I think he was only (or mostly) talking about the latter, which I would agree isn't very complicated at all (it's just deleting and regenerating keys/certs on an interval).
As to the former, are you referring to specific known side channel attacks against asm.js/wasm, or just the usual XSS risk?
One would hope that the founder of the company trying to bring that weird secure caching attempt to market would believe that it wasn't very complicated. :)
Of course, if you've filed for patents on this, as was suggested upthread, that somewhat cuts against that argument, doesn't it?
lol, I'm definitely biased given that I'm long since familiar with the idea and wrote the implementation, but I think it's more conceptually counterintuitive/clever/weird than it is actually complicated in terms of having many moving parts.
WebSign does have a patent pending on it (I think it's fair enough to say that the whole system of accomplishing in-browser code signing this way was non-obvious), but HPKP Suicide itself doesn't. Bryant (eganist) and I are actually disclosing and open sourcing implementations of a few non-code-signing applications of HPKP Suicide at Black Hat and DEF CON next month.
> WebSign does have a patent pending on it (I think it's fair enough to say that the whole system of accomplishing in-browser code signing this way was non-obvious),
As to the former, are you referring to specific known side channel attacks against asm.js/wasm, or just the usual XSS risk?