[Bug 25385] clear key cannot provide basic protection, why not considering web cryptography API

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25385

--- Comment #11 from Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> ---
(In reply to GEXIN1984 from comment #10)
> You're right. This is still not secured. Maybe the public key should be
> signed by UA. 
> Then what if the CDM reuse the HTTPS client key to sign the public key it
> send? Or the CDM directly reuse the HTTPS key pairs for content key
> delivery? 
> Because the HTTPS keys are the security mechanism that are already
> established between UA and server, which are not exploded to JS.

WebCrypto has explicitly put interaction with TLS keys out-of-scope for the
first version.

Regarding signing by the UA, there would need to be some secret embedded in the
UA that would identify it as a "genuine" UA and it would need to be difficult
for someone to obtain such a secret (since they could then just embed that
secret in some Javascript and do the whole thing in Javascript). So, the secret
can't just be in the source code (or, rather, if it was, then the solution has
essentially the same security properties as the ClearKey solution).

This is exactly one of the problems (known as 'robustness') that DRM's address
in some detail, so what you are proposing is really to define a DRM, albeit a
simple one.

There are many other problems associated with such a task and we have not in
this group set out to define a new DRM, even a simple one, so I would sill
suggest WONTFIX for this one.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2014 16:04:30 UTC