Re: Widgets 1.0: Digital Signature feedback

On 2008-05-28 11:37:39 +1000, Marcos Caceres wrote:

>> I'd suggest that you just reuse the algorithm URIs from the
>> various XML security specs in the autoupdate spec. Also, note
>> MD5 is pretty much dead these days, so there is no point
>> whatsoever in giving it any special status.

> The hash check is kinda pointless because the widget must do a
> CRC check on the file entries prior to instantiation, so I might
> just take it out of the auto-updates proposal.

Well, in today's environment, CRCs are mostly pointless.

The hash may or may not be pointless: It would add a useful level of
protection against tampering if the update description was, e.g.,
retrieved through HTTPS, but the updated widget itself through plain
HTTP.  In that case, you'd want a known-strong hash, though.  That
would work even in the absence of a signature on a widget.  That's
useful in my book.

-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>