W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > December 2015

Re: Issue #268: Iframe sandboxing options for gUM

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 16:03:19 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVxgadQpYZwm8nTRax5E-keaXrQm4bBQ3CUJry+ig60qw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
Cc: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
The options would seem to be:

1. do nothing
2. add an allow-usermedia label to the sandbox attribute, which would
block gUM calls if sandboxing was enabled, but leave it enabled
otherwise
3. add a disallow-usermedia label to the sandbox attribute, which
would block gUM calls only if the attribute and label were present
4. disable gUM by default and require the use of a new allow-usermedia
attribute to enable it

Note that 3 is quite irregular in that the sandbox attribute only has
"allow-x" labels currently.

I think that 2 is simplest.  It's least disruptive to existing uses,
while giving sites a way to prevent misuse.  However, 4 is the most
privacy-preserving and I can see a fairly good argument for it.

Of course, choosing option 2 is easier if we choose option 4 for issue
#267 (i.e., we key permissions on both top-level and iframe origin).

On 3 December 2015 at 22:26, Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> To make the discussion is this issue [1] more visible we move it to the
> list.
>
> [1] https://github.com/w3c/mediacapture-main/issues/268
>
Received on Friday, 4 December 2015 05:03:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 4 December 2015 05:03:50 UTC