[Bug 26322] Definitions "algorithm" and "usages" properties of CryptoKey make no sense

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26322

--- Comment #22 from Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> ---
(In reply to Mark Watson from comment #21)
> It seems that my proposal in comment#11 would work after all, modified by
> Boris's comment that the [[usages]] Array should be constructed from an IDL
> sequence and that we should recursively freeze members of the [[algorithm]]
> that are themselves objects.
> 
> Ryan's concerns were that creation of the objects or internal access to them
> could have side-effects, but this is not the case if they are created from
> IDL objects / sequences (respectively) and immediately frozen.
> 
> Any objections ?

To reiterate, I don't think your solution works. That is, having security
checks gated on ES objects, versus internal objects, frozen or not.

The advice of the TAG, and our folks, was that if we're making internal
decisions based on the state of the objects - and we are - then it shouldn't be
exposed using ES objects.

So no, -1 to frozen.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2014 21:49:57 UTC