[aerogear-dev] Passphrase encryption - REST API discussion

[Matthias Wessendorf]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Bruno Oliveira <bruno at abstractj.org> wrote:

> nswers inline.
>
> --
> abstractj
>
> On March 13, 2014 at 10:29:48 AM, Matthias Wessendorf (matzew at apache.org)
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Bruno Oliveira wrote:
> >
> > > Ahoy, regarding the HTTP header we can move it to the body. What would
> you
> > > suggest?
> > >
> >
> > No, I'd like to avoid that protected header/body at all :-)
> >
> > But... if the server really can not figure out if cert. and its
> passphrase
> > are encrypted, I guess I can live w/ it - for now.
> > Ideally the SEND API stays unchanged
>
> We can if we add one step further. Let me put the new idea in a gist (
> https://gist.github.com/abstractj/55905ed53fce2ca22388).
>
> If developer requested a key pair, we create a new one for that
> PushApplicationID and check it on Sender if exists a key pair for that
> application. Into this way we make encryption totally optional.
>
> Does it make sense?
>

Not sure I fully understand - let's see :)

Steps (the encryption case):
1) create/register Push Application
2) request the optional publicKey
3) use the public key (w/ some tool) to encrtypt the certificate together
with its passphrase
4) on iOS variant, I provide the encrypted certificate and the encrypted
passphrase
5) For sending: use the same CURL as today - internally it checks: Does
pushApp contain publicKey - if YES, do the decryption dance;


So that basically means: if I execute 2) (request the publicKey),
submitting encrypted certificate/passphrase is now required

So, yeah that sounds good to me


>
> > > >
> > > > encrptyed w/ the help of the public-key ?
> > >
> > > Totally correct
> > >
> >
> > Ok, good. Oh, question: do we provide a tool for the encryption?
>
> Sure thing, I'm all for make it easy.
>



yay!



>
> > > Correct. But with we agree on the flag, might be necessary to include
> > > something like "protected: true" as optional argument. Or any other
> thing
> > > to let the server know.
> > >
> >
> > yeah, I see. Hrm - not sure I like the flag :-)
> > Perhaps there is a way (at least for the "long run") that the server
> gets:
> > Ah, it is encrypted (or not).
> >
> > As said the flag is not the end of the world - I just try to make the
> > "SEND" as simple as possible :)
>
> If we agree on that gist, we don't need this flag anymore.
>
> Let me know what do you guys think about the idea.
>

I *think* it sounds good ;-)

-Matthias


-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20140313/2011e13b/attachment-0001.html