- From: Close, Tyler J. <tyler.close@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:00:40 -0000
- To: <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <08CA2245AFCF444DB3AC415E47CC40AFC0F75F@G3W0072.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Ah, I see, add a "Security Issues" sections that lists issues implementers should be aware of, even though they may be out of scope for more detailed advice from this WG. OK, I'll do this. Thanks, Tyler ________________________________ From: Mary Ellen Zurko [mailto:Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:42 AM To: Close, Tyler J. Cc: public-wsc-wg@w3.org Subject: 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/PersonallyIdentifiableInformationEditorB ar <http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/wiki/PersonallyIdentifiableInformationEditor Bar> 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
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2007 18:01:35 UTC