4 ms·
Everytime I think about the S/MIME and PGP issue I can't get away from the fact that you need to give your private key to the client-side JS. I'm not sure we've
by mpyne 13y ago
Everytime I think about the S/MIME and PGP issue I can't get away from the fact that you need to give your private key to the client-side JS. I'm not sure we've found all the security flaws we'll find in the browser JS model so that just seems risky to me (especially for digital signature purposes).
And as you mention, you would still have to trust Google.
- rdl 13y agoW3C webcrypto, done in a smart way, is probably one of the most critical pieces of security infrastructure to be built today. I'm not talking about giving the real PGP or S/MIME to Google; just a UI flag saying "this message has special content, click here to download". And some kind of low-assurance S/MIME signature which just says "was downloaded from gmail" to protect from local modification. I'm not sure how mail clients deal with multiple s/mime signatures (or s/mime + PGP inside).
- tptacek 13y agoIt's not being done in a particularly smart way; Web Crypto has more to do with enabling pure-web plugin-free streaming media than with enabling secure browser-based PGP.
- rdl 13y agoPresumably all it would take would be Google, Apple, or even Mozilla to do something more real on their own. I'd probably bet on the Chrome doing it more than anyone else.
- blake8086 13y agoI think you're thinking of Encrypted Media Extensions https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med...
- tptacek 13y agoNo, I'm thinking about the design decisions the Web Crypto team made and the mailing list posts that supported them.