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

Re: I want to have unsafe key exchange.

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:38:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMbHFMDEOeswH3yeQSZZf=U68e0VaB_+yBmoLvpS_YvYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.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>
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:
> 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 ?

You're assuming that they aren't just pulling in a library which wraps
the crypto
functions as jQuery/underscore, etc. do for so many other pieces of web

Received on Monday, 16 July 2012 19:40:02 UTC

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