- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:09:34 -0700
- To: "Hill, Brad" <bhill@paypal-inc.com>
- Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
Oh, don't get me wrong, the "attachment" use case is great for the sandbox directive. Adam On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Hill, Brad <bhill@paypal-inc.com> wrote: > Unless it's a content-type with by-design DOM-access. (java, swf, js, pdf, etc.) This is a really common problem in systems designed to serve attachments and user uploaded content: webmail, bulletin boards, sharepoint, etc. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adam Barth [mailto:w3c@adambarth.com] >> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 6:01 PM >> To: Hill, Brad >> Cc: public-webappsec@w3.org >> Subject: Re: XSS through content-sniffing: good case for CSP sandbox >> directive >> >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Hill, Brad <bhill@paypal-inc.com> wrote: >> > http://www.garage4hackers.com/f11/gmail-xss-vulnerability-through-cont >> > ent-sniffing-2094.html?postcount=1 >> > >> > A good example of the type of bug we could reduce the impact of with a >> > sandbox directive in CSP. >> >> Or IE could just implement http://mimesniff.spec.whatwg.org/ and avoid all >> these vulnerabilities. >> >> Adam
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 01:10:34 UTC