- From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 15:47:01 -0500
- To: W3C Device APIs and Policy WG <public-device-apis@w3.org>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
One apparent difference of the BONDI [1], [2] and Nokia [3]
submissions to the DAP WG is the handling of trust domains.
The Nokia input, given in the position paper, has trust domain
handling explicit, with a "trust manager" determining the trust domain
based on various inputs, in particular origin, and possibly signatures/
certificates. Access control policy may then be based on trust domain,
with different decisions based on the (named) trust domain.
I'd suggest the BONDI security model also requires trust domain
handling, with inputs in the "subject attribute" in section 5.4,
Logical Model [2], e.g. origin, signatures/certificates etc. In this
case a trust domain is not named, but is implicit in the subject +
subject attribute information which drives access decisions. Another
way of saying this is that for the two classes ("widget" and
"website") there are various combinations of attributes noted in BONDI
Security Appendix B, and a number of these combinations could
correspond to the same policy decisions, and be named as "trust
domains". It doesn't look like that many - untrusted, widget/website
signed (by author, distributor, both)?
I'm not sure I understand in practice how many variants based on the
attributes listed in Appendix B are really unique, in other words how
many distinct trust domains are likely in BONDI? Is it possible to
make a simple table/list?
I think it would be useful to explicitly include trust in the DAP
policy requirements document [4], in particular the classes,
attributes and logical trust domains. The reason is that the trust
domain (implicit or explicit) drives subsequent decisions. Naming
trust domains does not seem inconsistent with BONDI and offers value
in reducing duplication of policy and making purpose clearer, but
regardless it would be helpful to understand the list corresponding to
expected use cases.
What do you think?
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
[1] http://bondi.omtp.org/1.01/security/BONDI_Architecture_and_Security_v1_01.pdf
[2] http://bondi.omtp.org/1.01/security/BONDI_Architecture_and_Security_Appendices_v1_01.pdf
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Nov/att-0012/SecurityPolicy_09.pdf
[4] http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/policy-reqs/
Received on Tuesday, 8 December 2009 20:47:38 UTC