-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 115
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Alternative storage for RTCCertificates needed #2944
Comments
This issue was discussed in WebRTC March 26 2024 meeting – 26 March 2024 (Alternative storage for RTCCertificates neededWebRTC API) |
https://storage.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-storagemanager-persist was mentioned but this (if I understand it) doesn't differentiate between RTCCertificates and anything else in IndexedDB. I notice the slides have a typo (which I unfortunately wasn't there to correct) This clearly differentiates RTCCertificates from other IndexedDB contents - and puts them in the same category as DRM media keys, which may be appropriate. |
For additional motivation, read https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.369872/gov.uscourts.cand.369872.735.0.pdf |
I do not see certificates as largely different from other stored data. It might be good to discuss this area in a forum focusing on privacy, like the privacy CG for instance. |
The difference is that a page cannot extract an RTCCertificate and back it up server side (or locally) - unlike anything else in indexedDB. |
Sure and this was made by design.
If there is a need to get some data from the server, it seems half of the signaling channel is already set up. Also, it still allows a web site to query this non IDB store, thus weakening the privacy. |
Due to fingerprinting concerns the lifespan of IndexedDb may be significantly shorter than the certificate expiry. (Safari: 1 week vs 1 year). It would be useful to have an alternative way to persist RTCCertificates that at least matched the expiry.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: