W3C Recommendations can only happen when there are two interoperables
implementations. Implementers in this WG are not supporting the integration of
secure enablers in that WG. The chances to get something on that specific
topic, here, are low. Thus, as chair, I don’t see any value blocking the
rechartering of this WG, discussing indefinitely that topic.
Lets be pragmatic, and recharter or extend the Web Crypto on the common
consensual basis. I am inviting companies supporting inclusion of secure
enablers in the open web platform to create another group. Creating another
group means, a chance to 1) give visibility to the work, 2) get on board new
people and new W3C members representatives, 3) forces the W3C members to
revisit their support or not of specific feature (as per the process, W3C AC
representatives need to approve the creation of each new working group).
Those arguments are the ones that lead me and the team to suggest to take the
secure enablers topic out of Web Crypto WG.
Regards,
Virginie
*From:*Colin Gallagher [mailto:colingallagher.r...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* mardi 17 mars 2015 07:11
*To:* Anders Rundgren
*Cc:* Wendy Seltzer; Siva Narendra; Harry Halpin; public-web-security@w3.org;
GALINDO Virginie; Charles Engelke
*Subject:* Re: [Web Crypto WG] draft Web Crypto WG charter : for your review
and comments
Except google code isn't going to exist anymore, because google is pulling it
and anyone using it will likely just go to github. Anyway, a focused list
wouldn't hurt for those interested in that topic, imho. My four satoshis have
been given.
On Mar 16, 2015 10:06 PM, "Anders Rundgren" <anders.rundgren....@gmail.com
<mailto:anders.rundgren....@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 2015-03-17 04:34, Colin Gallagher wrote:
My impression was Wendy said some members' non-participation with respect to
some idea or another doesn't act as a veto so, correct me if I'm wrong, but
doesn't that imply that whether Google or someone else does or does not like an
idea, then can't it be included anyway? So the group can proceed... not being
concerned about vetoes of legacy security hardware, so basically, I think the
answer is... yes.
Also, why new working group for secure hardware/tokens/FIDO/etc, when it could be a
subgroup or interest group within webcrypto, time permitting (charter expiring on march
31, but will it be extended)? So, one could just call this additional group within
webcrypto "secure hardware" and give it a list for those interested. This is
just my suggestion.
Finally, some of the security issues brought up... no Web Security Principle
(maintained), plus, the Same Origin Policy doc is an IETF 2011 item itself in
need of some review. Some of this stuff cited is extremely dated.
I would further suggest pushing this out for further public review, see if you
can some more eyes on the process.
Colin, my claim from November last year is still valid:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-security/2014Nov/0032.html
The ultra-simple question put there didn't got an answer since there's none to
find.
Therefore this activity is concluded and no new "smart-card-for-the-web"
specifications will be presented, with FIDO alliance as an exception.
Well, indirect paths to similar goals have indeed been proposed but have for
unclear reasons not been considered or commented on although indirect methods
(=bypassing the browser) are already a de-facto standard for mobile devices.
Indirect methods are currently discussed and dealt with in places like this:
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=378566
Regards,
Anders
On 2015-03-12 15:54, GALINDO Virginie wrote:
[gemalto representative hat on]
gemalto supports to discuss in W3C the usage of the secure services based
on hardware or combination
> of hardware/software (e.g. secure element, trusted execution environement).
We suggest to gather the supporting companies and draft a a charter for a
Working Group or an Interest Group.
this synchronization can happen in public, preferably on the
public-web-security interest group mailing list
> (to avoid overloading the web crypto working group mailing list).
We had an F2F, then we had discussions and finally we had the public dismissal
by Google of the core idea (=support for legacy security hardware in browsers).
That is, this activity is concluded and doesn't benefit from being rehashed
unless somebody has a silver bullet to offer.
Regards
Anders
Regards,
Virginie
gemalto
________________________________________
De : Wendy Seltzer [wselt...@w3.org <mailto:wselt...@w3.org>
<mailto:wselt...@w3.org <mailto:wselt...@w3.org>>]
Envoyé : mercredi 11 mars 2015 22:55
À : Siva Narendra; Harry Halpin
Cc :public-web-security@w3.org <mailto:public-web-security@w3.org> <mailto:public-web-security@w3.org
<mailto:public-web-security@w3.org>>;public-webcry...@w3.org <mailto:public-webcry...@w3.org>
<mailto:public-webcry...@w3.org <mailto:public-webcry...@w3.org>>; Charles Engelke; GALINDO Virginie
Objet : Re: [Web Crypto WG] draft Web Crypto WG charter : for your review
and comments
Hi Siva and all,
To follow up on Harry's response, we have great interest in doing more
work on secure authentication building on the WebCrypto API. As its
Chair has expressed, the WebCrypto WG wants to complete its work with a
tight focus on the WebCrypto API and related deliverables.
For my part, I look forward to supporting additional groups focused on
extending WebCrypto's work, whether based in FIDO or secure hardware.
Any member can propose work, and so long as there is interest and a path
to getting interoperable implementations, some members'
non-participation does not act as a veto.
--Wendy
On 03/11/2015 05:32 PM, Siva Narendra wrote:
Thank you Harry.
-Siva
*--*
*Siva G. Narendra Ph.D. CEO - Tyfone, Inc.Portland | Bangalore |
Taipeiwww.tyfone.com <http://Taipeiwww.tyfone.com>
<http://Taipeiwww.tyfone.com><http://www.tyfone.com>*
*Voice:+1.661.412.2233 <tel:%2B1.661.412.2233> <tel:%2B1.661.412.2233>*
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Harry Halpin <hhal...@w3.org <mailto:hhal...@w3.org>
<mailto:hhal...@w3.org <mailto:hhal...@w3.org>>> wrote:
On 03/11/2015 09:59 PM, Siva Narendra wrote:
+adding Pub-Web-Security for continuity from the Workshop
Thank you Harry. Few questions:
1. Does this mean "FIDO will not be implemented under this
WG?"
2. Is the statement "All the web browser implementers do
not want to
support hardware tokens or anything that is outside of
cryptography in
within the scope of WG?" or "One browser vendors does not
want to
support
anything other than FIDO?"
I think the answer should be:
1) FIDO will not be implemented under the Web Crypto Working
Group, but
may be pursued in another WG.
2) Hardware token support, both in a manner consistent with a
revised
Gemalto proposal that takes on board feedback like respect for
same-origin policy, should be pursued in another Working Group,
but not
in the WebCrypto WG.
Does that help?
The real question now is what the shape and charter(s) of the new
Working Groups will be, along with associated time-frames.
There have been formal Member submissions neither from the
smartcard
vendors or FIDO, but lots of informal discussion. However, the
workshop
did reach consensus that hardware token support should be part of
the
Open Web Platform, and the W3C would like to follow this up with
one or
more new Working Groups if the work does not match existing
Working Groups.
As the discussion in Web Crypto WG shows, it does not match at the
time
being as the implementors want to focus on algorithm maintenance
and
finishing version 1.0.
If opinions have drastically changed since the workshop, we would
like
to revisit that consensus via a survey of W3C members but we are
hoping
there is still consensus and momentum.
cheers,
harry
This is important for the eco-system to know so we can
determine if this
work should be pursued inside W3C or outside.
Thank you,
Siva
*--*
*Siva G. Narendra Ph.D. CEO - Tyfone, Inc.Portland | Bangalore
|
Taipeiwww.tyfone.com <http://Taipeiwww.tyfone.com>
<http://Taipeiwww.tyfone.com><http://www.tyfone.com>*
*Voice:+1.661.412.2233 <tel:%2B1.661.412.2233>
<tel:%2B1.661.412.2233>*
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Harry Halpin <hhal...@w3.org
<mailto:hhal...@w3.org> <mailto:hhal...@w3.org <mailto:hhal...@w3.org>>> wrote:
On 03/11/2015 07:08 PM, Charles Engelke wrote:
I'm new to this WG and W3C in general, so I may be
missing points on
how this works. But until today that draft did include
adding new use
cases. Today that was revised to say "the Web Crypto
WG will not
adress any new use case others then the ones developed
with the first
version of the Web Crypto API."
Did I miss the process that made this change?
There was strong objections from members of the Working
Group, in
particular implementers that are on public record.
Thus, while the W3C is still committed do finding an
appropriate home
for these use-cases and associated standards, it will not
be this
Working Group.
If you have a particular use-case and proposed technical
solution that
you think would be acceptable to implementers, e-mail the
Web Security
Interest Group atpublic-web-secur...@w3.org
<mailto:atpublic-web-secur...@w3.org> <mailto:public-web-security@w3.org
<mailto:public-web-security@w3.org>>.
cheers,
harry
Thanks,
Charlie
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 1:13 PM, GALINDO Virginie
<virginie.gali...@gemalto.com <mailto:virginie.gali...@gemalto.com>
<mailto:virginie.gali...@gemalto.com <mailto:virginie.gali...@gemalto.com>>> wrote:
Dear all,
You will find here
https://www.w3.org/Security/wiki/IG/webcryptonext_draft_charterthe
basis of
the next Web Crypto WG charter.
Based on the feedback on this mailing list,
despite the long
discussions we
had related to new features such as crypto service
in secure element,
certificate management, authentication management,
this charter only
adresses the maintenance of the Web Crypto API,
and the creation of
extension for specific algorithms.
What I am expecting from working group
participants now is the
algorithms
they would like to see as extension of the Web
Crypto API. This will
help us
to get a list of the extension we plan to adress
in the framework of
that
specific working group.
Please note that there are some discussions in AC
forum about
restricting
activities of any WG that does not work under a
valid charter. Our
charter
will expire on the 31st of March, as such, we
should try to get
consensus on
the new charter as soon as possible (or we will
have to ask an
extension to
W3C director).
Regards,
Virginie Galindo
gemalto
chair of the web crypto WG
________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended
solely for the
addressees
and
may contain confidential information. Any
unauthorized use or
disclosure,
either whole or partial, is prohibited.
E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company
shall not be liable
for
the message if altered, changed or falsified. If
you are not the
intended
recipient of this message, please delete it and
notify the sender.
Although all reasonable efforts have been made to
keep this
transmission
free from viruses, the sender will not be liable
for damages caused
by a
transmitted virus.
--
Wendy Seltzer --wselt...@w3.org <mailto:wselt...@w3.org> <mailto:wselt...@w3.org
<mailto:wselt...@w3.org>>+1.617.715.4883 <tel:%2B1.617.715.4883>
<tel:%2B1.617.715.4883>(office)
Policy Counsel and Domain Lead, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
http://wendy.seltzer.org/ +1.617.863.0613 <tel:%2B1.617.863.0613>
<tel:%2B1.617.863.0613>(mobile)
________________________________
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees
and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure,
either whole or partial, is prohibited.
E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for
the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended
recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission
free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a
transmitted virus.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees and may
contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure, either
whole or partial, is prohibited.
E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable for the
message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient
of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission free
from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a transmitted
virus.
