Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
mozilla.dev.security
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Content Security Policy Spec questions and feedback
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Daniel Veditz  
View profile  
 More options Jul 7 2009, 7:59 pm
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.security
From: Daniel Veditz <dved...@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:59:45 -0700
Local: Tues, Jul 7 2009 7:59 pm
Subject: Re: Content Security Policy Spec questions and feedback
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Sid Stamm wrote:
>> Also, the “blocked-headers” is defined as required, but not all
>> schemes (specifically, FTP and FILE) do not use headers.
> Removed the requirement to send "request-headers" from the XML schema
> (implied optional).

Just jumping off here on a related topic: What do we send as the
"blocked-uri" when we find inline script? Since this is perhaps the most
common injection type this would be a good one for an example.

I suppose we could leave blocked-uri empty and let people infer that it
was inline script from the violated directive. I'd rather be explicit
about it, but then "blocked-uri" might be the wrong name. Or do we leave
the blocked-uri empty (absent, or present-but-empty?) and use a keyword
like <violated-directive>inline script</violated-directive>

For clarification, if the entire policy was "allow self othersite.com"
and we tried to load an image in violation of that policy, would the
violated-directive be the implied img-src or the allow fall-back that is
actually specified? I imagine it would be the allow directive.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google