On 2015-04-14 15:17, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
Kathleen,
This feature (the ability to communicate to the "native" layer from a Web-page),
is currently used by thousands of different applications including remote
diagnostics
by major PC-vendors.
The browser vendors took the decision to remove support for ActiveX and NPAPI
but never considered a replacement.
I wouldn't try to mix this with any other "security project" because the Web is
pretty unique: Untrusted code is transiently downloaded into the client
platform.
Anders
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 14, 2015, at 1:36 AM, Anders Rundgren <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 2015-04-14 05:20, Nat Sakimura wrote:
I think this is an interesting idea.
One of the disappointment of webcrypto, if I am not mistaken, is that they
confined themselves
too narrowly that it did not define the APIs that can leverage, for example, a
secure element.
There are many ways of expressing why it didn't work out as anticipated. IMO,
if existing
applications had been "decomposed", it had been more obvious that they work
because they
don't expose sensitive cryptographic APIs to arbitrary Web code. I.e. there's
a reason why
we after 20 years with secure payment cards still can't use them on the Web!
I'm thinking about a system where locally "Trusted Applications" are "talking"
with
untrusted Web pages:
https://cyberphone.github.io/openkeystore/resources/docs/web2native-bridge.pdf
A predecessor is already available in the Chrome browser.
It turned out that the very same concept could probably also be applied to
devices
connected with NFC/Bluetooth:
https://cyberphone.github.io/openkeystore/resources/docs/webnfc--web2device-bridge.pdf
Anders
If a discussion here at IETF would stimulate the discussion there as well, it
would benefit the community, IMHO.
Nat
2015-04-11 19:03 GMT+09:00 Samuel Erdtman <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
Hi,
I think this could be interesting, don´t know if a standards for this
should be written under IETF or somewhere else, but I can share a few use cases
we have at neXus where we need to use platform specific capabilities. And a bit
on how we currently solve it.
* Smart Card signatures
In e.g bank transactions signatures are desired. We develop a middleware
with this support (has been used for the Swedish eID for many years), we have
historically created plugins to the comunication between the browser and the
middleware. But as NPAPI is going away we have now created a new architecture
that relies on server component that makes it possible to open up a
communication channel between the browser and the middleware.
* RFID coding
This is kind of like printing, when creating cards for physical access
systems (PACS) some data has to be coded in the card or read from it as it is
printed (Mifare Desfire etc.), for this we have a SDK/application that runs
locally but the card management system runs in the browser. The communication
is currently done with a socket connection to localhost, it works well but has
some clear drawbacks e.g. TLS.
* Signature pad
* Fingerprint recording
* Document scanning
When doing identity management we collect data about the user when
enrolling. Once again it is not possible to collect all this data from a
browser i.e. we need something running locally, and we need to communicate with
it. Currently we do a connection to localhost.
* End point integrity
We have a client application that is loaded to validate that that platform
(OS, antivirus etc.) is updated before allowing the user to connect to the
corporate network. And when the user is logged out it helps the user to clean
upp downloaded files so that sensitive data gets minimal exposure. (this
solution relies on java applet and activeX)
This is similar to what NEA and SACM are working on, but their definition of
end point is not scoped to just a browser or application. For this interested
in this question, please take a look at SACM and proposed solutions can be
reviewed there. They have an open call for proposals and recognize that
different solutions will be needed depending on re platform being assessed.
Best regards,
Kathleen
All of these use cases would benefit form a standardised way of
communicating from the web browser (JavaScript) with a locally installed
application.
Best Regards
Samuel Erdtman
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I like the proposal Anders put forward.
Doing some work in the IETF in that area might not be a bad idea to
stimulate discussions.
Ciao
Hannes
On 03/20/2015 06:49 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
> On 2015-03-19 19:15, John Bradley wrote:
>> It sounds like WebCrypto or something more related to it.
>> http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/
>
> I would rather characterize this as the opposite to WebCrypto since
the
> referred schemes
> all are based on the idea that "The Web is not enough".
>
> That is, the Web needs (as proven any number of times), to be
extended
> with its more
> powerful native/platform companion for a lot of reasons including
access
> to platform-
> resident keys as well as breaking away from the crippling SOP notion.
>
> The W3C does not appear to be a suitable home for such an effort,
they
> rather prefer
> continuing the so far pretty unsuccessful efforts DUPLICATING the
native
> level into
> the Web [1], instead of recognizing the power of COMBINING these
worlds.
>
> Cheers,
> Anders
>
> 1]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2014Dec/0000.html
>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 19, 2015, at 3:05 PM, Jim Schaad <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
>>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>
wrote:
>>>
>>> To me this sounds more like a W3C activity than an IETF activity.
>>> Jim
>>> *From:*jose [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>]*On Behalf Of*Anders Rundgren
>>> *Sent:*Wednesday, March 18, 2015 10:41 PM
>>> *To:*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
>>> *Subject:*[jose] Charter Proposal: "Trusted Code" for the Web
>>> Trusted Code for the Web
>>>
>>>
>>> Existing security-related applications like authentication,
payments,
>>> etc. are all based on that a core-part is executed by statically
>>> installed software that is supposed to be TRUSTED.
>>>
>>> Since web-based applications are transiently downloaded, unsigned
and
>>> come from any number of more or less unknown sources, such
>>> applications are by definition UNTRUSTED.
>>>
>>> To compensate for this, web-based security applications currently
>>> rely on a hodge-podge of non-standard methods [1] where trusted
code
>>> resides (and executes) somewhere outside of the actual web
application.
>>>
>>> However, because each browser-vendor have their own idea on what is
>>> secure and useful [2], interoperability has proven to be a major
>>> hassle. In addition, the ongoing quest for locking down browsers
(in
>>> order to make them more secure), tends to break applications after
>>> browser updates.
>>>
>>> Although security applications are interesting, they haven't proved
>>> to be a driver. Fortunately it has turned out that the desired
>>> capability ("Trusted Code"), is also used by massively popular
music
>>> streaming services, cloud-based storage systems, on-line gaming
sites
>>> and open source collaboration networks.
>>>
>>> The goal for the proposed effort would be to define a vendor- and
>>> device-neutral solution for dealing with trusted code on the Web.
>>>
>>>
>>> *References
>>> *
>>> 1] An non-exhaustive list include:
>>> - Custom protocol handlers. Primarily used on Android and iOS.
>>> GitHub also uses it on Windows
>>> - Local web services on 127.0.0.1. Used by lots of services, from
>>> Spotify to digital signatures
>>> - Browser plugins like NPAPI/ActiveX. Used (for example) by
millions
>>> of people in Korea for PKI support but is now being deprecated
>>> - Chrome native messaging. Fairly recent solution which enables
>>> Native <=> Web communication
>>>
>>> 2]https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=378566
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> jose mailing list
>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> jose mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
