- From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 20:02:14 +0100
- To: "henry.story@bblfish.net" <henry.story@bblfish.net>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Cc: public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>, Andrei Sambra <asambra@mit.edu>
On 2015-11-09 19:32, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote: > >> On 8 Nov 2015, at 11:17, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote: >> >> I have opened an issue on the whatwg Fetch issues list to see if >> they can add a function to allow one to access the headers before >> they get sent, so that one could actually sign as many of the >> headers possible. >> >> https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/issues/156 > > On irc annevk wrote (unofficially I suppose): > >> yeah I looked at that and that doesn't seem like something we'll address anytime soon >> the headers to be transmitted are in the network stack which is mostly post-Fetch >> although it's all a bit gobbled up admittedly since the standards are a bit post-implementation > > That's not that surprising. > > So as we can't get the Date or things that may play the role of a nonce, what do we do? > > WebID-RSA ( https://github.com/solid/solid-spec#webid-rsa ) has the server send a nonce. Though I am not sure how the server would remember which nonce was sent. Also the > lack of a date seems to make it open to replay attacks. ( which is why having access to the date in the Signature is quite important. ) > > With HTTP Signatures we can get something like the WebID by passing a User header with the WebID. But we'd need to find a way to add an extra date header, which I suppose should never be > more than a few seconds out of sync with the real date header. > > Any ideas? Forgive my ignorance but I don't understand the problem. Since SOP is ruling, I don't see how you could get hold of the WebID in the first place unless it is the origin site requesting (which already should know about it). Anders > > > annevk also wrote ( first impression - but its always interesting to collect those ) >> That draft seems to sorta skip over justification for why it's a good idea to begin with > > Anyway, he's thinking about it. But even if they do advance we'd need something we can use now. > > > Henry > >
Received on Monday, 9 November 2015 19:02:49 UTC