W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > December 2015

Re: Issue #268: Iframe sandboxing options for gUM

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 16:40:40 +0100
To: public-media-capture@w3.org
Message-ID: <5661B3F8.8020006@alvestrand.no>
Den 04. des. 2015 08:02, skrev Stefan Håkansson LK:
> On 04/12/15 06:04, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> The options would seem to be:
>>
>> 1. do nothing
>> 2. add an allow-usermedia label to the sandbox attribute, which would
>> block gUM calls if sandboxing was enabled, but leave it enabled
>> otherwise
>> 3. add a disallow-usermedia label to the sandbox attribute, which
>> would block gUM calls only if the attribute and label were present
>> 4. disable gUM by default and require the use of a new allow-usermedia
>> attribute to enable it
>>
>> Note that 3 is quite irregular in that the sandbox attribute only has
>> "allow-x" labels currently.
>>
>> I think that 2 is simplest.  It's least disruptive to existing uses,
>> while giving sites a way to prevent misuse.  However, 4 is the most
>> privacy-preserving and I can see a fairly good argument for it.
> 
> This is where I end up too. It would be good to know many apps would 
> break by going with 4. If very few, 4 seems most compelling to me, but 
> if not 2 seems like the logical path.
> 
>>
>> Of course, choosing option 2 is easier if we choose option 4 for issue
>> #267 (i.e., we key permissions on both top-level and iframe origin).
> 
> I agree.

Would choosing double-keyed permission mean that if an iframe appears in
7 different contexts, the permissions will have to be stored 7 different
times?

Note that permission keying affects whether we're able to unify our
permissions model with the Permissions API model - that model doesn't
appear to consider iframes separately at all at the moment.

> 
>>
>> On 3 December 2015 at 22:26, Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> To make the discussion is this issue [1] more visible we move it to the
>>> list.
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-main/issues/268
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 4 December 2015 15:41:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 4 December 2015 15:41:10 UTC