Re: UMP / CORS: Implementor Interest

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Jonas Sicking <> wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Tyler Close <> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Jonas Sicking <> wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Devdatta <> wrote:
>>>> While most of the discussion in this thread is just repeats of
>>>> previous discussions, I think Tyler makes a good (and new) point in
>>>> that the current CORS draft still has no mention of the possible
>>>> security problems that Tyler talks about. The current draft's security
>>>> section
>>>> is ridiculous considering the amount of discussion that has taken
>>>> place on this issue on this mailing list.
>>>> Before going to rec, I believe Anne needs to substantially improve
>>>> this section - based on stuff from maybe Maciej's presentation - which
>>>> I found really informative. He could also cite UMP as a possible
>>>> option for those worried about security.
>>> I agree that the security section in CORS needs to be improved.
>>> As for the "should CORS exist" discussion, I'll bow out of those until
>>> we're starting to move towards officially adopting a WG decision one
>>> way or another, or genuinely new information is provided which would
>>> affect such a decision (for the record, I don't think I've seen any
>>> new information provided since last fall's TPAC).
>> A smart guy once told me that "You can't tell people anything",
>> meaning they have to experience it for themselves before they really
>> get it. Has Mozilla tried to build anything non-trivial using CORS
>> where cookies + Origin are the access control mechanism? If so, I'll
>> do a security review of it and we'll see what we learn.
> Not to my knowledge, no. I believe we use CORS for tinderboxpushlog
> [1], however since that is only dealing with public data I don't
> believe it uses cookies or Origin headers.

Does anyone have something?


"Waterken News: Capability security on the Web"

Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 22:16:57 UTC