W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-payments-wg@w3.org > December 2017

Re: [Agenda] Tokenization task force call on 12 December

From: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:06:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+eFz_KQ6mnj+GvTEq7EhS9cyD4-qjHnAHm9Nu7L01-XB05PNw@mail.gmail.com>
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>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 15 December 2017 10:13:16 UTC