RE: Security evaluation of an example DAP policy

Hi Frederick,

My comment inline below.
I think, it would be good if someone else involved in BONDI verified my below statements.

>>Do you have any more to add, or better use cases? I was going to ask
>>about premium rate numbers so thanks for bringing that up.
As below, maybe we should ask GSMA or anyone else responsible for premium numbers (are they assigned on national or international level? Or both?) ?

Copied from below for easy summary:
>>        * The weather.example.com foo widget can access geolocation
>>coordinates but only if it's embedded on the foo home page.

[MH] I do not know what " weather.example.com foo widget embedded on the foo home page" means.
I assume it is a combination of download URI with author/distributor signature.
Therefore I would generously assume that it is doable.

Thanks,
Marcin

Marcin Hanclik
ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH
Tel: +49-208-8290-6452  |  Fax: +49-208-8290-6465
Mobile: +49-163-8290-646
E-Mail: marcin.hanclik@access-company.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Frederick Hirsch [mailto:Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com]
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 4:30 PM
To: Marcin Hanclik
Cc: Frederick Hirsch; ext Jeremy Orlow; Maciej Stachowiak; Jonas Sicking; Adam Barth; Robin Berjon; public-device-apis@w3.org; public-webapps WG
Subject: Re: Security evaluation of an example DAP policy

Marcin

do you have any more comment on any of the following from the draft
policy requirements document?

http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/policy-reqs/#use-cases

Example Widget use cases, to give examples of the types of policy that
might be expressed:


        * A Widget whose signature chains to operator root can read and write
from the PIM databases.

[MH] Expressible with BONDI policy.

        * A Widget downloaded from weather.example.com can access geolocation
coordinates if the user says it's OK.

[MH] Expressible with BONDI policy.

        * The weather.example.com Widget can connect to weather.example.com
without notifying the user, except when roaming.

[MH] Expressible with BONDI policy.

        * All Widgets with a reliably identified author can save data
persistently if the user says it's OK.


[MH] Expressible with BONDI policy.

        * No Widget can get my location, no matter who trusts it.


[MH] Expressible with BONDI policy.

Example web site use cases, to give examples of the types of policy
that might be expressed:


        * A reliably identified website can access geolocation coordinates if
the user confirms it's OK.


[MH] Expressible with BONDI policy.

        * Any Website in a subdomain of mynetwork.example.com can read phone
status properties.


[MH] Expressible with BONDI policy.

        * Reliably identified Websites can send and receive SMS except to
premium rate numbers.


[MH] No definition of the premium rate numbers as in my previous email (intentional or not).
Therefore not doable out of the box. (Maybe we should ask GSMA?)

        * evil.example.com cannot access any device APIs.


[MH] Expressible with BONDI policy.

        * The weather.example.com foo widget can access geolocation
coordinates but only if it's embedded on the foo home page.


[MH] I do not know what " weather.example.com foo widget embedded on the foo home page" means.
I assume it is a combination of download URI with author/distributor signature.
Therefore I would generously assume that it is doable.

Do you have any more to add, or better use cases? I was going to ask
about premium rate numbers so thanks for bringing that up.

Can anyone please volunteer to provide more detail on the use cases or
additional use cases?

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Nov 20, 2009, at 10:12 AM, ext Marcin Hanclik wrote:

> Hi,
>
>>> Reliably identified Websites can send and receive SMS except to
>>> premium rate numbers.
> There seems to be no worldwide pattern to recognize the premium
> numbers based on the number itself, this could be some network
> operators service or something similar IP-geolocation databases. The
> policy would be very looooong if we would put all the worldwide
> available premium numbers into it.
> Therefore this use case is not fully doable out of the box.
> However, BONDI allows to (reliably?) identify websites and allows to
> control sending and receiving SMS.
>
>>> The weather.example.com Widget can connect to weather.example.com
>>> without notifying the user, except when roaming.
> I am not sure what " weather.example.com Widget".
> I assume it is the widget that was downloaded from
> weather.example.com.
> The BONDI policy format would encode this e.g. like this:
>
> <policy-set combine="deny-overrides">
> <policy description="">
>  <target>
>   <subject>
>     <subject-match attr="class" match="website" func="equal"/>
>     <subject-match attr="uri.host" match="weather.example.com"
> func="equal"/>
>   </subject>
>   <subject>
>     <subject-match attr="class" match="widget" func="equal"/>
>     <subject-match attr="install-uri.host"
> match="weather.example.com" func="equal"/>
>   </subject>  </target>
>  <rule effect="deny">
>   <condition combine="or">
>     <environment-match attr="roaming" func="equal">international</
> resource-match>
>   </condition>
>  </rule>
>  <rule effect="permit"> //this seems not needed
>   <condition combine="or">
>     <environment-match attr="roaming" func="equal">national</
> resource-match>
>   </condition>
>  </rule> </policy>
> </policy-set>
>
> Thanks,
> Marcin
>
> P.S. I think I will not write more policies until there is some use
> case that is not doable (at least in my opinion. I may be wrong.)
>
> Marcin Hanclik
> ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH
> Tel: +49-208-8290-6452  |  Fax: +49-208-8290-6465
> Mobile: +49-163-8290-646
> E-Mail: marcin.hanclik@access-company.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frederick Hirsch [mailto:Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 3:29 PM
> To: ext Jeremy Orlow
> Cc: Frederick Hirsch; Marcin Hanclik; Maciej Stachowiak; Jonas
> Sicking; Adam Barth; Robin Berjon; public-device-apis@w3.org; public-
> webapps WG
> Subject: Re: Security evaluation of an example DAP policy
>
> Jeremy
>
> Thanks. I want to make sure I understand the concerns.
>
> I guess the question is whether one can bake all the security in that
> is needed for various (possibly conflicting) use cases, including
> those that do not presume user interaction. An argument for  policy is
> to decouple the mechanism from the decision criteria to get that
> flexibility, while making sure the mechanism is secure.  On the other
> side I hear the concern that the mechanism cannot be as secure.
>
> I note that the policy requirements document includes some use cases
> Paddy contributed in an earlier email:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/policy-reqs/#use-cases
>
> So for example, how does one "bake in" these:
>
> The weather.example.com Widget can connect to weather.example.com
> without notifying the user, except when roaming.
>
> Reliably identified Websites can send and receive SMS except to
> premium rate numbers.
>
> Do we need to go into more detail on these two (as examples)?
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
>
>
> On Nov 20, 2009, at 9:15 AM, ext Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>
>> These are reasons, but I think the greatest cause of our concern is
>> that we have not seen any examples of how policies can provide the
>> same level of security that baking security into the API from the
>> beginning can provide.
>>
>> All too often the policy based approaches fall back on either asking
>> the user or simply denying access--both of which are not viable
>> solutions in most cases within the browser.  If we take security
>> into account when designing the APIs we can often find creative
>> approaches that satisfy all of the requirements/use-cases while
>> providing an API that can be on by default.
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com
>>> wrote:
>> My understanding from reading the thread is that the concern is with
>> complexity, increased attack surface due to mechanisms that can be
>> used in unanticipated ways or misconfigured, and management issues.
>>
>> Thus though policy can state a simple approach, I'm not sure the
>> above concerns are addressed by that expression.
>>
>> I think we need to work through the use cases, both for those that
>> do need a policy language and those that do not, then consider if
>> APIs have various methods as Robin suggested, or otherwise how it
>> will all fit together.
>>
>> regards, Frederick (not as chair)
>>
>> Frederick Hirsch
>> Nokia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 19, 2009, at 7:49 PM, ext Marcin Hanclik wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jonas, Maciej,
>>
>> It seems that the policy that you would accept would be:
>>
>> <policy-set combine="deny-overrides">
>> <policy description="Default Policy for websites. Simply denying all
>> API that are covered by some device capability:) ">
>> <target>
>>   <subject>
>>     <subject-match attr="class" match="website" func="equal"/>
>>   </subject>
>> </target>
>> <rule effect="deny">
>>   <condition>
>>     <resource-match attr="device-cap" func="regexp">/.+/</resource-
>> match>
>>   </condition>
>> </rule>
>> </policy>
>> </policy-set>
>>
>> Let's see how DAP will evolve then.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Marcin
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Maciej Stachowiak [mjs@apple.com]
>> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 1:26 AM
>> To: Jonas Sicking
>> Cc: Marcin Hanclik; Adam Barth; Robin Berjon; public-device-apis@w3.org
>> ; public-webapps WG
>> Subject: Re: Security evaluation of an example DAP policy
>>
>> On Nov 19, 2009, at 4:23 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Marcin Hanclik
>> <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com> wrote:
>> Hi Adam,
>>
>> I think that
>> <resource-match attr="param:name" func="regexp">/(C|c):\\(.+)\\(.+)/
>> <resource-match />
>> should be
>> <resource-match attr="param:name" func="regexp">/(C|c):\\([^\\]+)\\.
>> +/<resource-match />
>> up to any further bug in the RE.
>> Sorry, my problem.
>>
>> Anyway, the general comment is that the use case is under control
>> based on the current spec.
>>
>> For what it's worth, I think any API that opened a dialog asking the
>> user "Do you want to give website X access to directory Y in your
>> file
>> system" would not be an API we'd be willing to implement in firefox.
>> I.e. our security policy would be to always deny such a request (thus
>> making implementing the API useless for our users).
>>
>> Ditto for Safari.
>>
>> - Maciej
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>>
>> Access Systems Germany GmbH
>> Essener Strasse 5  |  D-46047 Oberhausen
>> HRB 13548 Amtsgericht Duisburg
>> Geschaeftsfuehrer: Michel Piquemal, Tomonori Watanabe, Yusuke Kanda
>>
>> www.access-company.com
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
>> This e-mail and any attachments hereto may contain information that
>> is privileged or confidential, and is intended for use only by the
>> individual or entity to which it is addressed. Any disclosure,
>> copying or distribution of the information by anyone else is
>> strictly prohibited.
>> If you have received this document in error, please notify us
>> promptly by responding to this e-mail. Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ________________________________________
>
> Access Systems Germany GmbH
> Essener Strasse 5  |  D-46047 Oberhausen
> HRB 13548 Amtsgericht Duisburg
> Geschaeftsfuehrer: Michel Piquemal, Tomonori Watanabe, Yusuke Kanda
>
> www.access-company.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> This e-mail and any attachments hereto may contain information that
> is privileged or confidential, and is intended for use only by the
> individual or entity to which it is addressed. Any disclosure,
> copying or distribution of the information by anyone else is
> strictly prohibited.
> If you have received this document in error, please notify us
> promptly by responding to this e-mail. Thank you.


________________________________________

Access Systems Germany GmbH
Essener Strasse 5  |  D-46047 Oberhausen
HRB 13548 Amtsgericht Duisburg
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Michel Piquemal, Tomonori Watanabe, Yusuke Kanda

www.access-company.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e-mail and any attachments hereto may contain information that is privileged or confidential, and is intended for use only by the
individual or entity to which it is addressed. Any disclosure, copying or distribution of the information by anyone else is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this document in error, please notify us promptly by responding to this e-mail. Thank you.

Received on Friday, 20 November 2009 15:43:01 UTC