- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 11:19:00 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:10:43 +0200, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> > wrote: >> Since Jonas didn't e-mail about this I thought I would. Say >> http://x.example/x does a request to http://y.example/y. >> http://y.example/y redirects to http://x.example/y. If this request >> were to use the Access Control specification the algorithm would have >> a status return flag set to "same-origin" and a url return flag set to >> http://x.example/y. XMLHttpRequest Level 2 would then attempt a same >> origin request to http://x.example/y. >> >> For simplicity and to err on the side of security it has been >> suggested to remove the status return flag "same-origin" and simply >> keep following the normal rules. This would mean that if that request >> were to be successful http://x.example/y would need to include >> Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://x.example (or a value * would also >> be ok if the credentials flag is false). I'm planning on making this >> change in the next few days. > > I updated both Access Control and XMLHttpRequest Level 2 to no longer > special case the scenario where during a non same origin request you're > redirected to a same origin URL. Both specifications use the "status > flag" (previously known as the "status return flag") and the "url return > flag" is gone. I think this the is better of the two alternatives. The scenario that I am worried about is a page on server sensitive.com reads public data from evil.com. However if evil.com redirects back to a private resource on sensitive.com sensitive.com might be dealing with sensitive user-private data without being aware of it. This seems scary and could lead to the data being stored or published somewhere unsafe. Things still aren't perfect since it's strange that a site has to trust itself. And that if it does it'd be back in the somewhat scary situation described above, but it's at least somewhat better IMHO. / Jonas
Received on Monday, 6 October 2008 18:21:58 UTC