- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:22:15 -0500
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
On 2007-11-05 09:54:53 -0500, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> Well, Xforms is built around the notion of submitting data in >> XML to arbitrary destination URIs, and that spec enables >> automatic submission (through POST) even without use of >> Javascript. > You'd only be vulnerable if you'd have a) XForms support and b) > it does that. Seems rather theoretical and more a problem of > XForms. There are two points here: 1. There is a design decision at least in Xforms to enable cross-site POST with XML content. 1. You are "vulnerable" to a cross-site POST if your *user* has xforms support active. If you deploy a web application (or Web Service) that is vulnerable to cross-site POST with an XML content type, you probably have a problem. Together, these suggest to me that trying to avoid specifically XML content in unattended cross-site POST requests (if they are caused by XHR) is an exercise that's not worth the effort. >>>>> Servers will have to deal with cross-site <form> POST, but >>>>> probably don't deal with cross-site XMLHttpRequest POST. As such, >>>>> XMLHttpRequest POST is not guaranteed to be as "safe" as >>>>> cross-site <form> POST is. >>>> Please explain the differences from the perspective of the site that >>>> needs to handle these requests, and explain how they are relevant >>>> for the discussion at hand. >>> <form> POST is not relevant to the discussion at hand. >>> XMLHttpRequest POST follows the model with Method-Check, etc. >> You're not answering my question. > I don't understand it then, I suppose. Key words: "from the perspective of the site that needs to handle these requests" >> There is a difference between deploying a web application and >> deploying a different HTTP stack. > Well yes, some changes have to be made in order to support this. > This is not that complicated though with typical server-side > languages. We seemed to have a goal to do it all without server changes at some point. Seems that has been lost. -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 5 November 2007 15:22:25 UTC