Re: [w3c/manifest] Added security consideration advice for out-of-scope UI spoofing. (#748)

@dominickng:

> Despite the MAY language, it feels verbose, and describes a situation based on assumptions regarding a user agent's UX. The caveat of the ideal placement not being possible also contributes to the lack of utility given how many words there are. Could this simply be an addendum to the existing recommendation?
>
> > This UI SHOULD differ from any UI used when the document URL is within scope in order to make it obvious that the user is navigating off scope. This UI MAY be placed in a location outside of the control of the application context to mitigate spoofing.

I don't think we just want to state this as a normative requirement. The whole point of a security considerations section is to provide non-normative discussion that implementors may not have realised about security implications, to inform the implementation. (i.e., it is non-trivial to realise that showing UI inside a space that is normally occupied by client area is spoofable). I think we should move this "MAY" requirement up into the previous section, and make the security considerations section non-normative (which it really should be).

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/manifest/pull/748#issuecomment-445067407