any show-stopping use cases or compatibility risks that have hitherto been unconsidered. Primary eng (and PM) is an intent to deprecate, with the goal of eventually removing, support for the element, along with support for special handling for the application/x-x509-user-cert. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |