- From: Tyler Close <tyler.close@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 09:29:25 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:54 AM, Anne van Kesteren<annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 03:39:19 +0200, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com> wrote: >> This use-case was the motivation for ADsafe, though any of the JavaScript >> sanitizers would do. >> >> Without some such sanitization technology, it remains unsafe to load >> untrusted ads directly on your page. Adam and I are still arguing fine >> points of just how unsafe, but there's no question that the answer is at >> least "too unsafe". >> >> With GuestXMLHttpRequest, such sanitized ads could be allowed to call >> home safely without being able to impersonate their containing page's origin. > > Why can such ads not be embedded using a seamless sandboxed <iframe> from HTML5? I think there are two main reasons: 1. ADsafe, Caja and others provide finer grained control over what the widget can do. 2. All ads/widgets are fetched by the same HTTP request that fetches the containing page. The overhead of a separate iframe per ad/widget was too much for the expected use-cases. --Tyler -- "Waterken News: Capability security on the Web" http://waterken.sourceforge.net/recent.html
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 16:30:02 UTC