- 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