Re: Secure storate (was: PIIEditorBar)

Right, that's why I suggested the cannonical security section, and not a 
recommendation. Mentioning it early will make the inevitable comments from 
external review easier to process. I'm open to any other section. I just 
want us to proactively recognize the issue somewhere. 

          Mez

Mary Ellen Zurko, STSM, IBM Lotus CTO Office       (t/l 333-6389)
Lotus/WPLC Security Strategy and Patent Innovation Architect




"Close, Tyler J." <tyler.close@hp.com> 
Sent by: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
06/13/2007 01:25 PM

To
<public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
cc

Subject
Secure storate (was: PIIEditorBar)






Hi Mez,
 
In this email, I'm just addressing the secure storage issue you raise in 
the quoted email below.
 
I think it's possible that discussion of how a user agent stores PII 
information is out of scope for this Working Group. For example, some 
operating systems, like OS X come with built in support for full file 
system encryption, in addition to providing a custom application for 
storage of secrets. A conforming implementation may well want to use these 
services.
 
It's also worth noting that PII information often shows up in the web 
content served by a web site, such as when an ecommerce site presents a 
purchase confirmation page. In this case, the browser ends up storing PII 
information in its cache. Writing requirements for the storage of PII 
entered into the PII editor, but not for the storage of cached web pages, 
seems particularly useless from a security point of view. If we determine 
that storage security is in scope, I think it should be addressed in a 
separate recommendation that covers all storage, not just storage as used 
in one particular browser feature. My own reading of the Note is that 
storage security is out of scope.
 
Tyler
 

From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] 
On Behalf Of Mary Ellen Zurko
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 6:04 AM
To: Close, Tyler J.
Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Subject: PIIEditorBar


"The core conceptual change is augmenting the form filler with a record of 
what web site a stored text string was given to and providing the user 
with ready access to this record during a data entry task. "
One potential issue with this proposal is the security of storing PII. At 
some point that should be addressed. For example, in the cannonical 
security issues section, there might be short discussion on techniques 
used by password storage/management features and extensions to protect 
passwords in web user agents. 

When this is fully rephrased in conformance language, I'd like to see the 
petname/history part pulled out as one good practice (representing to 
users when they've been somewhere before). 

"For robustness against spoofing, the PII bar should be displayed using a 
theme customized to the user. "
There's a more general recommendation hiding here too, which I hope is 
pulled out when it's rephrased for conformance. 

"To encourage such treatment, the interface is designed such that it is 
easier to provide information to a web site using the PII bar than it is 
for the user to enter information into a web page directly. When using the 
PII bar, the user need not remember the exact sequence of characters in a 
PII string, nor type them in; rather, the string is selected from a menu."
The scenarios you haven't dealt with, that may raise issues, are when 
change happens to the validity of the PII strings. When the credit card 
number changes. Or expiration date. When the password has changed (I hit a 
lot of these every few months because of how my employer manages 
passwords). The stored password is no longer valid (right; it's been 
changed; must update it here too.) 

          Mez

Mary Ellen Zurko, STSM, IBM Lotus CTO Office       (t/l 333-6389)
Lotus/WPLC Security Strategy and Patent Innovation Architect



"Close, Tyler J." <tyler.close@hp.com> 
Sent by: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org 
05/21/2007 07:15 PM


To
<public-wsc-wg@w3.org> 
cc

Subject
RE: Editing process for Recommendations








Hi Mez,
 
I'm also going to add my PII Editor bar proposal to our draft 
recommendations. See:
 
http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/wiki/PersonallyIdentifiableInformationEditorBar
 
Shawn and I spoke last week about splitting up editing tasks. I'm taking 
care of finishing up the Note and he's going to get started on the 
recommendations. I think he's going to setup a skeleton draft and move the 
display recommendations from the wiki into the draft. I'll then add my PII 
Editor bar content. I'm hoping all this gets done this week, so that 
everyone can print a copy to take on the airplane with them.
 
Tyler

From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] 
On Behalf Of Mary Ellen Zurko
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 12:41 PM
To: Close, Tyler J.
Cc: sduffy@aol.net; public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Editing process for Recommendations


We're past May 18th. How are we doing? It seems we have three proposals 
that have been put in template format. Will those be forming the basis of 
our first public working draft recommendations? 

         Mez

Mary Ellen Zurko, STSM, IBM Lotus CTO Office       (t/l 333-6389)
Lotus/WPLC Security Strategy and Patent Innovation Architect


"Close, Tyler J." <tyler.close@hp.com> 
Sent by: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org 
04/27/2007 06:40 PM


To
<public-wsc-wg@w3.org> 
cc

Subject
Editing process for Recommendations











The calendar will soon turn to May and so if we're to do anything other
than drink Guinness while in Dublin for the next F2F, we will need some
draft recommendations.

I think each draft recommendation should be written up by the primary WG
members who will be developing the proposal. This division of labor
ensures each proposal is described by those most knowledgeable about it,
and that we've got a champion for each proposal who will help drive the
testing and implementation work that must be done.

To get some consistency among the proposal descriptions, I think we
should develop a template. The template would specify some required
sections for each proposal. For example, we could require a section that
enumerates the use-cases addressed by the proposal, or the security
information items relied upon, or the usability principles that are
leveraged, etc. We should develop this template over the course of the
next week.

I'd need to get finished text for each of the proposals by May 18th. By
finished text, I mean the exact text that should appear in the
recommendation document, but not necessarily in the W3C XML format. For
those unfamiliar with this XML language, I could go through and add the
syntax for the sections, paragraphs and lists. Look at our Note to see
the available structural elements. Shawn and I could then merge these
proposals into a document by the 23rd so that we all have a week to read
and think about the proposals before meeting in Dublin.

Tyler