W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: [cors] unaddressed security concerns

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:56:56 +0200
To: "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org>
Cc: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Arthur Barstow" <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u1ow06is64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:50:07 +0200, Jonathan Rees  
<jar@creativecommons.org> wrote:
> If access to resources weren't controlled (i.e. secure in the face of
> realistic risks), why would you deploy the feature?

The feature is there to enable resources talking to each other in  
cross-origin fashion in a way that does not compromise existing servers.  
It's not about access control. (That's why I renamed the draft and all.)

>> Then again, I think this was explained before as well, so I kind of  
>> have the
>> feeling we are going around in circles.
> That you are going around in circles is an accurate assessment. I
> recommend you open an issue in your tracker for this, if you haven't
> already, and that the next time you ask the W3C membership to review a
> draft, if you haven't resolved the issue, that you include a note that
> a possible vulnerability has been identified, but that there isn't
> agreement in the WG over whether it is a real vulnerability; or if it
> is, whether it needs to be addressed. [sorry, can't figure out how to
> make that easier to read.]

So far the WG does not think there is a vulnerability as far as I can  
tell. And neither do the security teams of the implementors.

> The stakes are pretty high here, so you want to make all reasonable
> efforts to ensure that the practice you're thinking of Recommending
> really is something that ought to be Recommended (as opposed to just
> something that's already being Done).


> And I think we'll all learn something if we get to the bottom of this!
> Think of your struggle to get consensus as an opportunity, not an
> annoyance.

I think if we want to get closer to consensus the party raising concerns  
needs to be much more concrete as to what the problem is.

If there is a problem I certainly like to fix it. (My apologies for coming  
over as annoyed, I'm not. Just somewhat confused.)

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Monday, 12 October 2009 13:57:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:20 UTC