- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 16:25:43 +0200
- To: "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <505B2767.3040003@w3.org>
The W3C PING (Privacy Interest Working Group) was hoping to review the WebCrypto API, and I just wrote this off the top of my head. Does this sound about right as a sort of few issues for them to look at? --------- The WebCrypto API has a number of privacy-related functionality that should be reviewed by the W3C PING IG [1]. Off the top of my head, one can also do possible finger-printing of browser types in the current spec by running through the operations allowed by the API in a given browser/JS environment, but that would likely only manage to figure out what browser (and possibly device, if the API wires into device or OS-specific crypto) the user is running by indirectly by seeing what crypto algorithms are supported. Another more important potential red-flag is the ability to import/export keys. Although we do currently obey basic constraints like same-origin policy, one can imagine keys being created to identify browsers in the same manner of cookies. There is also the possibility of using pre-provisioned keys and keys previously generated and imported. As for more possible future features with an impact on privacy, see the charter [2]. In particular secondary features: "/Secondary API Features/ that may be in scope are: control of TLS session login/logout, derivation of keys from TLS sessions, a simplified data protection function, multiple key containers, key import/export, a common method for accessing and defining properties of keys, and the lifecycle control of credentials such enrollment, selection, and revocation of credentials with a focus enabling the selection of certificates for signing and encryption." So I imagine simplified data protection, interactions with multiple key containers (including those of the API), digital signatures, and certificate support would all have privacy implications re fingerprinting. Yet is not that necessary to achieve some of the security properties needed for some applications? And the larger philosophical question would be is that should we 1) prevent applications from being built due to privacy concerns by not creating such functions We'd love a written commentary on privacy to public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org and hopefully we can do a telecon with you at one of your future meetings. [1]http://www.w3.org/TR/WebCryptoAPI/ [2]http://www.w3.org/2011/11/webcryptography-charter.html cheers, harry
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 14:25:49 UTC