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

Re: Use case classification, and associated security models

From: Philip Gladstone <pgladsto@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:52:00 -0400
Message-ID: <4FD79DE0.1050803@cisco.com>
To: public-webcrypto@w3.org
I had an action to recast my use case, and it actually falls pretty 
close to these cases here:

* A bank signs its pages using a private key (not its TLS key). It 
distributes the list of signatures in one or more manifest files (or 
embeds the signatures in the documents themselves). The bank can inject 
javascript to verify that the signatures are valid after transmission 
from server to client. This can detect (some) TLS proxies on path 
between client and server. Note that it is not always possible to use 
client certificates.

I suspect that this use case is covered by the use cases below.

Philip

On 6/12/2012 12:54 PM, Davenport, James L. wrote:
>
> Excellent summary, Vijay.
>
> I’d like to add a few use cases to your “keys obtained out-of-band” 
> since I believe it’s important to show the API allowing 
> out-of-band-keys (and only certain out-of-bound-keys) to be used for 
> decrypting data that has been encrypted.
>
> The following use cases involve persistently storing data in an 
> encrypted form on a web app, clients retrieving the encrypted data, 
> and using the Crypto API to decrypt the data using a private key on a 
> Smart Card.  In the following examples, where I say “decrypt using 
> Smart Card,” you could just as easily replace this with “decrypt using 
> out-of-band-key obtained from the Smart Card,” but I’m pretty sure 
> that (by design) you cannot extract a private key from a Smart Card.  
>  Of course this makes it more of a challenge for the API to handle 
> Vijay’s three classifications of keys in similar manners.  (I hope 
> someone can prove me wrong!)
>
> My doctor stores my latest medical test report on the cloud. For 
> privacy and security reasons, the report is stored in an encrypted 
> form. The doctor's secretary emails me, "At your leisure you can get 
> the report at this URL." I open my browser and enter the URL that 
> results in fetching the encrypted report, some HTML and JavaScript. 
> The JavaScript requests the Crypto API to decrypt the report using my 
> Smart Card. The API returns the decrypted report and the JavaScript 
> then inserts it into the HTML, which is then displayed on the browser 
> screen.
>
> The Social Security administration uploads each citizen's benefits 
> summary report to the cloud. For privacy and security reasons, the 
> reports are stored in an encrypted form. The Social Security 
> administration announces on their web site the availability of the 
> reports. Each citizen can then open a browser, go to the web site for 
> the Social Security administration and log on, which takes them to 
> their encrypted report. The encrypted report is fetched by the 
> browser, along with some HTML and JavaScript.  The JavaScript requests 
> the Crypto API to decrypt the report using my Smart Card. The API 
> returns the decrypted report and the JavaScript then inserts it into 
> the HTML, which is then displayed on the browser screen.
>
> A financial brokerage firm generates and stores quarterly reports for 
> each of its members to the cloud. For privacy and security reasons, 
> the reports are stored in an encrypted form. Each member can then open 
> a browser, go to the web site for the financial brokerage firm and log 
> on, which takes them to their encrypted quarterly report. The 
> encrypted report is fetched by the browser, along with some HTML and 
> JavaScript.  The JavaScript requests the Crypto API to decrypt the 
> report using my Smart Card. The API returns the decrypted report and 
> the JavaScript then inserts it into the HTML, which is then displayed 
> on the browser screen.
>
> A National Identity Smart Card contains a person's private key. A 
> National Registry contains each person's public key. The doctor, 
> Social Security administration, and financial brokerage firm obtains 
> the appropriate public keys from the National Registry.
>
> *From:*Vijay Bharadwaj [mailto:Vijay.Bharadwaj@microsoft.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 12, 2012 4:07 AM
> *To:* public-webcrypto@w3.org
> *Subject:* Use case classification, and associated security models
>
> (apologies in advance for the long email)
>
> As I mentioned during the conference call earlier today, I’ve been 
> thinking about the various use cases proposed so far from the 
> viewpoint of key management. It seems to me that these break down into 
> three basic cases that a Web crypto API must support, each with subtle 
> differences in the trust model.
>
> Scenario 1: Ephemeral or local-only keys
>
> Some scenarios involve only keys that are generated in the browser by 
> Javascript, and only ever used inside that browser (either within the 
> same session or persisted across sessions). The obvious example is 
> encryption of data for local storage or temporary encryption of 
> in-memory data. The identifying feature of this type of scenario is 
> that the key is only ever used by the app that generates it.
>
> The security model here seems to be that the web app believes its 
> environment to be honest-but-curious or honest-but-coercible and so is 
> trying to mitigate that by adding a layer of security through crypto. 
> For example, if an app trusted the host OS to safeguard a particular 
> piece of stored data, there would be no need for the app to encrypt it 
> (it could just trust the OS to do so if necessary). At the same time, 
> the app trusts the host OS to have some modicum of honesty (otherwise 
> encryption is useless; the host could just steal the data anyways).
>
> Scenario 2: Ephemeral keys obtained through key agreement
>
> Another scenario is where keys are obtained through key exchange or 
> key transport in the app. For instance, consider the use cases where 
> Alice and Bob are trying to converse through an intermediary Carol 
> (who runs the web service brokering the conversation). They would set 
> up some kind of key agreement and then use the agreed key to encrypt 
> bulk traffic. The key exchange may be bootstrapped by some other 
> long-lived key (see scenario 3) or brokered by the service.
>
> Here the security model seems to be that the web app trusts the host 
> environment, but distrusts some remote party (i.e. Carol). It is 
> therefore using the web crypto API to fill a need that transport-level 
> security does not.
>
> In some ways this is similar to Scenario 1 (e.g. local encryption of 
> persisted data is essentially a protocol where current-you is sending 
> data to future-you) but I’m calling it out as separate due to the 
> difference in security models.
>
> Scenario 3: Long-lived keys obtained out-of-band
>
> This covers all the smart card scenarios and other things like credit 
> cards and national IDs. In fact, pretty much anything involving 
> signature or non-repudiation would seem to need this. The human user 
> has a long-lived credential (in the form of a key) that was issued by 
> the service (or someone trusted by the service). The service wants the 
> user to use this key to authenticate and/or encrypt data to provide 
> some assurance against untrusted entities between the user and the 
> service (both the user’s client environment and any intervening 
> network entities). In this particular case, the service needs a way to 
> tell the user agent which keys are acceptable, and therefore some sort 
> of key selection method is needed. For asymmetric keys, basing the 
> selection on certificates seems reasonable. For symmetric keys, this 
> is harder - some sort of key ID scheme may be reasonable. In either 
> case, the underlying OS is responsible for locating the key container 
> and the crypto module or provider it’s in. This module or provider 
> need not be exposed to the web app at all, though the service may well 
> make some assumptions about its behavior.
>
> In this case the security model is different from the other cases. 
> Here the key container / secure element is the thing that is trusted. 
> The assumption is that the key provisioning process makes it so that 
> only secure elements can contain keys matching the service’s selection 
> criteria. On the other hand, the web app and its environment are not 
> necessarily trusted – in extreme cases, the secure element may have 
> its own display and user input mechanisms to verify user consent 
> independent of them.
>
> Use cases involving signature validation are also arguably part of 
> this family, since the trust anchor (e.g. root certificate) is likely 
> provisioned out-of-band as well.
>
> In all the above cases, once a key is obtained, all the actual crypto 
> operations are pretty much the same. So is we define all operations in 
> the API which require a key such that they take a key object as a 
> parameter, then the only difference between the above scenarios (from 
> an API perspective) is the operations used to instantiate that key 
> object. The above 3 scenarios would then correspond to 3 different 
> instantiation methods for key objects:
>
> 1.GenerateKey – create a new key for use with a specific algorithm. 
> Choice of crypto provider left up to the platform.
>
> 2.ImportKey – take a key blob obtained from key agreement and create a 
> key object from it. Choice of crypto provider left up to the platform.
>
> 3.OpenKey – Locate a key on the host system that matches a set of 
> criteria. Choice of crypto provider to be made by platform depending 
> on the location of the key.
>
> There is also a fourth primitive which is often used with scenario 3 – 
> credential enrollment. This would be the operation where the user 
> employs the trusted key to obtain a credential (e.g. enrolling for a 
> smart card certificate by signing a request using one’s existing smart 
> card key).
>
> Does that seem reasonable? Any other families of use cases that I’m 
> overlooking?
>

-- 
Philip Gladstone
Distinguished Engineer
Product Development
pgladstone@cisco.com
Phone: +1 978-ZEN-TOAD (+1 978 936 8623)
Google: +1 978 800 1010
Ham radio: N1DQ




Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 19:52:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 June 2012 19:52:36 GMT