[aerogear-dev] JavaScript Crypto

[Lucas Holmquist]

On Sep 23, 2013, at 2:01 PM, Kris Borchers <kris at redhat.com> wrote:

> 
> On Sep 23, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Kris Borchers <kris at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Sep 20, 2013, at 10:05 AM, Bruno Oliveira <bruno at abstractj.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Good morning slackland, following with the plan I started a simple draft
>>> for JavaScript (https://github.com/abstractj/cryptoparty-js) we have
>>> several alternatives outside there the most popular are Crypto-js
>>> (https://code.google.com/p/crypto-js/) and the Stanford crypto library
>>> (http://crypto.stanford.edu/sjcl/).
>>> 
>>> Before I finish the whole implementation I have some questions:
>>> 
>>> - Currently crypto-js doesn't have support for GCM or ECC, but sjcl has.
>>> That's the reason why my choice was sjcl instead of crypto-js, but if
>>> you have another good alternative,  let me know.
>> 
>> +1 for sjcl if you think it offers everything we need
>>> 
>>> - Create wrappers or not? If you read the unit tests at first glance (at
>>> least for me) looks like is too much. Most part of developers are
>>> looking for security by default.
>> 
>> +1 I would like us to provide methods like encrypt or decrypt which use default values which we choose because we have researched and feel they are the best option for devs.
>>> My idea is not to hide the library, but
>>> provide a simple interface like:
>>> 
>>> Crypto crypto = new Crypto;
>>> ciphertext = crypto. encrypt("blah");
>>> crypto.decrypt(ciphertext);
>> 
>> I agree with this syntax in spirit but not execution. ;) JS doesn't have types like Crypto crypto, just var crypto. I would also prefer to follow the pattern we use in the rest of AeroGear.js to allow for instantiation without the use of the `new` keyword'. You can see the source of the other modules or ping me for details.
> 
> Now that I think about it, if this is just for encryption and decryption, I think this would look better and be more user friendly in AeroGear.core. That way, a user doesn't even have to instantiate and object, they just use our shortcut methods to call into sjcl. For example:
> 
> AeroGear.encrypt("blah");
> AeroGear.decrypt( cipherText );
> 
> Those should be really easy to implement too and that will keep the size of the library way down. :)

that could be nice,  but what if a user doesn't want those methods,  i wonder if it would make sense to have a security.core or something,  

>>> 
>>> Advanced users looking for another kind of algorithm/implementation or
>>> whatever would still be able to make use of the plain and straight
>>> crypto library.
>> 
>> +1 and we should provide examples at least in the docs
>>> 
>>> - What is the best way to package this library? Bower?
>> 
>> If we're going to create some sort of wrapper object then it would just be part of AeroGear.js and by doing that would be packaged and available via Bower.
>>> 
>>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> Great start and great thoughts!
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> abstractj
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev