- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:09:21 -0600
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: Kornel <kornel@geekhood.net>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: > 1) So, is the text/html-sandboxed itself simply a security myth - since > it doesn't solve e.g. SQL injection? No? SQL injection is red herring and I still have no idea why it was brought up. It is a server-side issue concerning user-input and server-side databases. It it *never* something that can be affected by client-side measures of *any* kind, even theoretically. It is so far from being relevant to the discussion as to be patently ridiculous. > 2) If not, why not data URIs? Mark-up in attributes is an anti-pattern. > PHP _can_ handle URI escaping. And it isn't meant that authors hand > code this. I'm not sure how markup in attributes is any worse than a data url, which contains precisely the same data and is in an attribute. The only difference is the name of the attribute and the escaping requirements. (There are a few practical differences between how data urls currently work and how @srcdoc works that can be significant, but they're not relevant to this particular concern of yours.) > 3) If we really don't find data URIs satisfying, then have all > "tricks" other than @srcdoc been exhausted? I am not very much into > the security issues here - thus I am not really certain what I > supposedly solve by using whether @srcdoc or a data URI. I mean, > malicious code could read into @srcdoc, not? > > However, when I look at e.g. > > <iframe><p>code</p></iframe> > > in Live DOM Viewer (using Webkit), then the <p> element is rendered in > the DOM as text. Can children element of <iframe> still be a security > concern? Why? (See, I don't understand anything of this.) If it can't, > then isn't that something to build on? Could one have a <srcdoc> > element as optional child of <iframe> for keeping the code, and where > it could be kept unescaped? What hinders this? No, as you'd have to escape unmatched "</iframe>"s in the content, which is more difficult than either @srcdoc or data url escaping. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 25 January 2010 20:10:08 UTC