- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:18:15 +0200
- To: Mary Ellen Zurko <mzurko@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: W3C WSC Public <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
I see ISSUE-77 is open against the note and deals with how we reference the threat trees. Not having seen any disagreement with the proposed text below, I wonder if we can take it as a resolution for ISSUE-77, incorporate it, and close that issue? Thanks, -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org> On 2007-06-27 16:08:22 -0400, Johnathan Nightingale wrote: > From: Johnathan Nightingale <johnath@mozilla.com> > To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> > Cc: W3C WSC Public <public-wsc-wg@w3.org> > Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:08:22 -0400 > Subject: Re: ACTION-243 Propose link from note to threat trees > X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/87465A3C-C5B9-44BE-8266-1CD2934BD66C@mozilla.com > > > +1 to your duly-constrained suggestion. Maybe people have > additions/subtractions from the actual list of threats but the idea, for me, > is right. > > Amending the note in this way gives rec authors something in the note to > point to when they are answering specific (classes of) threats, and leaves > the door open to more exhaustive/elaborate information in downstream > publications. > > Cheers, > > J > > > On 27-Jun-07, at 12:36 PM, Thomas Roessler wrote: > >> >> On 2007-06-25 09:12:42 -0400, Mary Ellen Zurko wrote: >> >>> We distinguish a number of properties in the basic use cases that we >>> address. We will be looking towards adding attack information as well, >>> potentially in the form of threat trees [ref >>> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/wiki/ThreatTrees]. >> >> Here's an alternative proposal; note that this is not intended to >> reopen the "put in the threat trees or not" part. >> >> The use cases presented in this section can be organized by >> a number of properties. Based on these use cases, there is >> work in progress to develop formal Threat Trees [REF], which >> is expected to be published formally along with the group's >> Recommendation Track deliverables. >> >> 6.1 Use case properties >> >> [insert current 6.1-6.4 here as a numbered list, without >> second-level headings] >> >> 6.2 Threat dimensions >> >> The following high-level threats will be considered in the >> Group's work. >> >> 1. Luring Attacks - luring a user to the wrong site so that >> he connects to an address not owned by theparty he believes >> it to be owned by. >> >> 2. Site Impersonation Attacks - an attack in which the >> attacker attempts to mimic someone else's website. Potential >> goals include credential theft (e.g. password theft), theft >> of other private information from user (bank account and >> routing numbers), or forging information sent to user (e.g. >> fake news story that will cause user to buy or sell stock). >> >> 3. Cross-site request forgery - causing a user to >> unwittingly send, to a legitimate site, a request containing >> data that he/she would not otherwise intend to send (e.g. to >> perform an action that he/she did not intend to take). >> >> 4. Network-based eavesdropping- a passive attack in which >> the attacker collects network traffic and reads the data >> sent between the client and the website. Potential goals >> include session hijacking (e.g. stealing a session cookie), >> credential theft (e.g. password theft), theft of other >> private information from user (bank account and routing >> numbers) >> >> 6.3 Scenarios >> >> [current 6.5] >> >> Attentive readers will notice that this enumeration leaves out >> cross-site-scripting, per section 5.9 of the note. >> >> >> -- >> Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org> >> > > --- > Johnathan Nightingale > Human Shield > johnath@mozilla.com > > >
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2007 12:18:20 UTC