Re: [Execution and Security Model] Proposal from Samsung Electronics

On 18/02/13 14:26, John Lyle wrote:
> On 18/02/13 13:11, Jungkee Song wrote:
>>> >* Security model *
>>> >
>>> >The fact that you guys have three levels of security instead of two is
>>> >interesting. What use cases did you had in mind?
>>> >(Actually, we also have three levels of security but the third one
>>> is more
>>> >or less a "chrome-only" level which is mostly to not allow access to
>>> >something so it's more an implementation detail.)
>>> >
>> In our proposal, for example, unsigned side-loaded apps could be
>> untrusted applications; signed packaged apps downloaded from app store
>> could be trusted applications; pre-loaded apps from OEM or operators
>> could be privileged applications.
> 
> We have the same kind of requirements in webinos - applications
> pre-loaded by OEMs (BMW being our main example) need to be distinguished
> from trusted applications from other parties in order to protect certain
> APIs.  I was under the impression that B2G also had three very similar
> levels?

That is true, but we had no intention to push this to a specification
given that it is a special case on our side to protect some APIs from
being used by third parties. It is not clear to me what would be the
interest of standardizing APIs that can't be used by third parties.

In other words, if you have to be a built-in app in Firefox OS, Tizen or
Webinos to use Foo API, having Foo API being interoperable has a very
low value given that those built-in applications will already be very
specific to the platform.

Our current plan is to have no certified-only APIs at some point unless
we have to restrict them for legal reasons (I've heard that it might be
needed for Telephony for certification purposes).

What kind of APIs are restricted to built-in apps in Webinos and Tizen?

Cheers,
--
Mounir

Received on Monday, 18 February 2013 16:37:50 UTC