- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 23:50:12 +0000
- To: public-webcrypto@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25721 --- Comment #15 from Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> --- (In reply to elijah from comment #14) > Ryan, I understand that you don't personally like the idea of placing > restrictions on extractable keys, but the topic is clearly "within scope". I > just found this in the WebCrypto Charter: > > > Primary API Features in scope are... the API should be asynchronous and > > must prevent or control access to secret key material and other sensitive > > cryptographic values and settings. > > (http://www.w3.org/2011/11/webcryptography-charter.html) > > In light of this, I wish to make a formal objection to the inclusion of > extractable private keys in the WebCrypto API without user agent > requirements to disable this by default or require user consent. >From the same document: "Out of scope ... access-control mechanisms beyond the enforcement of the same-origin policy" This API sufficiently meets it's primary API feature, by allowing application developers and site authors to choose whether or not they wish access to the generated key material. As these site authors are responsible for the code executing and using the Web Cryptography API, and are equally responsible for the security boundary (through the use of HTTPS, CSP, XSS mitigations, and other equivalent restrictions), they are equally capable and cognizant of determining whether or not they require persistent, extractable access to key material. There are use cases that cannot be met without extractability - such as the safe escrow of keys, or of key wrapping in general between two peers. I leave it to the chairs to note your formal objection. However, the technical reasons for why your request is unnecessary, unrealistic, and unfortunately based in misunderstanding the web security and privacy model have been explained, and I am confident that the WG will continue in the current path. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Monday, 19 May 2014 23:50:14 UTC