sync-1 Reporter
	Description • 11 years ago

AU_LINUX_GECKO_ICS_STRAWBERRY_V1.01.00.01.19.044
  Firefox os  v1.0.1
  Mozilla build ID: 20130319070203
 
 +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #431463 +++
 
 DEFECT DESCRIPTION:
 [TMO-48095]Browser does not provide a mechanism to see SSL certificate details
 
 REPRODUCING PROCEDURES:
 1.connect to VAL-TEST or enable data connection of 2G china mobile sim card.
 2.goto http://wapmail.tcl-ta.com/http/wa503.php
 3.click New TLS Session、Server Certificate、Server Certificate Expired、Client Certificate one by one, the browser shows "The address isn't valid"---KO
 4.On refernce phone Telsa orange, can view SSL certificate successfully, refer to screenshot1.
 
 EXPECTED BEHAVIOUR:
 The browser provide a mechanism to see SSL certificate details,in addtion, the browser provide a list of on the device installed certificates.
 
 
 
 ASSOCIATE SPECIFICATION:
 DT's description:
    There is no possibility to view SSL certificate details like fingerprint , CA and more... so the user cannot check whether the correct and according certificate is used or not. Simply a lock symbol is not enough given the fact that SSL certificate might get compromitted as well (remember DigiNotar's certificates). 
    In addition, the browser does not provide a list of on the device installed certificates (ideally these can be uninstalled by the user).
 
 TEST PLAN REFERENCE:
 
 TOOLS AND PLATFORMS USED:
 
 USER IMPACT:
 
 REPRODUCING RATE:5/5
 
 For FT PR, Please list reference mobile's behavior:
 
 ++++++++++ end of initial bug #431463 description ++++++++++
 
 
 
 CONTACT INFO (Name,Phone number):
 
  DEFECT DESCRIPTION:
 
  REPRODUCING PROCEDURES:
 
  EXPECTED BEHAVIOUR:
 
  ASSOCIATE SPECIFICATION:
 
  TEST PLAN REFERENCE:
 
  TOOLS AND PLATFORMS USED:
 
  USER IMPACT:
 
  REPRODUCING RATE:
 
  For FT PR, Please list reference mobile's behavior:

	Ben Francis [:benfrancis]
	Comment 1 • 11 years ago

This looks like a feature request. NEEDINFO on product to confirm this feature isn't scheduled for v1.0.1 or v1.1.0

	Peter Dolanjski [:pdol]
	Comment 2 • 11 years ago

Lucas, your input here would be valuable.

	Daniel Coloma:dcoloma
	Comment 4 • 11 years ago

the duplicated I have marked above is in scope for 1.1. See also bug 825092.

Based on that I would assume this is tef-, but I'll prefer firefox OS team to make the final call here.

	Jason Smith [:jsmith]
	Comment 5 • 11 years ago

(In reply to Daniel Coloma:dcoloma from comment #4)
> the duplicated I have marked above is in scope for 1.1. See also bug 825092.
> 
> Based on that I would assume this is tef-, but I'll prefer firefox OS team
> to make the final call here.

Yes, this is OOS for v1.01 - sicking made this decision long ago on that bug with a rationale. It's already landed for v1.1, so we are actively working on making this shippable for that release.

	Ben Francis [:benfrancis]
	Comment 6 • 11 years ago

Is this definitely a duplicate? bug 769178 is about invalid certificate errors, what about valid certificates?

	Jason Smith [:jsmith]
	Comment 7 • 11 years ago

(In reply to Ben Francis [:benfrancis] from comment #6)
> Is this definitely a duplicate? bug 769178 is about invalid certificate
> errors, what about valid certificates?

The original KO cited above sounds like it's talking about the invalid cert case.

For valid certs, we might want to file a different bug for that.

	Joe Cheng [:jcheng] (please needinfo)
	Comment 9 • 11 years ago

undupe the bug since this bug is really asking for something different.
1.3? to consider this feature in the future release

	Joe Cheng [:jcheng] (please needinfo)
	Comment 10 • 11 years ago

ni? Karen so it gets in Karen's radar

	Karen Rudnitski [:kar]
	Comment 11 • 11 years ago

It is on Peter's radar for prioritization post 1.3.

	Peter Dolanjski [:pdol]
	Comment 12 • 11 years ago

Adding to Browser backlog for future implementation.

	Jason Smith [:jsmith]
	Comment 14 • 11 years ago

Feature request, not a blocker.

	buri.blff
	Comment 15 • 11 years ago

Which version plan to support this feature

	Jack Liu
	Comment 16 • 11 years ago

Dears, 

Please add this feature in 1.4, thanks!

	Jason Smith [:jsmith]
	Comment 17 • 11 years ago

We aren't supporting this for 1.4 - it's not part of the 1.4 QC FC requirements & DSDS requirements.

	Jack Liu
	Comment 18 • 10 years ago

Dears,

Set 1.3? per customer requirement, it's blocking issue.

	Gregor Wagner [:gwagner]
	Comment 19 • 10 years ago

(In reply to Jack Liu from comment #18)
> Dears,
> 
> Set 1.3? per customer requirement, it's blocking issue.

We can't add new features to 1.3 or 1.4.

	Jason Smith [:jsmith]
	Comment 20 • 10 years ago

(In reply to Jack Liu from comment #18)
> Dears,
> 
> Set 1.3? per customer requirement, it's blocking issue.

Per comment 19, not a blocker.

	Jason Smith [:jsmith]
	Comment 21 • 10 years ago

Same comment as above - feature request, not a blocking issue.