- From: James M. Greene <james.m.greene@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 07:56:31 -0500
- To: Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Daniel Cheng <dcheng@google.com>
- Message-ID: <CALrbKZjUcD_ExN7ZpXtmB+LeWh28-M0qE7Hets0BYD+N6EMqLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Regardless of protocol, a site that contains sensitive data should be implemented such that it doesn't use this API nor include any unverified 3rd party libraries/extension that may. They should also only utilize a feature such as this in obvious ways (i.e. by having the user click on a "copy" button). Beyond that, what you're suggesting renders a convenient feature enhancement completely unusable for the majority of users and use cases. :-\ Sincerely, James Greene Sent from my [smart?]phone On Sep 16, 2014 7:25 AM, "Jeffrey Walton" <noloader@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Daniel Cheng <dcheng@google.com> wrote: > > Again, what are you trying to defend against? Why is it beneficial to > try to > > block this? > At minimum, its information leakage. If the data has value such that > at least one leg requires HTTPS, then traversing some legs with HTTP > is a security defect. That would be a CWE-311 > (http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/311.html). > > The benefits are customary confidentiality and privacy protections. In > addition, unauthorized parties will be restrained from injecting into > the clipboard. > > In a post-Snowden era, we have a good idea of how wide spread some of > these problems are. So addressing the problem is consistent with web > design principals. In particular, "3.1. Solve Real Problems". > > I also believe it violates at least two web design principals. First > is "3.2. Priority of Constituencies" [1], and second is "3.3. Secure > By Design" [2]. It violates the first design principal because the > user asked for a specific feature, but it was not delivered. It > violates the second feature because its not secure by design. > > To volley it back over the net, can you think of users or > organizations who classify their data as valuable, and then say its OK > to send it send it over HTTP? (I often use the contrapositive to > envision something in a different view). > > And to be clear: I'm not begging for HTTPS everywhere (though I would > like to :). I ask if HTTPS is selected for on some legs, then it > should be used on all legs. Don't mix and match because a third party > cares less about the data than the user or organization. > > > Again, what are you trying to defend against? Why is it beneficial to > try to > > block this? > > And to address the potential block: please don't do that because of > me. Move the security concerns along with the feature set. > > [0] http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#solve-real-problems > [1] > http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#secure-by-design > > > On Sep 15, 2014 3:18 PM, "Jeffrey Walton" <noloader@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Hallvord R. M. Steen > >> <hsteen@mozilla.com> wrote: > >> >>> <http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/clipops/clipops.html> > >> >> Please forgive my ignorance. But I don't see a requirement that data > >> >> egressed from the local machine to be protected with SSL/TLS. > >> > > >> > I can certainly add a note *encouraging* encryption, but it's not > >> > something we can "require" in a meaningful sense - it's several > layers away > >> > from the parts of the process the spec is about. > >> > > >> >> Also, if the origin uses a secure scheme like HTTPS, then shouldn't > >> >> the script's also require the same? That is, shouldn't the spec avoid > >> >> fetching from https://www.example.com and then shipping clipboard > data > >> >> off to http://www.ads.com? > >> > > >> > As an end user, I would go absolutely nuts if a computer was behaving > >> > inconsistently in apparently random ways like that. I'm pretty sure > that no > >> > matter how security conscious you are, you probably copy and paste > data > >> > between HTTPS and HTTP pages several times every month.. Having the > browser > >> > block that because it pretends to know that some random data is > important > >> > when I know it's not doesn't sound user friendly at all. > >> > >> Well, usually the attacker has to work for a downgrade attack :) > >> > >> Wouldn't it be better for the user if a consistent policy were applied > >> across the board when handling their data? If one leg of the > >> connection uses HTTPS, then all legs must use it. If I were a user and > >> visited a site with HTTPS, then that's what I would expect when moving > >> my data around. > >> > >> Proper handling of the data shifts the onus to the webmaster and > >> developers, but webmasters and developers are in a better position to > >> manage these sorts of things. Its not really a burden on the > >> technology folks - they just have to pay attention to the details. I > >> don't think that's asking too much. > >> > >> And the clipboard standard is new, so its a great opportunity to avoid > >> the patching used to address gaps. If the gaps are addressed early, > >> then they won't be an issue in the future. > >
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2014 12:57:06 UTC