W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-security@w3.org > October 2014

Re: [Web Crypto Next] Lets start discussing !

From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:16:11 +0100
Message-ID: <5450B05B.7080000@gmail.com>
To: helpcrypto helpcrypto <helpcrypto@gmail.com>
CC: public-web-security@w3.org
On 2014-10-29 09:38, helpcrypto helpcrypto wrote:
> Hi Anders.
> As you know, I always appreciate your feedback, ideas and support.
>
> A smartcard containig a component certificate, like some eID, would be cappable of stablishing a trusted communication within a server/enroll authority.
> Even a mutual, whereas card will accept only requests from trustable servers.
>
> What I dont like from FIDO: not based on PKI, so many things must be thown away
> What I dont like from current WebCrypto/Keydiscovery: not being able to use smartcards, dont have control of which card is populated, batch signing.
>
> I also like your proposal (http://webpki.org/papers/PKI/pki-webcrypto.pdf#page=2) but my intention was to give WG "another use case", as requested by Virgine Galindo. This is what our widely-hated applet does.
>
> Perhaps an APDU server-browser-card protocol is the solution...
> Whatever, this has been -excuse me- a pain in the ass, and for that reason google, apple an others are creating alternative solutions not based on pki, certificates or "client signing".
>
> I hope WG will understand end-user needs and dont let -again- smarcards out of scope.

Hi Helpcrypto,

IMO, the future for W3C and WebCrypto.Next is building on the WebCrypto API.

If this can be done using existing technology that's fine, but if it cannot
(without applying black magic or putting the user in a difficult position),
the WG should consider creating new technology like Google did with U2F.

Putting it differently: The use-cases (including yours) rather than existing
products should be the governing factor for future developments in this space.

Since the card-industry haven't come up with a blueprint for supporting
the billions payment chip-cards out there on the web, it appears that the
existing smart card technology indeed is unfit for the purpose.

Regards,
Anders


> Regards.
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Apple didn't try to retrofit the old devices when they created Apple Pay.
>
>     Although there are business models involved as well, Apple would also
>     have created huge problems for banks (and users) if everybody have
>     had to implement (and use) a "fallback" solution as well.
>
>     I.e. you should IMHO not expect PKCS #11 and existing smart cards to become
>     a part of the plot because they were simply put not designed for the web.
>
>     Regards
>     Anders Rundgren
>     On 2014-10-28 09:09, helpcrypto helpcrypto wrote:
>
>         Hi
>
>
>         Don't know if I'm late, but as nvdbleek proposed [1], we are truly interested in a web-document signing approach.
>
>         Actually we suffer Java applets, and dream about a Javascript alternative (like Webcrypto) but with the possibility of looking for an specific key (even at specific card).
>
>         So, something like findCertificate(token,filter) where filter can be subject, issuer or a combination of them would be great.
>
>         Regarding to population, we have several smartcards from different manufacturers which -sadly- use different PKCS#11, so generateKey(token,keyinfo) could also be interesting.
>
>         Finally, we do batch signing, where one PIN let the user sign a batch of documents (currently hashes), so this feature is also very interesting.
>
>
>         With these constraints in mind, we propose -more or less- the following API:
>
>            - optional getToken to retrieve a token handle to work with. This could be also issues to secure communications between server and client, using SM and/or component certificates like some eID.
>            - getCertificate(filter) which can allow us to filter and show a "filtered dialog". some exaples: fingerprint, issuer, subject, keyUsage...using a json-like filter which allows combination seems to be much better.
>
>         Signatures are made in 3 steps:
>            - init: needed initialization
>            - add: invoked for each document we want to sign. the document is sent to the component/browser and stored internally
>            - final: a final "you are going to sign this" dialog is shown. It will be possible to even show a preview of the documents (pdf,xml+xslt,...) using other plugins. asks for pin
>
>         Of course, all this must be Js asynchronous
>
>         We usually do XAdES or PAdES signing. probably a signed js library or something lika that could be great to extend usage.
>
>
>         This is what actually our applet does, and its the use case we would live to have on Webcrypto.
>
>         Don't hesitate to contact me if you want to discuss this in deep.
>         Regards
>
>
>         [1] http://www.w3.org/2012/__webcrypto/webcrypto-next-__workshop/papers/Using_the_W3C___WebCrypto_API_for_Document___Signing.html <http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/webcrypto-next-workshop/papers/Using_the_W3C_WebCrypto_API_for_Document_Signing.html>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2014 09:16:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:09:33 UTC