Skip to content
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

Include Known Accelerometer Privacy Exposures in Accelerometer Document #30

Closed
jasonanovak opened this issue Jan 2, 2018 · 3 comments
Closed
Assignees

Comments

@jasonanovak
Copy link

At the review of the Sensors API at TPAC 2017, PING and the Sensors WG discussed including known privacy exposures for a given sensor, e.g. the use of the gyroscope as a microphone, in the W3C specification for that specific sensor as opposed to incorporating the exposure by reference. The goal of doing so is that an implementer of the specific sensor API would see the specific privacy exposure — and mitigations — for a sensor in the spec for that sensor API.

In the case of accelerometer, that would entail incorporating a reference to the fingerprinting risk that accelerometers pose, e.g. http://synrg.csl.illinois.edu/papers/AccelPrint_NDSS14.pdf. For mitigations, the proposed mitigations in the Generic Sensor API specification could be brought over or referenced.

@alexshalamov
Copy link

@jasonanovak The research paper is very interesting and definitely worth mentioning. However, it describes generic device fingerprinting attack vector that is identified in https://w3c.github.io/sensors/#device-fingerprinting, therefore, it would be better to add reference to it in the generic sensor specification.

@anssiko
Copy link
Member

anssiko commented Feb 28, 2018

@jasonanovak, thank you for your review comments. If PING has any further questions or comments, please let us know. If we don't hear from you we assume you're fine with the proposed resolution: w3c/sensors#346

@anssiko
Copy link
Member

anssiko commented Mar 13, 2018

For the record, here's a summary of changes the group did to resolve this issue:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
3 participants