- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:08:37 +0100
- To: WSC WG <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
Minutes from our meeting on 2007-10-24 were approved and are available online here: http://www.w3.org/2007/10/24-wsc-minutes.html A text version is included below the .signature. -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org> [1]W3C Web Security Context Working Group Teleconference 24 Oct 2007 See also: [2]IRC log Attendees Present Mary Ellen Zurko, Ian Fette, Jan Vidar Krey, Cristian Serban, Anil Saldhana, Yngve Pettersen, Bill Doyle, Thomas Roessler, Tyler Close, Hal Lockhart, Serge Egelman, Phillip Hallam-Baker, Rachna Dhamija Regrets Maritza Johnson, Tim H, Luis B, Dan S, Jonathan N Chair Mary Ellen Zurko Scribe Cristian Serban Contents * [3]Topics 1. [4]Approve minutes 2. [5]Newly completed action items 3. [6]Agenda bashing 4. [7]ISSUE-128 Strong / weak algorithms? 5. [8]TAG on passwords in the clear 6. [9]Dealing with comments on our documents * [10]Summary of Action Items __________________________________________________________________ Approve minutes <tlr> [11]http://www.w3.org/2007/10/02-wsc-minutes.html <tlr> [12]http://www.w3.org/2007/10/03-wsc-minutes.html <tlr> [13]http://www.w3.org/2007/10/10-wsc-minutes <tlr> minutes approved Newly completed action items mez: any troubles or questions ? ... nothing Agenda bashing <serge> CLT? ISSUE-128 Strong / weak algorithms? <Mez> [14]http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/issues/128 <Mez> [15]http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html#strong-algos mez: most people suggested we reference and make some suggestions about what chipers are adequate to use <Zakim> ifette, you wanted to talk about strong vs weak iffete: browsers already have knowledge about strong vs weak encryption serge: is not convinced that this is in the group's scope <serge> that was an example serge: there are many references out there yngve: detailed a list of possibilities on what we can include in the document <Mez> yes <Mez> [16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wsc-wg/2007Sep/0014.html <Mez> is what yngve is referring to <Mez> [17]http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html#strong-algos mez: which exact issue is referencing, from those mentioned? yngve: this document makes comparisons of what lengths are equivalent to what alghorithms <serge> who cares where it's from, if there's a group already doing this, we should just reference it <Mez> +1 bill-d: tries to find a standard document describing all chiphers lenghts and where each to be used <tlr> ACTION: doyle to look for cyphersuite strength standard that we can reference [recorded in [18]http://www.w3.org/2007/10/24-wsc-minutes.html#action02] <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-321 - to look for cyphersuite strength standard that we can reference [on Bill Doyle - due 2007-10-31]. mez: we should find the best reference to point to iffete: wonders if we decided on a reference ... suggests that references be left to vendors ... if we point to a document, it will be out of date at some time ... a browser vendor should be able to make a dettermination phb: whatever decision we make today, it will look bad in times <tlr> 40bit didn't! <tlr> right phb: weak vs strong is delicate to describe ... suggests deprecated instead of weak ... and consensus for strong ... we are not choosing the strong chiphers ... the purpose of this group is to recognize the consensus of good chipers ... we can do like EV, pointing it without fully resolving it ... the strong chipers should not be presented by the browser as strong <ifette> I hope? phb: important is when a chipers is no longer strong <rachna_> yes phb: it is a user's choice not a browser choice ... each user can sustain what he wants, and always there are different oppinions ... maybe we don't need to create a body, only make a reference iffete: we have following options: <ifette> a) leave to browsers <ifette> b) Reference a document (or standard bodies rec) listing strong/weak ciphers <ifette> c) Give requirements for "strong" (have a group monitoring, etc) <tlr> one can always reference to some standard or whatever supersedes it <PHB2> I think we can probably reach consensus on the wording of weak/strong versus deprecated/consensus/strong first <ifette> use what @tlr said for b) phb: there is not so much need for a document mez: if you want to propose a rewording <PHB2> My proposal: asaldhan: looks for an option to combine b and c <PHB2> 1) consider an algorithm to be deprecated if it has been delared as such by IETF, W3C or OASIS <Mez> a) leave to browsers <PHB2> 2) consider an algorithm consensus if it is specified as a mandatory cipher in standards issued by IETF, W3C and OASIS (note AND) <Mez> b) Reference a document (or standard bodies rec) listing strong/weak ciphers <Mez> c) Give requirements for "strong" (have a group monitoring, etc) <Mez> (just restating for all) iffete: people have an idea on what is a strong chiper <PHB2> 3) allow a browser provider to decide for themselves if a cipher meets specified criteria for being considered strong <PHB2> 4) Recommend that browsers only represent consensus or deemed strong ciphers as being secure iffete: 3) give criteria to when a browser should decide on an chipers to be weak <PHB2> Thats the idea <PHB2> Consensus forming... <ifette> a) leave to browsers <ifette> b) Reference a document (or standard bodies rec) listing strong/weak ciphers and its successor <ifette> c) Give requirements for "strong" (criteria, possible info references etc) <PHB2> I guess my proposal is a version of C Rachna: B <ifette> b is "assuming X exists" rachna_: B and ... otherwise A phb2: C bill-d: B tyler: abstain hal: b <asaldhan> C (with some references to documents from B) <tlr> C (with some references to documents from B) <scrissti> B <ifette> A mez: b <jvkrey> jvkrey: b <ifette> so it sounds like mostly B and C <ifette> whch for a straw poll sounds reasonably precise <yngve> yngve: b or c <ifette> especially given the attendance <serge> [19]http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsSPs.html <ifette> yes <serge> isn't this sufficient? <serge> [20]http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-78-1/SP-800-78-1_fin al2.pdf <PHB2> We can all lve with B if soeone else does it asaldhan: they're recommendations, I'm not sure that matters serge: We can add them as references as per b) asaldhan: that's my whole point asaldhan: the point is, I think I found it. tlr: if be exists there is no point for c serge: bill-d email has other docs bill-d: we want to have some standards even they go outdated phb: i don't want to reference a document but a process hal: objection: some browsers say a chiper is strong, others say it is weak <Mez> [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wsc-wg/2007Oct/0027.html TAG on passwords in the clear <ifette> no, can someone summarize it <Mez> [22]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/passwordsInTheClear-52-20061113.html mez: summarizes the issue <tlr> errr, that's an outdated version <tlr> Latest Version: [23]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/passwordsInTheClear-52 <Zakim> tyler, you wanted to state a hot fact and to complain about the tag thing (now I remember it) iffete: recomandation for what browsers should do ... website should request password on ssl, but doing it on the client side is not good ... a browser does not know what is a password <tlr> oh yes, password entry with t9 tyler: we don't have support for resolving the issue as the reasons presented are not "solid" <ifette> I think that given the typo of ifette->iffete, my s/ifette/tyler is going to cause a problem and attribute my last comment about website should request password on ssl to be attributed to tyler. Someone is going to have to clean that up. <rachna_> openid has serious flaws (protocol and interface wise) <ifette> yes it does, but it still solves some of the issues and provides a starting point for further work... <ifette> i will concede that the interface has huge problems <serge> recommending known flawed systems might not be the best way to proceed <ifette> wasn't recommending anything... merely pointing to someting in a /me phb: phishing attacks are a problem hal: i agree tyler, masking rarely provides a benefit today <tlr> well, that objection applies to most *good* shared-secret protocols <Zakim> ifette, you wanted to talk about masking hal: digest can't be used ifette: i think masking is very important today, in presentations for example iffete: there are other issues, we should not kill the masking <hal> digest is not practical because most organizations store a salted hash of the password, which makes it impossible to use digest <tlr> hal, doesn't that make most other protocols shared secret protocols impossible to use as well? tyler: we should not sustain that browser MUST user masking <hal> many organizations have a written security policy which prohibits storing passwords in the clear <Zakim> ifette, you wanted to talk about passwords in clear on network tyler: "ssl should be used", this is the only good thing in the current draft ifette: recomandation to wesite owners or to browsers ? hal: there are ways around that. ifette: website knows better about its content ... website should use SSL instead of brwoser should use ssl Dealing with comments on our documents mez: please find tools to help us <Mez> [24]http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/actions/274 tlr: somebody assembles manualy and generate a report ... several manual steps <bill-d> [25]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/39814/ <ifette> i'm getting a timeout on that link <tlr> [26]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/39814/wsc-usecases/ mez: last link requires authentication, is it not public ? ... bill voluntered to do the work bill: this helps us track comments but we still to email to public ifette: can we use something like bugzilla? mez: looks for someone to take charge in this and take care of the entire job tlr: i did see bugzilla in a working group mez: i will pay more attention on the open issues Summary of Action Items [NEW] ACTION: doyle to look for cyphersuite strength standard that we can reference [recorded in [27]http://www.w3.org/2007/10/24-wsc-minutes.html#action02] __________________________________________________________________ Minutes formatted by David Booth's [28]scribe.perl version 1.128 ([29]CVS log) $Date: 2007/10/31 15:07:27 $ References 1. http://www.w3.org/ 2. http://www.w3.org/2007/10/24-wsc-irc 3. http://www.w3.org/2007/10/24-wsc-minutes.html#agenda 4. http://www.w3.org/2007/10/24-wsc-minutes.html#item01 5. http://www.w3.org/2007/10/24-wsc-minutes.html#item02 6. http://www.w3.org/2007/10/24-wsc-minutes.html#item03 7. http://www.w3.org/2007/10/24-wsc-minutes.html#item04 8. http://www.w3.org/2007/10/24-wsc-minutes.html#item05 9. http://www.w3.org/2007/10/24-wsc-minutes.html#item06 10. http://www.w3.org/2007/10/24-wsc-minutes.html#ActionSummary 11. http://www.w3.org/2007/10/02-wsc-minutes.html 12. http://www.w3.org/2007/10/03-wsc-minutes.html 13. http://www.w3.org/2007/10/10-wsc-minutes 14. http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/issues/128 15. http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html#strong-algos 16. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wsc-wg/2007Sep/0014.html 17. http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/rec/rewrite.html#strong-algos 18. http://www.w3.org/2007/10/24-wsc-minutes.html#action02 19. http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsSPs.html 20. http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-78-1/SP-800-78-1_final2.pdf 21. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wsc-wg/2007Oct/0027.html 22. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/passwordsInTheClear-52-20061113.html 23. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/passwordsInTheClear-52 24. http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/actions/274 25. http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/39814/ 26. http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/39814/wsc-usecases/ 27. http://www.w3.org/2007/10/24-wsc-minutes.html#action02 28. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm 29. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2007 15:08:48 UTC