W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > February 2013

Re: [whatwg] Sandboxed IFrames and downloads.

From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:08:35 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKXHy=exj5SjiUiwFxdypd0HQrSPpHnaPFA5rQg0MWH1gU-GPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: whatwg@whatwg.org
Ping. Is this a terrible idea? :)

--
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, Feb 2, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:

> It's currently possible to force a download by serving a file with a
> "Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=..." header. Notably, this
> mechanism can be used to download a file with minimal user interaction by
> including the resource to be downloaded in an IFrame. This holds even for
> sandboxed IFrames, as demonstrated by
> http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/sandboxed.html (clicking that link will
> download a file, fair warning).
>
> It seems consistent with the general thought behind the `sandbox`
> attribute that it should control downloads as well as the bits it already
> locks down. I'd propose adjusting the spec to include a sandboxed downloads
> flag, which, when present, would block all downloads from inside the frame
> (or, perhaps only require user confirmation?). This restriction could be
> lifted via an 'allow-downloads' keyword, if present in the sandbox
> attribute's token list.
>
> WDYT?
>
> --
> 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
>
Received on Friday, 15 February 2013 08:09:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:19 UTC