- From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 12:23:19 -0800
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Cc: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote: > On 03/04/2013 08:05 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: >> >> /me parachutes in mid-thread >> >> It sounds to me like you guys are talking past each other. >> >> Harry, it sounds like your concern is what happens to a key after it >> leaves the browser context, i.e., after it's exported. So, say, an app >> generates an RSA key pair for key wrapping, then exports the signing key to >> a server, so that the server can read the user's messages. Is that the sort >> of privacy risk you're worried about? If so, then I don't think there's any >> disagreement that this is a real risk, and one that needs to be addressed. > > > That is one risk. There may be more :( > > I'm also trying to figure out if pre-provisioned keys - which my mistake, > can include asymmetric and symmetric it appears, the latest editors draft is > inaccessible from the web-page - could present a privacy issue. > > Can we get in a situation where a key is created in a WebApp, leaves the > browser context, and re-appears (i.e. found using the Key Discovery > mechanism?). Should users then have to go through some kind of prompt or use > File API to select the key? I don't really follow what your concern is here. In the API, minus Key Discovery, is that theres no persistent storage. If your concern is a user creates a key, exports it to a service, clears local storage, and then has a web page import the key back and add it to localStorage - then that's absolutely no different than anything else with localStorage (or any other web storage mechanism). That's the whole point of why we're avoiding defining a new storage mechanism. If you're specifically concerned about Pre-provisioned keys - then yes, they absolutely present privacy concerns. That's part of what's addressed in the Key Discovery draft. What I don't see is how that relates to ISSUE-9 or ISSUE-30 - the privacy concerns are a distinct issue, independent of import/export. Harry, it would help if you could try to put your specific concerns, as it relates to ISSUE-9, together. I sense a general unease, but without understanding your objections, I cannot provide an argument as to why this has already been addressed. > > Do we not want users to have the ability to export keys with user control? > > These are all important questions. I agree with the editors trying to get > rid of them (i.e. limiting to ephemeral keys) may be the most secure and > privacy-respecting way to deal with them. But I am nonetheless concerned, > and want to discuss before closing issues and shipping to PING for a privacy > review. > > >> >> If you want some examples of how you import/export keys of all types, the >> PolyCrypt demo has several examples going to/from JWK. >> <http://demo.polycrypt.net/> >> <http://demo.polycrypt.net/x509/> >> >> The current API doesn't really do anything to address this risk, either. >> It seems like the right thing to do here is to somehow control export >> (import seems like less of a concern). However, the assumption in the >> current draft seems to be that apps can freely import/export keys without >> any control. >> >> Does that at least accurately capture the concern? > > > Thus, my concern with closing ISSUE-9 and ISSUE-40 until we have some review > from security/privacy experts. I know the editors have done a great job, but > I'm concerned the rest of the WG is not paying attention. > > >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 4, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> On 03/04/2013 07:44 PM, Ryan Sleevi wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 03/04/2013 07:22 PM, Ryan Sleevi wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To re-iterate, I'm not asking about export/import in terms of the >>>>>>> WebIDL >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> currently written. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm asking about the notion that it is feasible developers may >>>>>>> want to >>>>>>> read/write key material outside the browser. In which case, there's a >>>>>>> privacy angle that needs to be addressed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm pretty sure that's where the worries underlying ISSUE-9 come >>>>>>> from, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> ISSUE-30. >>>>>> >>>>>> We addressed ISSUE-9 - long ago - by saying it would not, beyond what >>>>>> Mark's draft says. This was the entire crux of key discovery. >>>>> >>>>> Key Discovery only addresses symmetric pre-provisioned keys last time I >>>>> checked. We have not formally closed ISSUE-9 or the import or export >>>>> of >>>>> keys outside of the browser to my extent except in that very limited >>>>> case. >>>>> >>>>> We can deal with ISSUE-9 and ISSUE-30 by moving them to the Web >>>>> Discovery >>>>> product. That is not closing them. That is moving the feature to a >>>>> different >>>>> product. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> If we want to say "import/export" is single-session and ephemeral, >>>>>>> that's >>>>>>> fine although that eliminates a number of use-cases. When I brought >>>>>>> up >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> fact that all keys are ephemeral at the last telecon, it seemed folks >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> WG were surprised and wanted further discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's what it has said from the beginning. Key import/export has >>>>>> always been separate from key discovery - the latter being potential >>>>>> issues for ISSUE-9/30, but having absolutely nothing to do with the >>>>>> import / export operations as they've ever been written. >>>>> >>>>> I'm saying "Key Discovery" is only symmetric keys. >>>> >>>> That is not the proposal. >>> >>> Then where is the WebIDL that deals with import/export into the >>> non-browser filesystem? >>> >>>>> The issue is still open >>>>> and I don't think has been adequately discussed, but I do sympathize >>>>> with >>>>> just closing it as many in the WG are not actively paying attention. >>>>> People >>>>> need to understand that by closing these, we're limiting ourselves to >>>>> pre-provisioned symmetric keys and ephemeral keys. >>>> >>>> No, we are not. >>> >>> OK, then how do you handle the import and export of key material outside >>> the browser in a case that isn't pre-provisioned symmetic keys. >>> >>> I don't see anything in either the API or Key Discovery draft. And *if* >>> there is something, my privacy concerns hold. >>>>> >>>>> I understand many in the >>>>> WG are not paying that active attention, so I'm bringing this up. When >>>>> most >>>>> people say "import/export" they imagine that it means importing and >>>>> exporting outside the browser as well I imagine. >>>>> >>>>> cheers, >>>>> harry >>>>> >>> >> >
Received on Monday, 4 March 2013 20:23:46 UTC