Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Strengthen secure module language around keying material & add security note #2333

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Dec 5, 2019

Conversation

jan-ivar
Copy link
Member

@jan-ivar jan-ivar commented Oct 17, 2019

Fixes #2343. (Updated. Previous description:)

From TPAC decision, add security note for #2257. cc @annevk


Preview | Diff

@jan-ivar jan-ivar self-assigned this Oct 17, 2019
webrtc.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@annevk
Copy link
Member

annevk commented Oct 18, 2019

Is this basically a note about the problem outlined at web-platform-tests/wpt#19572 (comment)? That aside from serializing and deserializing we also need to have a hook when a serialization is about to cross a boundary?

@henbos
Copy link
Contributor

henbos commented Nov 28, 2019

Ping! This has been inactive for a while

@jan-ivar jan-ivar changed the title Add security note about certificates and postMessage. Strengthen secure module language around keying material & add security note Dec 4, 2019
@jan-ivar
Copy link
Member Author

jan-ivar commented Dec 4, 2019

Updated prose to more explicitly suggest some form of secure module indirection (preferably a separate process, though I doubt we can do any stronger than SHOULD on that since some implementations may not have multiple processes).

@annevk does this look good to you? (sorry I'm not able to parse your last question in this thread). I based this off your comment in #2343 (comment).

Copy link
Member

@annevk annevk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, this looks good to me, thanks! (The question here isn't relevant anymore as the confidential data can be kept separate from the object itself.)

Copy link
Contributor

@alvestrand alvestrand left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have read through this version, I believe I understand it, and I approve of it as written.

Copy link
Contributor

@henbos henbos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not an expert on this, but LGTM as far as I'm concerned.

@alvestrand alvestrand merged commit b57d03a into w3c:master Dec 5, 2019
@jan-ivar jan-ivar deleted the secnote branch December 5, 2019 15:09
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

RTCCertificate security boundary
4 participants