W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webappsec@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Trigger a DOM event/error when a CSP violation happens.

From: Eduardo' Vela <evn@google.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 10:11:57 -0800
Message-ID: <CAFswPa8ObjKvT01-Dd77NtJJzrt9C_Led9zaG4ybF5bRjJ5v6w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Cc: Daniel Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com>, public-webappsec@w3.org, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Could it be possible to get both? A report-uri and the DOM errors?

That way we can deploy one policy on a large set of apps and if we need to
debug one in particular we just ask that one to monitor the script.
On Nov 22, 2012 4:36 AM, "Mike West" <mkwst@google.com> wrote:

> I've talked to a few developers about deploying CSP, and the request for
> some form of violation DOM event has popped up several times. It's
> something I'd like to implement if we can find a good way of making it work.
>
> What do you think about making such a feature an opt-in portion of the
> policy by adding a `'self'` keyword to the `report-uri` directive? If the
> keyword is set, violation events would be fired at the
> `document.securityPolicy` object; if not, no violation events would fire
> for that policy.
>
> That mechanism might actually also give vendors a mechanism of directing
> violations of extensions' policies to the extension rather than the page by
> interpreting 'self' in some reasonable way.
>
> --
> Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, Developer Advocate
> Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany
> Google+: https://mkw.st/+, Twitter: @mikewest, Cell: +49 162 10 255 91
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Dan Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
>>  On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Eduardo' Vela <evn@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We have found a lot of challenges triaging reports to the point we are
>>>> considering disabling CSP since it's useless as we can't effectively
>>>> debug
>>>> it, this is very important for large scale applications.
>>>>
>>>
>> Are you trying to debug a broken application, or figure out where
>> injected content is coming from?
>>
>> I'm sympathetic to your need and it may be worth experimenting with, but
>> I would not want user-applied CSP to report to the page. At least not
>> detectably as a "CSP" error; if we want to fire normal existing onerror=
>> handlers for images that don't load that may be fine.
>>
>> I'm not sure what to do about extension-supplied CSP. Again, I would not
>> want it reporting to the page, but it would be handy if there were a way to
>> report it to the extension. I'm sure extensions can root around in the web
>> console messages and find it, but a more direct API might be good.
>>
>> Such APIs would be out of scope for this WG so I'd just like to state the
>> privacy principal that user-agent supplied policies do not report
>> violations to the originating server or page content. I'm not against
>> firing events at the page for violations of the page's own policy.
>>
>> -Dan Veditz
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2012 18:12:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 22 November 2012 18:12:25 GMT