- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:22:39 +0100
- To: "Mike Chack (mchack)" <mchack@cisco.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:14:10 +0100, Mike Chack (mchack) <mchack@cisco.com> wrote: > Unless I am missing something, there seems to be a security hole with > the current proposal. If a site has been hacked then malicous code can > send content to any site that abides by the access control policies. It > is up to the destination site to accept the request, and in the case of > a nefarious destination, would most certainly do so. Wouldn't it also > make sense to have some policy control from the origination site that > would limit where requests could be made. This could be done in the form > of a "Desitnation" Header that would give more control over where > XmlHttp requests could be directed. I'm not sure I follow. If a site has been hacked, why would it still control the "Destination" header? Note that if a site is hacked and wants to distribute data to evilpartner.com it already has lots of ways to do that e.g. through <img src>, <form action>, <iframe src>, etc. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2009 11:23:28 UTC