On 24.03.2017 18:24, Mike Hoye wrote: > My 2006 proposal didn't get any traction either. > > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2006Jan/0270.html > > > FWIW I still think it'd be a good idea with the right UI.
I think we already have _related_ UI hooks, for the SafeBrowsing malicious file checks, where we really, really discourage you from using the downloaded file but you can still click around that with lots of left-clicking. > > - mhoye > > On 2017-03-24 1:16 PM, Dave Townsend wrote: >> I remember that Gerv was interested in a similar idea many years ago, you >> might want to see if he went anywhere with it. >> >> https://blog.gerv.net/2005/03/link_fingerprin_1/ >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Gregory Szorc <g...@mozilla.com> wrote: >> >>> I recently reinstalled Windows 10 on one of my machines. This involved >>> visiting various web sites and downloading lots of software. >>> >>> It is pretty common for software publishers to publish hashes or >>> cryptographic signatures of software so the downloaded software can be >>> verified. (Often times the download is performed through a CDN, >>> mirroring >>> network, etc and you may not have full trust in the server operator.) >>> >>> Unless you know how to practice safe security, you probably don't bother >>> verifying downloaded files match the signatures authors have provided. >>> Furthermore, many sites redundantly write documentation for how to >>> verify >>> the integrity of downloads. This feels sub-optimal. >>> >>> This got me thinking: why doesn't the user agent get involved to help >>> provide better download security? What my (not a web standard spec >>> author) >>> brain came up with is standardized metadata in the HTML for the download >>> link (probably an <a>) that defines file integrity information. When the >>> user agent downloads that file, it automatically verifies file integrity >>> and fails the download or pops up a big warning box, etc or things don't >>> check out. In other words, this mechanism would extend the trust >>> anchor in >>> the source web site (likely via a trusted x509 cert) to file downloads. >>> This would provide additional security over (optional) x509 cert >>> validation >>> of the download server alone. Having the integrity metadata baked >>> into the >>> origin site is important: you can't trust the HTTP response from the >>> download server because it may be from an untrusted server. >>> >>> Having such a feature would also improve the web experience. How many >>> times >>> have you downloaded a corrupted file? Advanced user agents (like >>> browsers) >>> could keep telemetry of how often downloads fail integrity. This >>> could be >>> used to identify buggy proxies, malicious ISPs rewriting content, etc. >>> >>> I was curious if this enhancement to the web platform has ever been >>> considered and/or if it is something Mozilla would consider pushing. >>> >>> gps >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dev-platform mailing list >>> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org >>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> dev-platform mailing list >> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
