[aerogear-dev] JavaScript Crypto
Bruno Oliveira
bruno at abstractj.org
Mon Sep 23 15:31:56 EDT 2013
Hi gentlemen, I tried to put our ideas together into a gist
https://gist.github.com/abstractj/f1229ae075f8e6688c75. Feel free to
fork and change, here comes the content:
# AeroGear JS Crypto
# Goals
- Behind the scenes our developers will make use of sjcl
(http://crypto.stanford.edu/sjcl/) with wrappers to the basic
functionalities like: encrypt, decrypt, password salting and key pair
generation.
- Advanced developers will be allowed to make use of the pure sjcl
implementation.
- The pattern of AeroGear.js without the use of new keyword must be
followed. Ex:
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/blob/master/src/pipeline/aerogear.pipeline.js#L67
- More user friendly interface could be provided like:
AeroGear.encrypt("blah");
AeroGear.decrypt( cipherText );
- Built as a separated module
# API initial definition/decision (draft)
## Encryption
- Key generation process for encryption "automatically" or explicity?
- Automagically
AeroGear.encrypt("blah"); //key is generated behind the scenes
AeroGear.privateKey; // could provide the generated key
- Explicit (+1 from my side)
var myKey = AeroGear.generateKey;
AeroGear.encrypt(mykey, "blah");
## Decryption
- Option 1
AeroGear.privateKey = myKey
AeroGear.decrypt(nonsenseciphertext);
- Option 2
AeroGear.decrypt(mykey, nonsenseciphertext);
## Open questions
- Do we need a separate repository?
- Would the keys be automatically generated by default during the
encryption process?
- What would be the best way to provide the keys for encryption?
- Will the AG JS crypto library be tied to AeroGear JS? For example:
Users just looking for crypto, could make use of our work?
> Kris Borchers <mailto:kris at redhat.com>
> September 23, 2013 3:07 PM
> On Sep 23, 2013, at 1:04 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> 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,
>
> That would be fine. We could build it as a separate module that just gets tacked onto Core if they want it that way they can leave it and sjcl out if they don't want it.
>>>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> Lucas Holmquist <mailto:lholmqui at redhat.com>
> September 23, 2013 3:04 PM
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> Kris Borchers <mailto:kris at redhat.com>
> September 23, 2013 3:01 PM
> 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. :)
>>> 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
> Kris Borchers <mailto:kris at redhat.com>
> September 23, 2013 2:40 PM
> 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.
>> 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
> Bruno Oliveira <mailto:bruno at abstractj.org>
> September 20, 2013 12:05 PM
> 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.
>
> - 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. 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);
>
> 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.
>
> - What is the best way to package this library? Bower?
>
> Thoughts?
>
--
abstractj
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20130923/13b8d596/attachment-0001.bin
More information about the aerogear-dev
mailing list