W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-security@w3.org > March 2015

Re: [Web Crypto WG] draft Web Crypto WG charter : for your review and comments

From: Colin Gallagher <colingallagher.rpcv@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 20:34:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CABghAMiGAVN4+B7jeT5xs9btKf+NC6jAT7qosvOSy=Y8powL+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Cc: GALINDO Virginie <virginie.galindo@gemalto.com>, public-web-security@w3.org, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, Siva Narendra <siva@tyfone.com>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, Charles Engelke <w3c@engelke.com>
My impression was Wendy said some members' non-participation with respect
to some idea or another doesn't act as a veto so, correct me if I'm wrong,
but doesn't that imply that whether Google or someone else does or does not
like an idea, then can't it be included anyway? So the group can proceed...
not being concerned about vetoes of legacy security hardware, so basically,
I think the answer is... yes.

Also, why new working group for secure hardware/tokens/FIDO/etc, when it
could be a subgroup or interest group within webcrypto, time permitting
(charter expiring on march 31, but will it be extended)? So, one could just
call this additional group within webcrypto "secure hardware" and give it a
list for those interested.  This is just my suggestion.

Finally, some of the security issues brought up... no Web Security
Principle (maintained), plus, the Same Origin Policy doc is an IETF 2011
item itself in need of some review. Some of this stuff cited is extremely
dated.

I would further suggest pushing this out for further public review, see if
you can some more eyes on the process.

On 2015-03-12 15:54, GALINDO Virginie wrote:

[gemalto representative hat on]

gemalto supports to discuss in W3C the usage of the secure services based
on hardware or combination

> of hardware/software (e.g. secure element, trusted execution
environement).

We suggest to gather the supporting companies and draft a a charter for a
Working Group or an Interest Group.
this synchronization can happen in public, preferably on the
public-web-security interest group mailing list

> (to avoid overloading the web crypto working group mailing list).

We had an F2F, then we had discussions and finally we had the public
dismissal
by Google of the core idea (=support for legacy security hardware in
browsers).

That is, this activity is concluded and doesn't benefit from being rehashed
unless somebody has a silver bullet to offer.

Regards
Anders


Regards,
Virginie
gemalto

________________________________________
De : Wendy Seltzer [wseltzer@w3.org]
Envoyé : mercredi 11 mars 2015 22:55
À : Siva Narendra; Harry Halpin
Cc :public-web-security@w3.org;public-webcrypto@w3.org; Charles Engelke;
GALINDO Virginie
Objet : Re: [Web Crypto WG] draft Web Crypto WG charter : for your review
and comments

Hi Siva and all,

To follow up on Harry's response, we have great interest in doing more
work on secure authentication building on the WebCrypto API. As its
Chair has expressed, the WebCrypto WG wants to complete its work with a
tight focus on the WebCrypto API and related deliverables.

For my part, I look forward to supporting additional groups focused on
extending WebCrypto's work, whether based in FIDO or secure hardware.
Any member can propose work, and so long as there is interest and a path
to getting interoperable implementations, some members'
non-participation does not act as a veto.

--Wendy

On 03/11/2015 05:32 PM, Siva Narendra wrote:

Thank you Harry.

-Siva

*--*

*Siva G. Narendra Ph.D. CEO - Tyfone, Inc.Portland | Bangalore |
Taipeiwww.tyfone.com<http://www.tyfone.com>*
*Voice:+1.661.412.2233*

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:

 On 03/11/2015 09:59 PM, Siva Narendra wrote:

 +adding Pub-Web-Security for continuity from the Workshop

Thank you Harry. Few questions:

    1. Does this mean "FIDO will not be implemented under this WG?"
    2. Is the statement "All the web browser implementers do not want to
    support hardware tokens or anything that is outside of cryptography in
    within the scope of WG?" or "One browser vendors does not want to

  support

     anything other than FIDO?"


I think the answer should be:

1) FIDO will not be implemented under the Web Crypto Working Group, but
may be pursued in another WG.

2) Hardware token support, both in a manner consistent with a revised
Gemalto proposal that takes on board feedback like respect for
same-origin policy, should be pursued in another Working Group, but not
in the WebCrypto WG.

Does that help?

The real question now is what the shape and charter(s) of the new
Working Groups will be, along with associated time-frames.

There have been formal Member submissions neither from the smartcard
vendors or FIDO, but lots of informal discussion. However, the workshop
did reach consensus that hardware token support should be part of the
Open Web Platform, and the W3C would like to follow this up with one or
more new Working Groups if the work does not match existing Working Groups.

As the discussion in Web Crypto WG shows, it does not match at the time
being as the implementors want to focus on algorithm maintenance and
finishing version 1.0.

If opinions have drastically changed since the workshop, we would like
to revisit that consensus via a survey of W3C members but we are hoping
there is still consensus and momentum.

    cheers,
        harry



This is important for the eco-system to know so we can determine if this
work should be pursued inside W3C or outside.

Thank you,
Siva


*--*

*Siva G. Narendra Ph.D. CEO - Tyfone, Inc.Portland | Bangalore |
Taipeiwww.tyfone.com<http://www.tyfone.com>*
*Voice:+1.661.412.2233*

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:

  On 03/11/2015 07:08 PM, Charles Engelke wrote:

  I'm new to this WG and W3C in general, so I may be missing points on
how this works. But until today that draft did include adding new use
cases. Today that was revised to say "the Web Crypto WG will not
adress any new use case others then the ones developed with the first
version of the Web Crypto API."

Did I miss the process that made this change?


There was strong objections from members of the Working Group, in
particular implementers that are on public record.

Thus, while the W3C is still committed do finding an appropriate home
for these use-cases and associated standards, it will not be this
Working Group.

If you have a particular use-case and proposed technical solution that
you think would be acceptable to implementers, e-mail the Web Security
Interest Group atpublic-web-security@w3.org.

     cheers,
        harry


Thanks,

Charlie

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 1:13 PM, GALINDO Virginie
<Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com> wrote:

   Dear all,

You will find here
https://www.w3.org/Security/wiki/IG/webcryptonext_draft_charterthe

   basis of

  the next Web Crypto WG charter.

Based on the feedback on this mailing list, despite the long

   discussions we

  had related to new features such as crypto service in secure element,
certificate management, authentication management, this charter only
adresses the maintenance of the Web Crypto API, and the creation of
extension for specific algorithms.

What I am expecting from working group participants now is the

   algorithms

  they would like to see as extension of the Web Crypto API. This will

   help us

  to get a list of the extension we plan to adress in the framework of

   that

  specific working group.

Please note that there are some discussions in AC forum about

   restricting

  activities of any WG that does not work under a valid charter. Our

   charter

  will expire on the 31st of March, as such, we should try to get

   consensus on

  the new charter as soon as possible (or we will have to ask an

   extension to

  W3C director).

Regards,
Virginie Galindo
gemalto
chair of the web crypto WG

________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the

   addressees

 and

  may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or

   disclosure,

  either whole or partial, is prohibited.
E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable

   for

  the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the

   intended

  recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this

   transmission

 free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused

   by a

 transmitted virus.





  --
Wendy Seltzer --wseltzer@w3.org+1.617.715.4883(office)
Policy Counsel and Domain Lead, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
http://wendy.seltzer.org/       +1.617.863.0613(mobile)

________________________________
  This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees
and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or
disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for
the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended
recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission
free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a
transmitted virus.
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2015 03:36:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 17 March 2015 03:36:02 UTC