W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-security@w3.org > October 2015

Re: A Somewhat Critical View of SOP (Same Origin Policy)

From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 05:28:33 +0200
To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
Cc: Tony Arcieri <bascule@gmail.com>, GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com>, "henry.story@bblfish.net" <henry.story@bblfish.net>, "public-web-security@w3.org" <public-web-security@w3.org>
Message-ID: <560CA861.2000202@gmail.com>
On 2015-09-28 23:29, Alex Russell wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com wrote:
>>     I don't see why a proper implementation of Native Messaging couldn't together
 >>     with an equally properly written native extension indeed support SOP.
> If by "proper implementation" you mean bi-directional attestation that the
 > native service trusts the origin and that the origin expects a conversation
 > with said service (cryptographically), plus mediation by the browser, plus
 > exposure to sites directly, then yes that could work -- but not if hosted
 > inside the Extensions platforms as currently understood.

No, that's not my definition of proper implementation.  It is rather based
on using OS-level assurances that the two end-points (calling web-page,
and native application) are authentic.

That is, it up to the browser/OS to only permit browser-hosted web-pages
calling native extensions which also must be vetted for this kind of
use as well as featuring a manifest that is enforced by the browser/OS.
This should be pretty close to what Android intents do.

Attesting something to the origin service would [maybe] be cool but this
applies to any kind of client application (including browsers) which
is something I gladly leave to the TrustedComputingGroup to cater for :-)

> Which is the long way of saying that citing Native Messaging in this page
 > is either misdirection regarding the current feature or re-definition of
 > terms to mean a hoped-for (but not proposed or implemented) separate feature.

It was probably a mistake mentioning it in the Wiki.

Regarding proposals I have done considerable efforts getting an open discussion
but it didn't go anywhere.  Mozilla and Microsoft apparently intend to implement
Native Messaging "as is" in Chrome without further ado.   IMO, the current system
does not meet reasonable security-, deployment- and functionality-requirements.


> Neither are useful in the context of this discussion.
>     I never said this is what the world wants, I only pointed out this as a possibility.  U2F could for example have been supported this way.
>     https://github.com/cyberphone/web2native-bridge#api
>         In an area where there is not only rough consensus and running code, but precise definitions, specifications, and a common nomenclature, this document does a lot of redefining of terms (most notably SOP itself), that is when it's not making slippery slope arguments around the security guarantees SOP can provide and suggesting we give up because SOP is not the universal panacea for all problems.
>         I can cite some specific examples for the curious, but I'm not going to run the gish gallop.
>         My only real request for this Wiki page is it be given a more appropriate name, like "Criticisms of the Same-Origin Policy" (which this document confusingly and repeatedly calls "Single-Origin Policy", itself a testiment to the overall degree of misunderstanding happening here)
>         [1]: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
>         --
>         Tony Arcieri
Received on Thursday, 1 October 2015 03:29:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 1 October 2015 03:29:11 UTC