- From: Ryan Ware <ware@linux.intel.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:51:07 -0800
- To: "'John Lyle'" <john.lyle@cs.ox.ac.uk>, <public-sysapps@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: John Lyle [mailto:john.lyle@cs.ox.ac.uk] > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 10:47 AM > To: public-sysapps@w3.org > Subject: Re: [Execution and Security Model] Proposal from Samsung > Electronics > > On 12/01/13 16:08, Ming Jin wrote: > > I think we should consider pages delivered with "http" in a "system > application", otherwise it will create a non-trivial burden for web app > developers. > > Really? I don't think requiring https is actually that much to ask. > Given that system applications have access to new, privileged APIs, the > least they should do is guarantee their integrity and the security of > their transport, and ideally their authenticity as well. > > As an app developer you can either create a packaged app (which can still > use XHR / WebSockets for downloading content over http) or use https. > Both alternatives prevent in-transit tampering of program code and provide > the necessary pre-requisites for defining the scope of the application > with CSP and feature permissions. If a web app doesn't need the > additional privileges, it can be turned into a website and hosted however > the developer wishes. I have to very much agree about the integrity issues brought up here. I don't mean the integrity of ensuring bits weren't dropped in transit, but the integrity of knowing where something is coming from. I strongly recommend people who don't believe integrity is an issue with web apps to watch the "We Have You By The Gadgets" presentation (http://youtu.be/-Q8rDADin1s) from DEFCON this past year to better understand the threats involved. Ryan
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2013 02:33:27 UTC