- From: Eduardo' Vela <evn@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 10:11:57 -0800
- To: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
- Cc: Daniel Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com>, public-webappsec@w3.org, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Message-ID: <CAFswPa8ObjKvT01-Dd77NtJJzrt9C_Led9zaG4ybF5bRjJ5v6w@mail.gmail.com>
Could it be possible to get both? A report-uri and the DOM errors? That way we can deploy one policy on a large set of apps and if we need to debug one in particular we just ask that one to monitor the script. On Nov 22, 2012 4:36 AM, "Mike West" <mkwst@google.com> wrote: > 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 18:12:25 UTC