On 13-08-09 5:53 PM, Brian Warner wrote:
On 8/9/13 3:15 PM, Lloyd Hilaiel wrote:
5. Security loss.
(proposed) A: Authing from content is inevitable. Belief is there's no
protocol sacrifices we need to make (full SRP from content is viable,
stretching viable with native help). Phishing related concerns are all
that remain mooted by the first sentence.
Chris and I are now talking about introducing an optional second
password (maybe as a v2 thing). This would be used only for Sync, and
would only ever be typed into FF chrome UI. It would be hashed into kB,
maybe after stretching. If you use it, you couldn't get at your class-B
data from a web portal. But you wouldn't need the second password to do
FF Account stuff.
<replying to two warner emails, and a lloyd email>
I contend that at this point, we're not winning. Our jelly now looks
like a form that gets an email address and a password, and provides some
Firefox Account specific information. It's not handling all the keys
(so why handle any?), and it probably doesn't include Sync information,
since it won't be doing Sync related things (and that is the information
we think needs to be agile enough to improve over time). This is a ton
of hassle for a an email/password form. I don't see it.
Nick
_______________________________________________
Sync-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/sync-dev
