Re: Fwd: Re: [Cryptography] Encryption opinion

On Mon, September 1, 2014 23:37, [email protected] wrote:
> So Alan, here's a question.
>
> Let's say I built a Web browser with the following properties:
>
> * No same-origin policy
> * No domain restrictions on HTTP requests
> * Local storage (of any form) only accessible to the specific page that
> created it (an equality function on URLs is defined)

You may not actually need a single equality function for that. If the
scripts on the page are aware of their own equality requirements, you
could allow for private storage at different granularities of equality
that the scripts may pick from.

> * Pages may grant one another access to local storage by sharing
> capabilities

Sounds promising, If only I had some more spare time the above two points
would be a great use-case for a ChromeOS fork that uses my (slowly)
ongoing work on RumpelstiltskinFs and friends ;-) Unfortunately my
spare-time night already be to small at the moment to even finish 
RumpelstiltskinFs itself any time soon :-(

Building a browser like that without filesystem support (from
RumpelstiltskinFs or otherwise) unfortunately defeats the whole idea of
having page-private storage, what I think indeed is an amazing concept.

> You would assert that all the currently popular patterns of commerce that
> make use of the ambient authority afforded by cookies can be conveniently
> and usably implemented?
>
> Ihab
> _______________________________________________
> cap-talk mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk
>