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

Re: Pre-provisioned Key-access Proposal - Privacy Consideration Update

From: Mountie Lee <mountie.lee@mw2.or.kr>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 07:26:49 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE-+aYLvTH+YCkb3cBiVWj6k=T77ioHTuQoTftiKvWJnPPxcsg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Cc: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren@telia.com>, "public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org" <public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org>
on the model of http://webpki.org/papers/PKI/pki-webcrypto.pdf
I feel "Signed-JS" is important.

but I'm not clear how we verify signed-JS in UA.

current webcrypto API is mainly focusing signing/verifying DATA not for JS
code itself.

this can be the replacement of pluging(java applet, activeX) code signing.

also Trusted CA can has it's role for it.

regards
mountie.

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:

>
> On Oct 30, 2012, at 1:16 PM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
>
> > On 2012-10-30 12:13, Mark Watson wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>> For practical comments, I feel that the current doc is full of
> >>> hand-wavey ideas that provide no guidance or actual APIs that show how
> >>> many of these concepts are to work or be used. I also think that,
> >>> absent formal membership, the IPR policies likely prevent this being
> >>> something that the WG could adopt.
> >>
> >> +1
> >
> > Mark, it would be interesting hearing Netflix' take on WebCrypto access
> to
> > pre-provisioned keys that are not bound to any particular domain.  Think
> credit-cards.
>
> My +1 was to support the preference for proposals from WG members and the
> caution about proposals from outside, not a comment on the merits of the
> proposal.
>
> I'm not well-placed to comment on credit cards. Obviously, things which
> make it easier and safer to use credit cards on the web are welcome,
>
> ůMark
>
> >
> > Anders
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I have updated the document with a privacy consideration section.
> >>>>
> >>>> The scheme offers no privacy silver bullet but maybe a "workable
> solution".
> >>>>
> >>>> A generic Web Crypto issue seems to be that either you end-up with a
> standardized "key-picker" (probably pretty difficult to define) which would
> mark the selected key as usable by the application to use with the Web
> Crypto API, or you leave this responsibility to the [presumably
> well-written] application.   The described solution bets on the latter
> because this is much more flexible and may even turn out to be a
> prerequisite for market acceptance.  However, this introduces a potential
> privacy risk, since there's no platform-provided protection against key
> "misuse".
> >>>>
> >>>> BTW, I have recently been experimenting with the extension-scheme
> used by for example Google to access the Android Play-store which is based
> on stand-alone handlers for unique protocols like "market://".  This is a
> strong challenger to Web Crypto solutions for pre-provisioned keys.  This
> scheme also fits quite nicely with the described solution.
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Anders
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>


-- 
Mountie Lee

PayGate
CTO, CISSP
Tel : +82 2 2140 2700
E-Mail : mountie@paygate.net

=======================================
PayGate Inc.
THE STANDARD FOR ONLINE PAYMENT
for Korea, Japan, China, and the World

Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2012 06:33:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 31 October 2012 06:33:11 GMT