- From: Max Froumentin <maxfro@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:06:20 +0100
- To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- CC: "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On 05/01/2010 17:39, Thomas Roessler wrote: > A high-level comment first: Mapping the network environment with > lots of detail opens the door for at least two sensitive effects. > > 1. Providing information that's equivalent to locating the user. The > "MAC address of the router" piece goes into this direction, as does > the ESSID, as does information about the relative strength of GSM and > UMTS and Wifi signals, when combined. The specification needs > privacy considerations that spell this out; information that turns > out to be location-equivalent needs a user interaction akin to the > location one. > > 2. Mapping a network in detail (e.g., learning device manufacturers > through MAC addresses) can make attacks much easier. Now, I'm not > advocating security through obscurity (and yes, perimeters are dead > anyway), but we should keep in mind the side effects of this work, > and keep the network mapping API to what we have concrete use cases > for. You can always provide use cases for anything. I'm sure that any web -technology-based platforms (Pré, Google OS) someone will want to write apps to show the user what the available network interfaces are, or provide a list of processes. The properties and attributes that are currently in the specification will eventually reflect the WG's consensus on which are the useful ones. I bet that every one of them will have privacy or security issues. I expect the Policy work to address this, as part of general considerations on retransmitting those data. > On a more detailed level: > > - What's the use case for enumerating all IP addresses that a > multihomed device might have, *from* *a* *Web* *application*? Perhaps we need to establish how different a web application is from a system application. Admittedly I see them as being very close. Indeed in the aforementioned OSs they are basically the same. > - What's the use case for the signal strength? (There's some > location fun to be had with signal strength from several access > points or network devices; therefore, this information contributes is > a piece of the location-related puzzle.) see above. > - What does the "encrypted" attribute mean? Do we count weak crypto > (e.g., current GSM ciphers or WEP)? Do we count link-level > encryption to some network intermediary only, or other things? > Objection! Overruled: you didn't offer an alternative. Max.
Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2010 11:06:54 UTC