7:05 a.m.
On Sep 23, 2013, at 2:38 PM, Sébastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Do we also plan to use this encrypt/decrypt module when storing data
using our datastore facilities ?
I thought that was kind of obvious that this would be an option.
If yes, it could be nice to be able to do as with the pipes and the authenticator :
passing a "Encryptor" instance to a Store …
I would rather just do something like pass in an encryptionKey or something like that
which would tell the store to do encryption/decryption and not have to instantiate a
crypto object.
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le Sep 23, 2013 à 21:31, Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org> a écrit :
> 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...
>
> - 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@redhat.com>
>> September 23, 2013 3:07 PM
>> On Sep 23, 2013, at 1:04 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 23, 2013, at 2:01 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 23, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 20, 2013, at 10:05 AM, Bruno Oliveira
<bruno(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>> Lucas Holmquist <mailto:lholmqui@redhat.com>
>> September 23, 2013 3:04 PM
>> On Sep 23, 2013, at 2:01 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 23, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 20, 2013, at 10:05 AM, Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>> Kris Borchers <mailto:kris@redhat.com>
>> September 23, 2013 3:01 PM
>> On Sep 23, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 20, 2013, at 10:05 AM, Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>> Kris Borchers <mailto:kris@redhat.com>
>> September 23, 2013 2:40 PM
>> On Sep 20, 2013, at 10:05 AM, Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>> Bruno Oliveira <mailto:bruno@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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev