- From: Janusz Majnert <j.majnert@samsung.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:24:54 +0100
- To: public-sysapps@w3.org
>> But I definitely think that our ultimate goal should be to move as >> many of the APIs to as low level as possible. Or at least as much as >> possible for the various APIs to as low level as possible. So for >> example the SMS API might have a subset which is only exposed to >> certified apps, whereas the ability to be notified of incoming >> messages is exposed to privileged apps, and the ability to read the >> database of stored messages is exposed to normal apps. (Just to pull >> an example out of thin air). > > Why would the SMS API be limited to certified applications? A privileged > application is an application that has been marked as privileged by a > store that has been marked as privileged by the runtime. Why should we > expect such an application to not behave correctly? If Firefox OS or > Tizen or Webinos trusts a store and that store trusts an application > whether because the code has been reviewed or the author is trusted. On Android, would you trust all applications available via the Play Store? Or in other words - would you trust all of them the same? Or do you also look at user ratings, download numbers, who the author is, etc? You gave a good example in your other email, where you wrote about SMS API being abused by an app that was trusted enough to use it... > If > we still can't give the right to such an application to send SMS', we > are whether being too cautious or that means we do not believe the > security model is working and in that case, we should fix it. And I think what we're doing now is designing the security model, having in mind other solutions currently on the market. /Janusz
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 09:25:35 UTC