Sounds good.. interested in working up some text for that ;-)

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Bob Wyman <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm a bit worried about a potential "security" concern if people overuse the
> hash attribute. This is something that really should only be used when you
> really need to refer to a specific version of a resource -- and it should be
> a resource that you expect to be stable for a useful period of time. My
> concern is that people will tend to think that it is "cool" to add in more
> metadata on links and thus will just hash all kinds of stuff -- because they
> can. The result will be a large number of "broken" hashes and a sense that
> since most hashes are broken, the fact that a hash is broken is simply not
> interesting... At that point, various social engineering operations become
> possible.
> We really should consider discouraging people from using the hash attribute
> unless it is really necessary and unless they actually expect that the
> resource they are hashing *should* be stable for a usefully long period of
> time.
> bob wyman
>
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:06 PM, James Snell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I've been considering either an "accessed" attribute or specifying
>> terms that indicate that atom:updated element be used as the
>> point-in-time for the links for atom:entry and atom:feed. The when
>> attribute would serve the same purpose for at:deleted-entry and I
>> assume that other containers for atom:link could specify their own
>> relevant time. And you make an excellent point on focusing on the
>> specific utility of the attributes. Are there are security concerns
>> you can think of relating to the specific use cases for these
>> attributes?
>>
>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Bob Wyman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > The way you describe the utility of the hash, you make it sound like it
>> > is
>> > somehow "inadequate" for the traditional use of hashes. But, that's not
>> > really relevant here. This is a use of a hash for a different purpose
>> > than
>> > the hashes we normally use in link integrity checking. I would suggest
>> > that
>> > you focus on the utility of this style of hash rather than emphasizing
>> > the
>> > things that it doesn't even attempt to do.
>> > BTW: I realize that this may be totally unnecessary, however, I can't
>> > help
>> > thinking that a "last-accessed-on" attribute to show when the link was
>> > last
>> > accessed and thus when the hash was generated might be useful... In
>> > nothing
>> > else, there is a good bit of precedence in things like formal standards
>> > for
>> > citing web resources that typically require that a "last-accessed" date
>> > be
>> > provided. I'm not willing to invest a great deal in fighting for this. I
>> > just thought I would mention it.
>> > bob wyman
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 3:07 PM, James Snell <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Ok, so I'm working on finishing up the basic link extensions draft.
>> >> The Security Considerations are currently TBD. I wanted to take a
>> >> moment to solicit input on appropriate security considerations for
>> >> these optional, advisory extension attributes.
>> >>
>> >> One in particular... hash digest are often used as a simple means of
>> >> verifying that data has not been modified while in transit.. hash
>> >> digests contained within an atom:link cannot be used for that purpose.
>> >> Rather, the hash attribute is used to express the state of the linked
>> >> resource at a given point in time so that a feed consumer can detect
>> >> whether or not the resource has been modified since the link was
>> >> created.
>> >>
>> >> Other than that, there really shouldn't be any further security
>> >> concerns with regards to the link extensions.. but I welcome being
>> >> corrected on that :-) Thoughts?
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> - James Snell
>> >>  http://www.snellspace.com
>> >>  [email protected]
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> - James Snell
>>  http://www.snellspace.com
>>  [email protected]
>
>



-- 
- James Snell
  http://www.snellspace.com
  [email protected]

Reply via email to