W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webappsec@w3.org > February 2022

Re: Digitally-signed SRI ?

From: Amir Herzberg <amir.herzberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 14:45:22 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHBw0M-CPZiZHtHxH_ZXMdUPY=HbLCiiHQXh8j6HafoW6Dh3KQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>
Cc: public-webappsec@w3.org
Orie, many thanks , this is very helpful. So I guess the bottom line seems
to be that there was some interest in this, and some effort to pursue it,
but this seems to be quite dormant for some years now - not 100% clear why,
but sometimes these things happen even just for personal reasons of the
people involved.

That's sufficient for my current needs (just preparing to present this
stuff to students); no worries, I'm not planning to advocate this, at least
for now :) ... Although I still think this may be a good mechanism to
support content from not-fully-trusted CDNs. But correct design, avoiding
complexity while ensuring necessary functionality, would not be trivial.

best, Amir

--
Amir Herzberg

Comcast professor of Security Innovations, Computer Science and
Engineering, University of Connecticut
Homepage: https://sites.google.com/site/amirherzberg/home
`Applied Introduction to Cryptography' textbook and lectures:
 https://sites.google.com/site/amirherzberg/applied-crypto-textbook
<https://sites.google.com/site/amirherzberg/applied-crypto-textbook>





On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 1:48 PM Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>
wrote:

> You might find this repo helpful:
> https://github.com/mikewest/signature-based-sri
>
> I recall reading something about this regarding
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-message-signatures
>
> My only other comment would be a plea to not invent yet another
> signature and key representation and instead use JWS and JWK.
>
> Regards,
>
> OS
>
>
> ᐧ
>
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 12:42 PM Amir Herzberg <amir.herzberg@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi, I'm updating my web-security presentation for my net-sec class, and
>> think of covering SRI. There's a question I'm curios about. The draft uses
>> hash based authentication, but doesn't seem to offer an option for using
>> signatures. I can see a performance concern for the use of signatures
>> (validation, mostly), but in a common use case, signatures seem to be more
>> applicable (allowing a cached web-page to use periodically modified
>> resources from a not-fuly-trusted CDN, for example).  So I'm interested to
>> learn if this was a decision by the WG, and, if it was, what were the
>> considerations. A url to relevant email/thread would be helpful; I tried
>> searching the archive but in vain.
>>
>> Many thanks! Amir
>> p.s. I'm sending this to the public mailing list but I'm not subscribed,
>> so please respond to my personal email, thanks.
>> --
>> Amir Herzberg
>>
>> Comcast professor of Security Innovations, Computer Science and
>> Engineering, University of Connecticut
>> Homepage: https://sites.google.com/site/amirherzberg/home
>> `Applied Introduction to Cryptography' textbook and lectures:
>>  https://sites.google.com/site/amirherzberg/applied-crypto-textbook
>> <https://sites.google.com/site/amirherzberg/applied-crypto-textbook>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> *ORIE STEELE*
> Chief Technical Officer
> www.transmute.industries
>
> <https://www.transmute.industries>
>
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2022 19:45:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 2 February 2022 19:45:54 UTC