Re: [Execution and Security Model] Proposal from Samsung Electronics

Hi,

On 2013-02-19 16:56, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> On 18/02/13 17:38, John Lyle wrote:
>> I guess the main value in standardising a 'certified' level is that it
>> would allow a manufacturer with this requirement to implement an API on
>> multiple web app platforms with similar access control and security
>> expectations.  However, I agree that this is a fairly small aspect of
>> the security model, and the benefit of standardisation is minimal.  But
>> as it is common to webinos, Tizen and Firefox OS (sorry, I'll stop
>> calling it B2G soon) perhaps it would be harmless to make it an optional
>> part of the specification?
>
> Your usage of the third level seems to be very close to ours then. I
> wouldn't mind specifying that third level but I'm not sure all our
> implementations give access to that third level the same way. Also, I'm
> not sure any standardized API will ever request to be limited to that
> third level. But I guess adding the level wouldn't hurt and we could
> simply remove it if it appears to be useless.

I think there is no reason to specify the third level if we already 
assume it's going to be just for platform-specific or proprietary APIs. 
We should however make sure that the spec doesn't prohibit 
implementations adding it on their own.

Another issue I wanted to bring up here is the number of "trust levels" 
in the specification. Do you think 2 is enough?
With 2 levels, we would have to put all security and privacy sensitive 
APIs in the second (trusted) level. It's an all-or-nothing situation. 
Wouldn't it be better to separate this level into two and allow 
implementations to configure how the APIs are distributed among them?

/Janusz Majnert
Samsung Electronics Poland

Received on Thursday, 21 February 2013 11:00:56 UTC