- From: David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 16:24:10 +0100
- To: public-credentials@w3.org, Verifiable Claims Working Group <public-vc-wg@w3.org>
Its in the ISO draft for electronic driving licenses David On 17/05/2019 15:39, Kyle Den Hartog wrote: > The third option is something I haven't heard of as an approach to > selective disclosure. I like the idea of adding both in as methods of > supporting selective disclosure in multiple ways. > > When writing specs to this do we highlight concerns with particular > approaches? Particularly one of the concerns I had with this is that by > sharing even a hash, it creates the potential for data to be brute > forced. This is easily solved with adding a salt and only providing the > salt when revealing the data. Would we want to include something like > this to heed potentially less private implementations? > > *Kyle Den Hartog* > Personal Blog <https://kyledenhartog.com> > > > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 8:00 AM David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk > <mailto:D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>> wrote: > > Dear All > > selective disclosure is clearly an important feature of VCs, e.g. for > driving licenses or passports we might only wish to reveal our name and > nothing else. There are several potential ways of doing this, viz: > > i) use of ZKPs - zero knowledge proof algorithms allow assertions to be > made about the VC, without revealing the VC itself > ii) use of atomic credentials - each property of the credential is > issued as a separate VC so that the holder can reveal individual > properties > iii) use of hashes - The VC only contains hashes of each of the > credential subject's properties, and the properties are separately held > by the holder. The holder places the to-be-revealed property in the > Verifiable Presentation and the verifier computes its hash and compares > it to the appropriate hash in the VC. > > Only the former is mentioned in the data model and neither of the > latter, whereas the latter 2 are less computationally intensive to > support and might be preferred by implementors. Can we add a section on > this to the Implementors Guide > > thanks > > David > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 17 May 2019 15:24:37 UTC