- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:45:40 +0100
- To: Deian Stefan <deian@cs.stanford.edu>
- Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, WebAppSec WG <public-webappsec@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Deian Stefan <deian@cs.stanford.edu> wrote: > I am implementing CSP for Workers in Firefox, but like to get a > clarification on workers and the sandbox flag. Currently, a Worker can > inherit or be accompanied by a CSP header. As written, the implications > of the sandbox directive on the Worker context is not clear. > > [Following up on https://github.com/w3c/webappsec/issues/69] > > Arguably most of the sandbox flags don't make sense for Workers, but the > empty directive (i.e., just sandbox) and sandbox allow-same-origin can > have reasonable semantics. So, if a Worker inherits the CSP from the > owner document (or parent worker in later specs) or is accompanied by a > CSP header which has the 'sandbox' directive, should the worker script's > origin be set to a unique origin? Or should we just ignore (and > appropriately warn about) the sandbox flag for Workers and address the > need for sandboxed Workers separately? This would affect what a worker can fetch, what storage it has access to, and which permissions it has (e.g. can it display a notification). Might be an interesting way to run untrusted code. But if we are going to do something like this Ian would have to define how the sandbox directives affect a worker environment. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 08:46:10 UTC