W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > November 2006

Re: Seeking feedback on Widget Signing

From: Brad Porter <brad@tellme.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 12:20:08 -0800
Message-ID: <45620DF8.5080806@tellme.com>
To: public-appformats@w3.org
Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, access-control tf <member-accesscontrol-tf@w3.org>

For signing, we may want to look at XML Signatures... 
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/.   Mozilla signed scripts may prove a 
good start for ways to describe capabilities...  
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/components/signed-scripts.html

I think we want to be very clear on what we want the default trust model 
and validation of that trust model to be for Widgets.  Because they are 
chromeless, Widgets already require a higher level of trust as they can 
be used for more sophisticated phishing attacks. 

What is intended software distribution model for widgets?  Are they 
expected to be managed and installed like desktop applications, or is 
the hope that they can proliferate and be adopted/changed at the same 
rate as web pages?  Basically, are we asking the IT department to trust 
the widget engine or the individual widgets themselves or both?

I think this is an interesting topic to ask the new Web Security Context 
Working Group to also provide input. 

Brad

Arthur Barstow wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> As you may know, on November 9 the FPWD of the Widgets 1.0 spec was 
> published:
>
>  <http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/>
>
> Although this document does not explicitly address "access control" 
> per se, it identifies two security-related issues and thus I seek your 
> input on these issues. If you have any feedback/comments on these 
> issues, please respond directly to WAF's public mail list:
>
>  <mailto:public-appformats@w3.org>
>
> 1. Section 2.1 contains the following open issue regarding digital 
> signing of widgets:
>
> [[
> A future revision of this draft will address digital signing of 
> widgets. Need to figure out how.
> ]]
>
> Yahoo!'s Ed Voas submitted a comment about the above issue:
>
>  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2006Nov/0043.html> 
>
>
> 2. Section 3.13 contains an open issue about the <security> element:
>
> [[
>
> Specific details of the <security> element are to be determined. This 
> element might address things like:
>
>     * Signing (although it's unclear if this element is the right 
> place for that);
>     * Stating the intent to access various domains (outside the 
> "default browser security model");
>     * Lifting the restricted access to the file system;
>     * Granting access to system sensitive information.
> ]]
>
> Thanks,
>
> Art Barstow
> ---
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 20 November 2006 20:20:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:20 GMT