Native JS Encryption
robert at accettura.com
Sat Mar 19 14:45:46 PDT 2011
On Mar 19, 2011, at 4:12 PM, Mike Shaver wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com> wrote:
>> I agree about outside domain experts. In fact, I wish we could invite
>> outside domain experts participate in all tc39 activities as we deem
>> appropriate. I do not understand the rationale for bounding invited expert
> I think this would be a good idea. If nothing else, providing "raw"
> crypto APIs can be a footgun, given the difficulties in actually using
> these ciphers and key management systems correctly.
> Thomas Ptacek has a good post on this, and I've invited him to send me
> an elaboration that I'll forward to the group.
> TL;DR, at the risk of my mis-sumarizing Thomas' excellent exposition:
> APIs like Google's Keyczar, which provide a more complete and
> harder-to-misuse set of capabilities, would likely be a better idea,
> and invite fewer missteps. They would not be simple to implement
> robustly, and neither Keyczar nor cryptlib are licensed liberally
> enough to be baked into all implementations. That's a sign that it's
> a hard problem more than that those are bad solutions, though.
Are there any successful key based encryption schemes that have actually succeeded with "normals"? In my view when we look at GPG, PGP, the complexity was always the key to failure (pardon the pun, I couldn't resist). While I'm not opposed to something along those lines, I do think that the more traditional schemes should be considered though perhaps discouraged.
More information about the es-discuss