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

On 18/02/13 16:37, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> On 18/02/13 14:26, John Lyle wrote:
>> 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?

Hi Mounir,

Thanks for your reply.

Our main example is the Vehicle API - 
http://dev.webinos.org/specifications/api/vehicle.html - which may be 
restricted by the vehicle manufacturer (our project colleagues at BMW 
F&T wanted this).  Or it may not - we defined the API with a policy 
system so the system integrator and manufacturer could decide.

I guess the main value in standardising a 'certified' level is that it 
would allow a manufacturer with this requirement to implement an API on 
multiple web app platforms with similar access control and security 
expectations.  However, I agree that this is a fairly small aspect of 
the security model, and the benefit of standardisation is minimal.  But 
as it is common to webinos, Tizen and Firefox OS (sorry, I'll stop 
calling it B2G soon) perhaps it would be harmless to make it an optional 
part of the specification?

Best wishes,

John

Received on Monday, 18 February 2013 17:38:27 UTC