W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: [cors] Possible need for a "Destination" Header

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:22:39 +0100
To: "Mike Chack (mchack)" <mchack@cisco.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.uphtv1o764w2qv@unknown-00-1d-4f-fa-48-ab.lan>
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:14:10 +0100, Mike Chack (mchack) <mchack@cisco.com>  
wrote:
> Unless I am missing something, there seems to be a security hole with
> the current proposal. If a site has been hacked then malicous code can
> send content to any site that abides by the access control policies.  It
> is up to the destination site to accept the request, and in the case of
> a nefarious destination, would most certainly do so. Wouldn't it also
> make sense to have some policy control from the origination site that
> would limit where requests could be made. This could be done in the form
> of a "Desitnation" Header that would give more control over where
> XmlHttp requests could be directed.

I'm not sure I follow. If a site has been hacked, why would it still  
control the "Destination" header? Note that if a site is hacked and wants  
to distribute data to evilpartner.com it already has lots of ways to do  
that e.g. through <img src>, <form action>, <iframe src>, etc.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2009 11:23:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:30 GMT