W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org > December 2012

RE: RSA blind signatures

From: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 05:58:54 -0800
Message-ID: <CANr5HFXkSn4BsN=QVgMfgiAKjPfSAfF-swTx8pcXHX2Y7FGj+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>
Cc: public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org, Tolga Acar <tolga.acar@intel.com>, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>, Stefan Xenon <stefanxe@gmx.net>, public-script-coord@w3.org
http://www.jroller.com/cpurdy/entry/the_seven_habits_of_highly1
On Nov 30, 2012 4:49 PM, "Anthony Nadalin" <tonynad@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  I guess I disagree on this one,, while that may be a goal in TC39 there
> is still value in making this an API for this group, and TC39 can take it
> father if they so want/need, but there is a need for some functions so we
> can support algorithms (signature, encryption, etc. ) outside the standard
> ones, this is both is a browser and non-browser environments****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Alex Russell [mailto:slightlyoff@google.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, November 30, 2012 5:36 AM
> *To:* Ryan Sleevi
> *Cc:* public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org; Acar, Tolga; Mike Jones; Stefan
> Xenon
> *Subject:* Re: RSA blind signatures****
>
> ** **
>
> What Ryan said.****
>
> As a TC39 member, let me second the sentiment that bignum support does not
> belong in an API. It should be done with full operator support and
> arbitrary precision if we're ever to have a hope of making bigger storage
> classes usable by mere mortals. I also recommend Ryan's approach: ask for
> the highest level thing you think you can get away with as that'll give
> implementations room to optimize while we figure out BigNum and BigInt in
> ES7.****
>
> Regards****
>
> On Nov 26, 2012 5:01 PM, "Ryan Sleevi" <sleevi@google.com> wrote:****
>
> BigNums have been discussed in the past in TC39 (aka the ECMAScript
> standardization), and I believe need a new champion for that group.
>
> I do think that they *do not* belong in this WG. BigNums are not
> really a DOM concept, and the arguments for why "native JS" isn't
> suitable for crypto I think highlights why a BigNum API in the DOM (as
> opposed to the Javascript VM) is a Bad Thing(tm).
>
> That said, if anyone is considering implementing polyfilled crypto
> APIs via a BigNum interface, without support of the JVM, I would
> suggest that "They're doing it wrong," since it's going to have all of
> the problems that existing polyfilled APIs do today - lack of constant
> time comparison, lack of correctness guarantee, possible Javascript VM
> optimization hijinks, etc. So the argument for supporting a
> cryptographic API - as opposed to something like fractal images or
> formula - seems problematic.
>
> If the argument is that "This is safe in other contexts" (SysApps or
> platforms that use "technologies used on the Web" but are NOT "the
> Web"), then I think it's a further case for TC39, as it's more about
> using JavaScript as a fundamental language than it is about the web
> platform.
>
> For the purposes of blind signatures, I would suggest the proposal
> instead would be to propose an algorithm and parameters for handling
> blind signatures (or how the existing algorithm and parameters
> can/should be adjusted) for discussion, rather than advocating a 'roll
> your own'.
>
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Acar, Tolga <tolga.acar@intel.com> wrote:
> > Although I, too, would like to work on and use a bigint API in js, I am
> much
> > less inclined to augment the web crypto API with a general purpose bigint
> > API that looks more like math (group operations in particular) than
> crypto
> > library. If there is interest in a bigint API in js, and it looks like
> there
> > is, that should come under separate cover instead of being mixed with the
> > Web Crypto API. So, what does that “separate cover” mean? A new WG, a
> > natural extension of this WG?
> >
> >
> >
> > -          Tolga
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Mike Jones [mailto:Michael.Jones@microsoft.com]
> > Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 10:57 PM
> > To: Stefan Xenon; public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org; sleevi@google.com
> > Subject: RE: RSA blind signatures
> >
> >
> >
> > For what it's worth, I know of other groups interested in native speed
> > bigint math in JavaScript.
> >
> > -- Mike
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Stefan Xenon
> > Sent: 11/23/2012 8:15 AM
> > To: public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org; sleevi@google.com
> > Subject: Re: RSA blind signatures
> >
> > Hi Ryan,
> > by any chance, could we propose such bigint API? If this would have a
> > realistic chance, how is the process to move forward?
> >
> > Regards
> > Stefan
> >
> > Am 23.11.2012 18:43, schrieb Ryan Sleevi:
> >> A bigint API has not been proposed.
> >>
> >> On Nov 23, 2012 1:47 AM, "Stefan Xenon" <stefanxe@gmx.net
> >> <mailto:stefanxe@gmx.net>> wrote:
> >>
> >>     Hi!
> >>     We are developing a system (www.opencoin.org
> >>     <http://www.opencoin.org>) which uses Chaum's RSA
> >>     blind signatures. Of course I don't expect the Web Crypto API to
> >>     natively support blind signatures. Instead we would like to utilize
> >>     "raw" big integer operations to speed up our calculations. But In
> your
> >>     current draft I couldn't find such basic operations exposed to web
> >>     applications. Primarily we would need big integer operations for
> >>     exponentiation and inverting (both modulo). Did I overlook such
> >>     functions? Or would it be possible for your API to expose such
> >> functions
> >>     to web applications?
> >>
> >>     Regards,
> >>     Stefan
> >>
> >>****
>
>
Received on Saturday, 1 December 2012 13:59:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 1 December 2012 13:59:24 GMT