KEMBAR78
Updates to persistent storage security by mattgarrish · Pull Request #2301 · w3c/epub-specs · GitHub
Skip to content

Updates to persistent storage security #2301

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 27, 2022
Merged

Updates to persistent storage security #2301

merged 2 commits into from
May 27, 2022

Conversation

mattgarrish
Copy link
Member

@mattgarrish mattgarrish commented May 20, 2022 •
edited by pr-preview bot
Loading

This pull request removes the recommendation about limiting access to persistent storage from "unrelated documents" since the unique origin requirement already prevents other epub publications from accessing this data. (Note that this deletes a test id. Not sure if the test would be useful to keep for the unique origin requirement?)

Although I think this is sufficient for reading systems, I've also added a new paragraph to the security section in the core specification to make epub creators aware that older reading systems are susceptible to exploits. It recommends not storing sensitive user data in persistent storage, but if there is no other option then the data should be encrypted to prevent trivial access to the information. Feedback welcome on whether this is sufficient, or if we should be saying something more or something else.

Fixes #2264

💥 Error: 500 Internal Server Error 💥

PR Preview failed to build. (Last tried on May 22, 2022, 10:14 AM UTC).

More

PR Preview relies on a number of web services to run. There seems to be an issue with the following one:

🚨 Spec Generator - Spec Generator is the web service used to build specs that rely on ReSpec.

🔗 Related URL


😭  Sorry, there was an error generating the HTML. Please report this issue!
Specification: http://labs.w3.org/spec-generator/uploads/fPU5fW?isPreview=true&publishDate=2022-05-22
ReSpec version: 32.1.6
File a bug: https://github.com/w3c/respec/
Error: Error: Evaluation failed: Timeout: document.respec.ready didn't resolve in 27624ms.
    at ExecutionContext._evaluateInternal (/u/spec-generator/node_modules/puppeteer/lib/cjs/puppeteer/common/ExecutionContext.js:221:19)
    at runMicrotasks (<anonymous>)
    at processTicksAndRejections (node:internal/process/task_queues:96:5)
    at async ExecutionContext.evaluate (/u/spec-generator/node_modules/puppeteer/lib/cjs/puppeteer/common/ExecutionContext.js:110:16)
    at async generateHTML (/u/spec-generator/node_modules/respec/tools/respecDocWriter.js:221:12)
    at async toHTML (/u/spec-generator/node_modules/respec/tools/respecDocWriter.js:92:18)
    at async Object.generate [as respec] (file:///u/spec-generator/generators/respec.js:15:44)
    at async file:///u/spec-generator/server.js:244:48

If you don't have enough information above to solve the error by yourself (or to understand to which web service the error is related to, if any), please file an issue.

@mattgarrish
remove unnecessary recommendation about access to persistent storage …
c9fd7d7 
…from unrelated documents;

add authoring recommendations not to store sensitive user data in persistent storage or to encrypt it if it must be stored
@mattgarrish
Copy link
Member Author

dlazin
dlazin approved these changes May 20, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@dlazin dlazin 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 removed the deleted MUST from tinyurl.com/epub-tests in anticipation of this being committed.

@iherman iherman added the Agenda+ Issues that should be discussed during the next working group call. label May 23, 2022
@iherman
Copy link
Member

iherman commented May 27, 2022

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2022-05-26

List of resolutions:

View the transcript

1.5. Persistent storage security.

See github pull request epub-specs#2301.

See github issue epub-specs#2264.

Dave Cramer: about unrelated documents.

Matt Garrish: this is about two requirements that were still in the spec, but which are no longer applicable.
… i.e., language around each document being treated as its own domain.
… if you absolutely need to use persistent storage, then we recommend you encrypt instead of storing as plaintext.

Dave Cramer: a lot of people have done proofs of concept of drafting epubs that can read data from local storage created by a different epub.

Matt Garrish: not sure if javascript encrypting is trivial to break or not, but at least we are saying to pay attention to this.
… we also recommend just not storing sensitive data in the first place, if you don't have to.

Proposed resolution: Approve PR 2301, close issue 2264. (Wendy Reid)

Dave Cramer: +1.

Matt Garrish: +1.

Brady Duga: +1.

Shinya Takami (高見真也): +1.

Wendy Reid: +1.

Dan Lazin: +1.

Toshiaki Koike: +1.

Matthew Chan: +1.

Masakazu Kitahara: +1.

Resolution #3: Approve PR 2301, close issue 2264.

@iherman iherman mentioned this pull request May 27, 2022
Closed
@iherman iherman merged commit 83917a2 into main May 27, 2022
@iherman iherman deleted the editorial/issue-2264 branch May 27, 2022 11:19
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@iherman iherman iherman approved these changes

@shiestyle shiestyle shiestyle approved these changes

@dlazin dlazin dlazin approved these changes

@npdoty npdoty Awaiting requested review from npdoty

@dauwhe dauwhe Awaiting requested review from dauwhe

@wareid wareid Awaiting requested review from wareid

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

Agenda+ Issues that should be discussed during the next working group call.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

no defined concept of related or unrelated documents

4 participants

@mattgarrish @iherman @shiestyle @dlazin