- From: sec_ext <sec_ext@fb.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 22:36:56 +0000
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- CC: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
Hey Adam, Thanks for the clarification, my main concern was with the "if they wish to protect themselves against XSS" portion. Definitely aware of the other associated risks :) Thanks again On 3/19/12 3:25 PM, "Adam Barth" <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote: >On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:48 PM, sec_ext <sec_ext@fb.com> wrote: >> In the CSP specification, it states "authors should not include >> 'unsafe-inline' in their CSP policies if they wish to protect themselves >> against XSS." >> >> It is not entirely clear how allowing inline CSS ('style-src >> 'unsafe-inline';) can lead to XSS if you are blocking inline and >>external >> JS (script-src none;) >> >> Will 'script-src none' not block JS attempts in CSS? > >CSP forbids any JavaScript from being included in CSS, regardless of >what policy you use. > >> Does it depend on how the spec is implemented (per browser basis)? > >As far as I know, all modern browsers have already removed the ability >to run script from CSS. > >> Or, does the spec need to be >> re-worded to mention that the aforementioned sentence is only applicable >> to the script-src directive? > >There is a security risk to letting folks inject CSS into your >document, albeit a smaller risk than letting them inject script. >There was a nice talk at Black Hat a couple years ago that talked >about the kinds of things an attacker can do by injecting only CSS. >For example, using attribute selectors and background images, the >attacker might be able to learn the value of form fields, including >password fields. > >It's mostly a question of your risk tolerance. There's a large >security benefit to locking down script-src and object-src. There's a >smaller security benefit to locking down style-src. We should update >the spec to have some more nuanced text on this topic. > >Adam
Received on Monday, 19 March 2012 22:37:23 UTC