- From: Ingo Chao <ichaocssd@googlemail.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:23:05 +0100
- To: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
- Cc: Dan Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com>, "Eduardo' Vela" <evn@google.com>, public-webappsec@w3.org
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote: > The other side of that concern is leaking information about what extensions > a user has installed to the site owner. At the moment, that's an explicit > non-goal of the spec. I'm of the opinion that it should stay that way. > > What is the privacy impact that you're worried about? I'm not sure I > understand the use-case. > 1 An attacker who knows that a company uses addons (e.g. through inspection of the tracking pixels) may craft a special "update" to the addon and may try to distribute it to employees who are in charge of web analytics. Such an add-on may silently compromise the security of the company. 2 Users may install "useful" addons that, apart from phoning home, replace advertisements/other content in popular webpages. A CSP that informs the site owner about such interactions of the addon with the page could lead to certain actions. Without the CSP, the site owner will never know what happens. Currently, our security measure is to rely on the user's trust in the creator of the add-on. Ingo
Received on Monday, 29 October 2012 09:23:33 UTC