- From: Siva Narendra <siva@tyfone.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:05:55 -0700
- To: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
- Cc: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, "public-web-security@w3.org" <public-web-security@w3.org>, "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>, Charles Engelke <w3c@engelke.com>, GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com>
- Message-ID: <CAJhTYQzHX384DXJ1FAEhyNgqw-6JhRKMSq=Y4Hd8EpKVtSmgbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Wendy -- thank you for the clarification. Makes sense. What we were trying to communicate is that -- FIDO is not the same as secure hardware. FIDO can run on secure hardware. FIDO is on the same level as a security applet (speaking smart card language here). There are other security applets such as PKCS15, EMV-Visa, EMV-Mastercard, EMV-UnionPay, EMV-Amex, EMV-Discover (etc), CAC/PIV and all the methods that the Governments from Europe represented at the workshop. We would like the web community to consider a framework that is generic to support any past, present, and future security applets. It is possible and it can be done. E.g. Apple Pay supports 3 different EMV security applets -- one from Visa, another one from Mastercard and a third from Amex. So, for the web, we would propose (attached is a starting point) something that would support everything including FIDO. I and the rest of the smart card community is not against FIDO, we are in general against web supporting only FIDO. Best regards, Siva *--* *Siva G. Narendra Ph.D. CEO - Tyfone, Inc.Portland | Bangalore | Taipeiwww.tyfone.com <http://www.tyfone.com>* *Voice: +1.661.412.2233* On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org> wrote: > Hi Siva and all, > > To follow up on Harry's response, we have great interest in doing more > work on secure authentication building on the WebCrypto API. As its > Chair has expressed, the WebCrypto WG wants to complete its work with a > tight focus on the WebCrypto API and related deliverables. > > For my part, I look forward to supporting additional groups focused on > extending WebCrypto's work, whether based in FIDO or secure hardware. > Any member can propose work, and so long as there is interest and a path > to getting interoperable implementations, some members' > non-participation does not act as a veto. > > --Wendy > > On 03/11/2015 05:32 PM, Siva Narendra wrote: > > Thank you Harry. > > > > -Siva > > > > > > *--* > > > > > > *Siva G. Narendra Ph.D. CEO - Tyfone, Inc.Portland | Bangalore | > > Taipeiwww.tyfone.com <http://www.tyfone.com>* > > *Voice: +1.661.412.2233* > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On 03/11/2015 09:59 PM, Siva Narendra wrote: > >>> +adding Pub-Web-Security for continuity from the Workshop > >>> > >>> Thank you Harry. Few questions: > >>> > >>> 1. Does this mean "FIDO will not be implemented under this WG?" > >>> 2. Is the statement "All the web browser implementers do not want to > >>> support hardware tokens or anything that is outside of cryptography > in > >>> within the scope of WG?" or "One browser vendors does not want to > >> support > >>> anything other than FIDO?" > >> > >> I think the answer should be: > >> > >> 1) FIDO will not be implemented under the Web Crypto Working Group, but > >> may be pursued in another WG. > >> > >> 2) Hardware token support, both in a manner consistent with a revised > >> Gemalto proposal that takes on board feedback like respect for > >> same-origin policy, should be pursued in another Working Group, but not > >> in the WebCrypto WG. > >> > >> Does that help? > >> > >> The real question now is what the shape and charter(s) of the new > >> Working Groups will be, along with associated time-frames. > >> > >> There have been formal Member submissions neither from the smartcard > >> vendors or FIDO, but lots of informal discussion. However, the workshop > >> did reach consensus that hardware token support should be part of the > >> Open Web Platform, and the W3C would like to follow this up with one or > >> more new Working Groups if the work does not match existing Working > Groups. > >> > >> > >> As the discussion in Web Crypto WG shows, it does not match at the time > >> being as the implementors want to focus on algorithm maintenance and > >> finishing version 1.0. > >> > >> If opinions have drastically changed since the workshop, we would like > >> to revisit that consensus via a survey of W3C members but we are hoping > >> there is still consensus and momentum. > >> > >> cheers, > >> harry > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> This is important for the eco-system to know so we can determine if > this > >>> work should be pursued inside W3C or outside. > >>> > >>> Thank you, > >>> Siva > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> *--* > >>> > >>> > >>> *Siva G. Narendra Ph.D. CEO - Tyfone, Inc.Portland | Bangalore | > >>> Taipeiwww.tyfone.com <http://www.tyfone.com>* > >>> *Voice: +1.661.412.2233* > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 03/11/2015 07:08 PM, Charles Engelke wrote: > >>>>> I'm new to this WG and W3C in general, so I may be missing points on > >>>>> how this works. But until today that draft did include adding new use > >>>>> cases. Today that was revised to say "the Web Crypto WG will not > >>>>> adress any new use case others then the ones developed with the first > >>>>> version of the Web Crypto API." > >>>>> > >>>>> Did I miss the process that made this change? > >>>> > >>>> There was strong objections from members of the Working Group, in > >>>> particular implementers that are on public record. > >>>> > >>>> Thus, while the W3C is still committed do finding an appropriate home > >>>> for these use-cases and associated standards, it will not be this > >>>> Working Group. > >>>> > >>>> If you have a particular use-case and proposed technical solution that > >>>> you think would be acceptable to implementers, e-mail the Web Security > >>>> Interest Group at public-web-security@w3.org. > >>>> > >>>> cheers, > >>>> harry > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> > >>>>> Charlie > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 1:13 PM, GALINDO Virginie > >>>>> <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Dear all, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You will find here > >>>>>> https://www.w3.org/Security/wiki/IG/webcryptonext_draft_charter the > >>>> basis of > >>>>>> the next Web Crypto WG charter. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Based on the feedback on this mailing list, despite the long > >>>> discussions we > >>>>>> had related to new features such as crypto service in secure > element, > >>>>>> certificate management, authentication management, this charter only > >>>>>> adresses the maintenance of the Web Crypto API, and the creation of > >>>>>> extension for specific algorithms. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What I am expecting from working group participants now is the > >>>> algorithms > >>>>>> they would like to see as extension of the Web Crypto API. This will > >>>> help us > >>>>>> to get a list of the extension we plan to adress in the framework of > >>>> that > >>>>>> specific working group. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please note that there are some discussions in AC forum about > >>>> restricting > >>>>>> activities of any WG that does not work under a valid charter. Our > >>>> charter > >>>>>> will expire on the 31st of March, as such, we should try to get > >>>> consensus on > >>>>>> the new charter as soon as possible (or we will have to ask an > >>>> extension to > >>>>>> W3C director). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>> Virginie Galindo > >>>>>> gemalto > >>>>>> chair of the web crypto WG > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ________________________________ > >>>>>> This message and any attachments are intended solely for the > >> addressees > >>>> and > >>>>>> may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or > >>>> disclosure, > >>>>>> either whole or partial, is prohibited. > >>>>>> E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be > liable > >>>> for > >>>>>> the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the > >>>> intended > >>>>>> recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender. > >>>>>> Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this > >> transmission > >>>>>> free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused > >> by a > >>>>>> transmitted virus. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office) > Policy Counsel and Domain Lead, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) > http://wendy.seltzer.org/ +1.617.863.0613 (mobile) > >
Attachments
- application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation attachment: Hardware_Token_Support.pptx
Received on Thursday, 12 March 2015 01:06:43 UTC