Internet DRAFT - draft-coolidge-enhanced-data-protection
draft-coolidge-enhanced-data-protection
Network Working Group M. Coolidge
Internet-Draft CoolTech Inc.
Intended status: Informational 3 April 2023
Expires: 5 October 2023
Enhanced Data Protection via Cryptographic Signing and Permission-based
Labeling
draft-coolidge-enhanced-data-protection-00
Abstract
This document proposes an enhanced approach to data protection for
computer applications by requiring them to cryptographically sign or
label data generated using granted permissions. This would allow the
host system to manage the storage and transport of generated data,
ensuring a granular level of control and ultimately protecting user
data more effectively.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 5 October 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Coolidge Expires 5 October 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Data Protection via Cryptograph April 2023
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Detailed Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
This document proposes an enhanced approach to data protection for
computer applications by requiring them to cryptographically sign or
label data generated using granted permissions. This would allow the
host system to manage the storage and transport of generated data,
ensuring a granular level of control and ultimately protecting user
data more effectively.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. Detailed Mechanism
The proposed data protection mechanism can be further explained
through the following components:
Coolidge Expires 5 October 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Data Protection via Cryptograph April 2023
3.1. Permission Request and Granting
Computer applications MUST explicitly request permissions from
the host system to access certain resources (e.g., microphone,
camera, location). The host system SHALL evaluate the request
based on predefined criteria and grant the necessary permissions
if deemed appropriate.
3.2. Cryptographic Signing and Labeling
For each granted permission, the computer application MUST sign
or label the data it generates accordingly. The host system
SHALL provide a unique identifier for each permission, which can
be used by the application to sign or label the data.
3.3. Data Storage and Transport Management
The host system SHALL manage the storage and transport of the
generated data based on the application's permissions and the
cryptographic signature or label. This includes determining
whether the data can be stored locally, transferred over a
network, or shared with other applications.
3.4. User Control
Users SHOULD have the ability to review and modify the
permissions granted to applications and the corresponding rules
for data storage and transport. This gives users more control
over their data and helps prevent unauthorized access or misuse.
4. Use Cases
The enhanced mechanism can be applied to various scenarios:
4.1. Audio Recording
When an application uses the microphone permission to generate a
file or data stream, the host operating system may allow the
application to store this data locally but deny the application
when attempting to upload the data. The default setting could
be to deny the transfer of unsigned or unlabeled data, thus
protecting user data by default.
4.2. Device Information
When data is generated with permissions that allow for obtaining
device information, the host system may choose to allow the data
to be stored or transported, as it is considered less sensitive.
4.3. Cloud Storage and Synchronization
When an application attempts to store data on a cloud storage
service or synchronize data across multiple devices, the host
system can use the cryptographic signature or label to determine
whether the data is allowed to be uploaded or synced.
Coolidge Expires 5 October 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Data Protection via Cryptograph April 2023
4.4. Third-Party Application Integration
When an application shares data with another application or
third-party service, the host system can verify the
cryptographic signature or label to ensure that the data is
being shared with an authorized entity and in compliance with
the granted permissions.
4.5. Data Deletion and Archiving
The host system can use the cryptographic signature or label to
determine when and how data should be deleted or archived,
ensuring that sensitive data is not retained longer than
necessary and in accordance with the user's preferences.
5. Implementation Considerations
Implementing the proposed mechanism requires changes to both the host
system and the computer applications. Host systems need to be
updated to support permission-based cryptographic signing and
labeling, as well as enhanced data storage and transport management.
Computer applications must be modified to request permissions, sign
or label data accordingly, and adhere to the host system's data
storage and transport rules.
6. Security Considerations
The enhanced approach provides an additional layer of security by
ensuring that data generated by applications is properly signed or
labeled based on the granted permissions. This allows for more
granular control over the storage, transfer, and processing of
sensitive user data, reducing the risk of unauthorized access or
misuse. However, it is crucial to ensure that the cryptographic
signing and labeling process is secure and cannot be tampered with by
malicious applications or external actors.
7. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA actions.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
8.2. Informative References
Coolidge Expires 5 October 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Enhanced Data Protection via Cryptograph April 2023
[RFC4949] Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2",
FYI 36, RFC 4949, DOI 10.17487/RFC4949, August 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4949>.
[RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973>.
Author's Address
Max Coolidge
CoolTech Inc.
38 Innovation Way
Silicon Valley, CA 94025
United States of America
Coolidge Expires 5 October 2023 [Page 5]
