- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 16:14:06 +0100
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>, Odin Hørthe Omdal <odinho@opera.com>, WebAppSec WG <public-webappsec@w3.org>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
On 2013-12-04 13:15, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >> So you mean that if a CGI does a 304 redirect and sends some response >> headers and a response body, then apache will filter out the headers but >> send the 304 and the body? Is this specific to 304s? > > 304 is not strictly a redirect. 304 is "Not Modified". An indication > from the server that you can use the cached copy. > > >> Either way, a security issue can't be ignored because servers suck. We >> should still require the headers to be sent. Authors can always use other >> 30x responses. > > Not for these semantics. > > > Mark, Julian, do you think CORS headers should be required on a 304 response? I'm not familiar enough with CORS. Having said that: if a 200 response works without CORS headers then I don't see why they would be needed (or what they would be good for) on a 304. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2013 15:14:40 UTC