Re: Trusted proxy UI strawman

Le Lun 16 juin 2014 21:47, William Chan (陈智昌) a écrit :
> On Jun 16, 2014 2:19 PM, <bizzbyster@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I don't follow what you are saying about security issues around caching
> sub resources for active content? How is it different from when trusted
> proxy is not active?
>
> Let's say I visit https://foo.com which uses a jQuery URL (perhaps hosted
> by a CDN like Google's). A MITM proxy can cause a non-canonical version of
> jQuery to be cached.

This seems a strawman for me – if you've gone to the length of checking
external code is safe from a security POW it is *idiotic* not to host the
checked version on your own site instead of relying on an external
reference.

OTOH if you're referencing something from a third party, you've already
delegated your security and adding a proxy to the mix is not going to
change a lot to the situation. And don't tell me the people who do this
monitor the reference to check for changes and audit those changes.

And you can argue you trust the third party more than the proxy, but
that's *your* opinion not necessarily the opinion of your users so the
transitive trust issue was opened up the moment js hosting was delegated
to a third party. Current browser UI does not inform users that when they
visit nicecite.com they're really executing monitoring.js from
bigbrother.com.

The nice thing about proxying is that is exposes all the trust issues
caused by mashing up resources without thinking about the security
aspects, instead of burying them in the browser cache where no one thinks
to look before it's too late.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2014 11:49:32 UTC