W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webid@w3.org > May 2014

Re: UI for client cert selection (Was: Releasing RWW.IO)

From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 16:52:14 +0200
Message-ID: <5367A59E.8050709@gmail.com>
To: Tim Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
CC: Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>, public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>, "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>
On 2014-05-05 16:08, Tim Holborn wrote:
> i’ve dropped timbl off the list - considering what his inbox probably looks like without our help specifically…  

Good idea :-)

> 
> you’ve noted ‘replacement’, i’m sure you mean ‘alternative’?
> 
> meaning the specification could (in theory) support multiple solutions that perform the same or similar function to webid-tls? (using the x509v3 cert specifically)

Yes, this is possible to some extent although it requires additional code.

Anders

> 
> On 6 May 2014, at 12:05 am, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>> On 2014-05-05 15:22, Jiří Procházka wrote:
>>
>> Jiří,
>>
>> Before going into details, I think it fair to say that very few people on
>> this list have probably ever seen the consumer-bank-PKIs I'm referring to.
>> Naturally that makes most of my argumentation appear as "Greek".
>>
>> There's very little I can about that, except maybe answering very
>> specific questions that gradually paints the "big picture".
>>
>>
>>> On 05/05/2014 11:19 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
>>>> On 2014-05-05 10:33, Jiří Procházka wrote:
>>>>> On 05/04/2014 05:13 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jiří,
>>>>
>>>>> Hi everyone. Anders, I might be wrong, but I think the banking/e-gov use
>>>>> case is quite different from the major WebID use case - WebID as a
>>>>> single sign-on (SSO) solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the banks supply their own proprietary browser plugins because
>>>>> the problem they are solving is safely using the certificate established
>>>>> just for their use (one website), 
>>>>
>>>> 100% agreed. The question here is therefore why they *rejected* the built-in
>>>> HTTPS Client Certificate Authentication support which fully addresses this
>>>> [principally] simple use-case?
>>>>
>>>>> while WebID needs a widely available
>>>>> client software with certificate selection UI which the users trust (so
>>>>> it is not supplied by websites), because they need to be able to trust
>>>>> it with their certificate which they use potentially on 100s of
>>>>> websites. 
>>>>
>>>> 100% agreed.
>>>>
>>>>> Also doing something like the banks do (one-website
>>>>> certificates), would be impractical for WebID even if it was done by a
>>>>> standardized browser plugin, as there would be new UI/communication
>>>>> headache with binding the certificate generated for a particular
>>>>> website, with the WebID profile hosting solution of choice.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not suggesting changing a *single line* of the WebID concept, I'm merely claiming
>>>> that the currently only fully specified authentication alternative is at an X-road.
>>>>
>>>> That you can use "any" authentication scheme won't make WebID an SSO solution
>>>> which was I think at least Henry had in mind and IMO remains a very noble goal!
>>>>
>>>> Since the banks and WebID as far as I can tell, can use *exactly the same solution*,
>>>> I believe that there could be a way reaching "critical mass" for a new scheme,
>>>> something which I'm pretty sure WebID (or the banks) alone won't ever achieve.
>>>>
>>>> The EU banks have invested more than $1Bn in X.509 technology for client authentication
>>>> and will therefore very unlikely switch to U2F (in its current incarnation).
>>>
>>> Right, in short: now it is best for the banks to have their own
>>> implementations which they vouch for to their clients, but we want to be
>>> working towards a solution with secure implemenatations across all
>>> platforms and browsers, supporting both the use case of the banks and
>>> the SSO WebID scenario.
>>
>> Me too :-)
>>
>>
>>> What I don't understand is how your proposal fits into this and what it
>>> actually is, as what I have seen in the PDF are basically just 2 JSON
>>> structures...
>>
>> The JSON structures represent a "Challenge" which the authenticating server
>> packages in an HTML form (TBD at this stage), and a signed "Response" produced
>> by the browser client sent back to the server.  This is BTW exactly what U2F do
>> albeit using an entirely different privacy model.
>>
>>
>>> what are you proposing to be done?
>>
>> It is really up to the WebID group finding a suitable replacement to the TLS
>> solution specified in WebID-TLS.
>>
>>
>>> How it relates to WebID-TLS? 
>>
>> It accomplishes the same thing as the HTTPS Client Certificate Authentication
>> solution used in WebID-TLS which is [technically] strong authentication of a
>> client-certificate which in the case of WebID would hold an HTTP URI.
>>
>>
>> What exactly are the non-UX issues of HTTPS CCA?
>>
>> They are listed on the first page of the presentation.
>>
>> Best
>> Anders
>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> JP
> 
Received on Monday, 5 May 2014 14:52:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:05:55 UTC