- From: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:06:10 +0200
- To: Matt Saxon <matt.saxon@gmail.com>
- Cc: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Payments WG <public-payments-wg@w3.org>, "Ahuja, Sachin" <Sachin.Ahuja@mastercard.com>
- Message-ID: <CA+eFz_KQ6mnj+GvTEq7EhS9cyD4-qjHnAHm9Nu7L01-XB05PNw@mail.gmail.com>
I don't recommend supporting multiple approaches this simply serves to increase the attack surface. As Anders points out this is a contentious area or discussion even among the "experts". My suggestion would be to follow the standards that are gaining the most traction and adopt a profile of one of these (likely JWS) that limits the options available and places some specific restrictions on implementors and users to avoid known weaknesses. For example, I would recommend we don't allow clear JSON at all but only the base64 encoded data that has been signed. On 14 December 2017 at 22:15, Matt Saxon <matt.saxon@gmail.com> wrote: > So you are happy with the concepts, but you’d like a different encoding > method for the signatures? > > What the view in this if we could/should support multiple approaches? > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 12 Dec 2017, at 06:23, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> On 2017-12-11 22:07, Matt Saxon wrote: > >> Anders, > >> I understand your point and it will be addressed when we get further > into the proposal. > >> At the moment, we are trying to get agreement to the principles, not > the detailed encoding format. > >> As you suggest we will need to address the encoding of signed data, but > I don’t believe this interferes with the principles. > > > > Right. However, Base64Url-ecoding signed JSON data violently interferes > with my "esthetics" :-) > > > > I'm not [at all] alone thinking that. > > > > JSON-LD Signatures by Manu Sporny and the credentials folks: > > https://w3c-dvcg.github.io/ld-signatures/ > > > > JCS (JSON Cleartext Signature) by yours truly, here presented in an > on-line test/demo setup: > > https://mobilepki.org/jcs/home > > > > These schemes are reusing parts of the JOSE stack but are actually quite > different. > > > > Shameless plug: JCS builds on JWK + JWA + ES6 + "New Stuff". JCS only > needs JSON.parse() and JSON.stringify() for processing. In addition, JCS > permits signatures to be expressed as JavaScript objects. > > > > Regards, > > Anders > > > > > >> Regards, > >> Matt > >> Sent from my iPhone > >>> On 11 Dec 2017, at 18:51, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> com > > > >
Received on Friday, 15 December 2017 10:13:15 UTC