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

Re: I want to have unsafe key exchange.

From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:37:06 +0000
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
CC: GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com>, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>, Vijay Bharadwaj <Vijay.Bharadwaj@microsoft.com>, "Wan-Teh Chang" <wtc@google.com>, David Dahl <ddahl@mozilla.com>, Zooko Wilcox-OHearn <zooko@leastauthority.com>, "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6472699-DF05-43B5-98FE-22837CAC827B@netflix.com>

On Jul 14, 2012, at 7:13 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 6:50 AM, GALINDO Virginie
> <Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com> wrote:
>> Vijay, Ryan, and all,
>> Just to make sure we are on line on this topic :
>> About a key to be extractable, Ryan wrote” it is up to the implementation
>> and how it handles key”, my understanding of our conversations was that this
>> ‘extractable capability’ should be defined at key creation. If it is really
>> up to the implementation and will vary from one browser to another, then I
>> think we do not help the developer to build consistent security : he will
>> not be able to choose if the key could or not be viewed by the JS.
>> Did I miss something ?
> It's important to remember that WebCrypto is likely to be initially deployed
> via a polyfill. I.e., there will be pure JS implementations which sites
> import to allow operation with browsers which don't currently support
> WebCrypto. Under those circumstances, it is obviously not possible
> to build an implementation which secures the key from the JS.
> Such an implementation has two choices:
> 1. Refuse to make keys which are tagged as protected.
> 2. Make keys which are tagged as protected but actually aren't
> protected.

Surely a site which needed 'protected' keys for some function would not use this "import a JS implementation of WebCrypto" approach and would instead tell the user that their browser didn't support the capabilities needed for that site function ?


> Note that we might also have an API which said something like "make the
> key secure if you can"...
> -Ekr
Received on Monday, 16 July 2012 18:37:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:11 UTC