W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: HTTPbis and the Same Origin Policy

From: Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:00:56 -0800
Message-ID: <5691356f0911301100i7cdb3bd4i740f9eef4863c8eb@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Cc: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 5:17 PM, "Martin J. Dürst"
<duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
> On 2009/11/26 6:34, Tyler Close wrote:
>> My impression is that the undefined consensus understanding of the
>> Same Origin Policy incorporates the rule that no API (not just a
>> specific API, such as HTML form) can allow a cross-origin PUT, unless
>> the target resource has somehow opted out of SOP protection. This
>> rule, and others like it, are the source of much of the complexity in
>> CORS. These rules are not left to the application layer.
> If I write something like a webbot, I can execute whatever PUT requests (or
> other HTTP requests) I want, or can't I?

Depending on how your webbot obtains the target URL, it may be
violating the target resource's expectation for protection under SOP.
For example, ...

> An API such as libcurl
> (http://curl.haxx.se/libcurl/) doesn't contain any such restrictions, or
> does it?

If you use libcurl to send a PUT request and the target resource
responds with a 307, which libcurl then automatically follows, you may
have violated the target resource's expectation of protection under
SOP. Consider a webbot that sends a PUT request to a resource on the
open Internet, which responds with a 307 to a resource behind the same
firewall as the webbot. The webbot has essentially punched a hole in
the firewall.


"Waterken News: Capability security on the Web"
Received on Monday, 30 November 2009 19:01:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:52 UTC