3 ms·
While I think this could be a good thing in theory, exposing such a low level crypto interface is likely to end in pain. How many people can combine the buildin
by daeken 14y ago
While I think this could be a good thing in theory, exposing such a low level crypto interface is likely to end in pain. How many people can combine the building blocks into something secure? And MITM/XSS still give up the keys to the castle.
I'd much rather see a simple high-level interface to crypto in the browser.
- emily37 14y agoThe plan is to first nail down this low-level API, and then specify a high-level interface wrapping the low-level one that makes it much easier for most developers to get things right. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Aug/0065.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2012Aug...
- daeken 14y agoI don't think that's enough -- in fact, I think it's worse. The low level API inherently has a broken trust model, and using that as a stopgap is going to be worse for security than it not existing at all. If anything, the low level API should be tabled in favor of the high level.
- tptacek 14y agoI see talk in those threads about how the "low-level API" is logistically the right move, but not a lot of talk about how it's right in an engineering sense. Is it possible that the cart is pulling the horse here?