Re: gUM and persistent permissions

On 28 April 2014 11:52, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> We talked in the past about forbidding the persistence of permissions
> for non-secure origins (e.g., http://example.com).
>
> I know that we've talked about this on numerous occasions and we seem
> to have had agreement, but I can't find any record of it in the spec.

In the interests of forward progress, how about:

User agents MUST NOT rely on persisted permissions for origins that
are not strongly authenticated, such as "http" origins.  Such origins
can be trivially spoofed by a network attacker, which could be
exploited to gain access to media devices.

Throw in there anywhere.  Maybe in with Harald's newly proposed
security/privacy considerations.

Received on Monday, 28 April 2014 19:01:17 UTC