- From: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 02:28:04 +0000
- To: Devdatta Akhawe <dev.akhawe@gmail.com>
- Cc: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>, Michal Zalewski <lcamtuf@google.com>
- Message-ID: <CANr5HFU8J8vWYm0A+-r36U0bY0E+9e5y51GqcggQ6y0Vc439zQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thursday, February 28, 2013, Devdatta Akhawe wrote: > hi Alex > > I think thats a great idea! Can you share with us what attacks and how > they are remediated by controlling base urls? There have been a couple > of discussions about post-xss attacks. > I think this is the most in-depth thing I've seen on it: http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/postxss/ cc-ing the author. > I personally prefer sensible defaults over opt-in. For example, > script-src defaults to blocking inline scripts. Users have to opt-out > to enable inline scripts and eval. > > I wonder if we can consider defaulting to "Base URL can only be same > origin" or "base URL is ignored" as soon as we see a script-src in the > CSP policy? > This isn't just about scripts; it affects forms, images, and every other sort of network behavior. > This might be a little ugly, but I think there is a possibility of > harm if we don't default to "Turn on CSP script-src and it will take > care of most problems." In the future, we don't want to see "yeah X % > of webapps turn on CSP but forgot to specify the base-uri directive" > > Is there is a way to measure how many applications turn on CSP but > also need to specify a cross-origin base-uri ? I can't actually think > of a case where this is needed, but I am inexperienced in these > matters. > > > --dev > > > > On 27 February 2013 15:57, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > Moving to public-webappsec (which is the working group for CSP as > > opposed to the general Security Interest Group). > > > > Adam > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com<javascript:;>> > wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> After chatting with Adam and Mike, I'd like to propose a new CSP field > for > >> setting a restriction on the base URL of a document. Having this > provided in > >> a header and/or early in the page provides a bulwark against many of the > >> worst post-CSS HTML injection attacks, and when combined with existing > CSP > >> 1.1 directives can deny many of the worst payload smuggling attacks. > >> > >> Is there appetite in the group to specify this for 1.1? > >> > >> Regards > > >
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2013 02:28:32 UTC