- From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 13:35:55 +0100
- To: Dan Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, "Eduardo' Vela" <evn@google.com>, public-webappsec@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAKXHy=f++Qu3Cwu1iOQMS8kE8X66c1DzTHund7OX454BrnpD8w@mail.gmail.com>
I've talked to a few developers about deploying CSP, and the request for some form of violation DOM event has popped up several times. It's something I'd like to implement if we can find a good way of making it work. What do you think about making such a feature an opt-in portion of the policy by adding a `'self'` keyword to the `report-uri` directive? If the keyword is set, violation events would be fired at the `document.securityPolicy` object; if not, no violation events would fire for that policy. That mechanism might actually also give vendors a mechanism of directing violations of extensions' policies to the extension rather than the page by interpreting 'self' in some reasonable way. -- Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, Developer Advocate Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany Google+: https://mkw.st/+, Twitter: @mikewest, Cell: +49 162 10 255 91 On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Dan Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Eduardo' Vela <evn@google.com> wrote: >> >>> We have found a lot of challenges triaging reports to the point we are >>> considering disabling CSP since it's useless as we can't effectively >>> debug >>> it, this is very important for large scale applications. >>> >> > Are you trying to debug a broken application, or figure out where injected > content is coming from? > > I'm sympathetic to your need and it may be worth experimenting with, but I > would not want user-applied CSP to report to the page. At least not > detectably as a "CSP" error; if we want to fire normal existing onerror= > handlers for images that don't load that may be fine. > > I'm not sure what to do about extension-supplied CSP. Again, I would not > want it reporting to the page, but it would be handy if there were a way to > report it to the extension. I'm sure extensions can root around in the web > console messages and find it, but a more direct API might be good. > > Such APIs would be out of scope for this WG so I'd just like to state the > privacy principal that user-agent supplied policies do not report > violations to the originating server or page content. I'm not against > firing events at the page for violations of the page's own policy. > > -Dan Veditz > >
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2012 12:36:47 UTC