W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webauthn@w3.org > February 2020

Re: RPID and web origin scope restrictions

From: Jeff Hodges <jdhodges@google.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 16:12:27 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOt3QXtou=p7WVLhVqCdzD4WCMx7uGib=jtwS_fVmQ1hP7nKrA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Cc: Shane B Weeden <sweeden@au1.ibm.com>, W3C Web Authn WG <public-webauthn@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 8:24 AM Adam Langley <agl@google.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 9:19 PM Shane B Weeden <sweeden@au1.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> Hoping someone who's been involved with WebAuthn spec development longer
>> than me can provide some history and describe why the scoping of RPID to
>> origin has no cross-origin sharing mechanism (
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn/#scope).
>>
>> For example let's say I want a page served from b.com to be able to make
>> calls to navigator.credentials.[get|create] using RPID a.com. Current
>> WebAuthn scoping rules prohibit this.
>>
>> Why couldn't there be a discovery mechanism (conceptually similar to
>> CORS) whereby the browser retrieves a well-known discovery document from
>> a.com (obviously ensuring server-authentication at transport level) that
>> lists b.com as an allowed origin for the purposes of registering or
>> using credentials under the a.com RPID?
>>
>
> I.e. U2F FacetID?
> https://fidoalliance.org/specs/fido-u2f-v1.0-ps-20141009/fido-appid-and-facets-ps-20141009.html
>
> There's no fundamental reason why ~FacetID can't be done in WebAuthn,
> although the implementation complexity is unfortunate. I believe that, if
> you find Dirk in Lisbon this week, he'll agree with you. It is delicate,
> however, as all browsers are undergoing significant changes in this space (
> example
> <https://blog.chromium.org/2020/01/building-more-private-web-path-towards.html>)
> and so adding new cross-origin communication has significant headwinds. The
> iframe support in Chromium was added to try and serve the needs of payment
> providers without adding new mechanisms, so the first step in justifying
> something more would be a case that iframes are insufficient. (Perhaps
> that's already done; I'm not the person from Chrome who is paying attention
> to the payments group.)
>

In agl's above remarks, it's important to realize that where "iframe" is
written, one must read "*cross-origin* iframe".

( WebAuthn L1 supports same-origin-with-ancestors iframe usage )

HTH,

=JeffH
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2020 00:13:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 07:26:39 UTC