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
Message from discussion Content Security Policy - final call for comments
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
 
Gervase Markham  
View profile  
 More options Apr 7 2009, 7:01 am
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.security
From: Gervase Markham <g...@mozilla.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:01:42 +0100
Local: Tues, Apr 7 2009 7:01 am
Subject: Re: Content Security Policy - final call for comments
On 06/04/09 18:12, Sid Stamm wrote:

> Personally, I don't like the idea of honoring redirects for logging...
> if a meta tag can be injected into a page (with a CSP header or not) and
> the site hosts an open redirect, suddenly cookies can be stolen from all
> visitors to a site.

Surely not? If Site Angelic redirects to Site Be-Evil, We don't send
Angelic's cookies to Be-Evil, do we? Or have I missed something? You may
need to describe the attack scenario in more detail for my small brain.

> While it's true that this would be easy to implement, I think we need to
> set a limit. We don't want to spawn off 100 requests every time a policy
> is violated. If that happens, attackers could leverage the reporting
> mechanism in CSP to flood a network with traffic.

But are there not easier ways of doing this - injecting <img> tags for
100 images on the target server, for example? Given that the reports are
so small, I can't see how anyone would want to use it as a DOS mechanism.

We should set a limit. I'm just wondering whether "2" is the most
convenient limit.

> I'm not convinced that
> widespread use will demand more than two report URIs, and it's not
> difficult to set up that report URI recipient service to fork copies to
> multiple other destinations.

True. It's not a big deal.

> I think the intention for requiring the allow directive was to force the
> policy-writer into writing out the default case to minimize possibility
> for false assumptions. I'm not sure though.

Fair enough. As long as the JS console/error report says something
sensible if it's missing.

Gerv


 
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.