- From: Tanvi Vyas <tanvi@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 14:14:06 -0700
- To: public-web-security@w3.org, marc.stern@approach.be
Or, you may be thinking of the "frame-ancestors" directive: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Security/CSP/CSP_policy_directives#frame-ancestors This directive was dropped from the CSP 1.0 spec (I believe because X-Frame-Options was already in use). It is still implemented in the firefox codebase [1]. If the browser see's both the X-Frame-Options header and the frame-ancestors directive, it will enforce the strictest subset of the two policies. For frame-ancestors, if any of the ancestors are not in the allowed list, the document won't render. For X-Frame-Options, it doesn't look like all ancestors are checked unless "AllAncestors" flag is included: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gondrom-frame-options-02. ~Tanvi [1] http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/content/base/src/CSPUtils.jsm#189 On 5/1/12 11:00 AM, Tanvi Vyas wrote: > Hi Marc, > > You may be thinking of the X-Frame-Options header: > https://developer.mozilla.org/en/The_X-FRAME-OPTIONS_response_header > > This header tells browsers whether or not to allow your site to be > iframed. There are only two options though; DENY and SAMEORIGIN. > > ~Tanvi > > On 5/1/12 10:27 AM, Adam Barth wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Marc Stern<marc.stern@approach.be> >> wrote: >>> If I allow my page on "mysite.com" to be embedded with "frame-src >>> othersite.com" and the container page on "othersite.com" is >>> embedded in a >>> page from "othersite2.com", FF 12 complains that my page on >>> "mysite.com" >>> cannot be embedded in "othersite2.com". >> This description seems somewhat backwards. The frame-src directive >> controls what iframes your document can contain not the contexts in >> which your document can be embedded. >> >>> 1. Is this the intention? >>> 2. This should be documented >>> 3. What's the best behaviour? >>> If I allow embedding in "othersite.com" and "othersite.com" allows >>> embedding in "othersite2.com", shouldn't it be accepted? >> CSP currently doesn't have any mechanism for controlling where your >> document can be embedded. It can only control the location from which >> you can load resources. >> >> Adam >> >> >>> It seems unrealistic to me to manage the relationship between >>> "othersite.com" and "othersite2.com". >>> On the other end, if "othersite.com" does not implement correctly CSP >>> headers, this will allow embedding of "othersite.com" in any site >>> and put my >>> security in peril. >>> Or maybe an additional option to specify multi-level embedding >>> behaviour >>> (ex: "frame-accept-multilevel") >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Marc >>> >>> >>> >
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 15:07:56 UTC