W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: Possible addition to file API

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 10:20:03 -0400
Message-ID: <4C864A13.1060301@mit.edu>
To: J David Eisenberg <jdavid.eisenberg@gmail.com>
CC: public-webapps@w3.org
On 8/21/10 3:39 PM, J David Eisenberg wrote:
> Is it possible to extend the spec to allow a script to read any file that
> can been loaded as part of the HTML page, such as an<img/>?

That would be a security hole, sorry.

> I understand there are good security reasons for restricting file
> reads; you don't want someone else's web page to be able to go
> willy-nilly through your local hard disk and send all the information
> back to the Bad Guys. But this scenario is different; if you have
> loaded an<img/>, you must already have read permission for it

No.  The _user_ has read permissions for it.  Your site may well not.

> I'm just asking to be able to access its bits.

Right; that's what you can't have.

Note that if you _are_ allowed to have the image bits, you can just use 
XMLHttpRequest to get them, right?

> Precedent: think of<link rel="stylesheet" href="blah.css"/>; you have
> access to all the elements in that file via the DOM, and there's no
> security issue involved, even if it's a cross-domain href.

All the browsers I know that implement the CSSOM block cross-domain 
CSSOM access.  A few now go further and block certain cross-domain CSS 
loads period.

> That's because it is *not* an arbitrary file on the user's local file system;
> it's one that the author has explicitly specified and is allowed to
> read.

You seem to be assuming that the author who put in the <link> is the 
same entity who put up the CSS file.  This is precisely the assumption 
that fails in the cross-domain case.

> I think my suggestion here meets the same criteria. Am I missing
> something obvious on the security front?

Yes.  Reading information cross-domain without explicit opt-in by the 
domain being read from is a no-no, generally.

Received on Tuesday, 7 September 2010 14:20:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:11 UTC