W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > October 2014

Re: Wild Tangent about Crypto (was Re: CfC: only allow authenticated origins to call getUserMedia)

From: Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 16:14:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOuvq21k9zgNXn2zR4=MPCvo15dbb7tej=7v2ZKDGyz5ghwr6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:

> Sure. You're getting off onto the tangent of opportunistic encryption,
> rather than really talking about the gUM issue. I'll post one quick rebuttal
> here, and then I intend to let the issue alone on this list (since it's
> several steps removed from the media capture charter).

It's a bit of a tangent, I agree. And I apologize for not making it
clear that I believe all of these questions are intertwined:

* Why should we pay the cost of developing and deploying a security
mechanism if its guarantee is not strong enough to justify even a
1-bit a user-visible promise? Keep in mind that resources spent
defeating purely passive attacks are resources that cannot be spent on
stronger mechanisms.

* Why should users trust an origin that cannot make a promise? (With
their cameras and microphones?)

* Why should we believe the cost differential between active and
passive attack is large?
Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2014 23:15:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:30 UTC