- From: Neil Matatall <neil@matatall.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:42:41 -0800
- To: Ian Melven <imelven@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Neil Matatall <neilm@twitter.com>, public-webappsec <public-webappsec@w3.org>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
- Message-ID: <ADC12F09CF404B7FB178ACF9A2E31953@matatall.com>
As an implementor, I would prefer no restrictions. I feel it is my choice to do what I please with the data. In this case, we aggregate logs at a central host. In other cases, I shipped data to "cloud" services like Splunk/loggly. I imagine this use case will be more common than directly logging back to the host application. I don't think the spec or implementations should be concerned with things like this as it is up to the implementor to do things "wrong". If I am the type to disregard such warnings, then I am possibly violating privacy in many other and more serious ways. One thing I would be fine with is requiring posts to be over SSL. Perhaps I am not understanding the privacy goals of this spec, but it seems like all pitfalls would lie in the implementation of the header on an applications, rather than the spec. I will be on today's call. -- Neil Matatall On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Ian Melven wrote: > > > Hi, > > that's the item i was waiting to comment on last teleconference :) > > Within Mozilla, we recently discussed something along the same lines for report-uri to replace > our current same eTLD+1 restriction on sending reports. The suggestion was that reports could be > sent to any host a la the spec, but then potentially privacy or security sensitive information > would only be included if the report was going to a same eTLD+1 host. > > would this be useful to site implementers ? or would this essentially be the same > as the current restriction because all the available info is desired ? > > i've been meaning to bring this up on the list before today's call, but flu :( > > cheers, > ian > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Neil Matatall" <neilm@twitter.com (mailto:neilm@twitter.com)> > To: "Eric Rescorla" <ekr@rtfm.com (mailto:ekr@rtfm.com)> > Cc: "public-webappsec" <public-webappsec@w3.org (mailto:public-webappsec@w3.org)> > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 6:36:17 PM > Subject: Re: Agenda for January 29 Teleconference > > > Did this item drop off from last time? Or has there been some consensus? > > > 22:37 - 22:39 Line #s in CSP reports only for same-origin, CORS? > > > > > - Neil > > On Monday, January 28, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > > > DATE: Jan, 29 2013 > TIME: 22:00-23:00 UTC (14:00-15:00 PST) > > +1.617.761.6200 ; PIN 92794 ('WASWG') and #webappsec on irc.w3.org:6665 (http://irc.w3.org:6665) > (Or VoIP via the Zakim SIP bridge: http://www.w3.org/2006/tools/wiki/Zakim-SIP ) > > > 22:00 - 22:03 Scribe Selection (Default -> Eric Rescorla) > 22:03 - 22:05 Roll Call > 22:05 - 22:06 Minutes Approval > 22:07 - 22:08 Agenda Bashing > 22:08 - 22:09 News: CSP 1.0 to CR > 22:10 - 22:15 Review of open actions in tracker > 22:15 - 22:30 Review raised+open issues, assign actions > 22:30 - 22:35 default-src violation types > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2013Jan/0036.html > 22:35 - 22:40 CSP and HSTS > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2013Jan/0034.html > 22:40 - 22:45 Defaults for clipping and selectors > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2013Jan/0045.html > 22:45 - 22:57 UI Safety ISSUE 2 > "The restriction to a single additional host source value was > based on the request of the Websec WG as part of moving this > feature to this document. This decision should be evaluated in the > context of CSP. For example, while standalone implementations of > X-Frame-Options may not have wanted to incur the complexity of > parsing potentially large lists of origins, CSP implementaions > must already be robust in their handling of such lists. The > inclusion of multiple origins may reveal details of the security > model of a resource that chooses to publish such a policy and > risks associated with this should be discussed in the Security > Considerations section if any change is made." > 22:57 - 23:00 Move of testing repos to github > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2013Jan/0044.html > > > Scribe Rotation. We go down the list in order. Please advise if you > cannot scribe for some reason, or if you are not listed here and > should be. > > > Adam Barth > Jeff Hodges > David Huang > Gopal Raghavan > Eric Rescorla <-- > Jacob Rossi > Tanvi Vyas > Peleus Uhley > Dan Veditz > Ryan Ware > Jim O'Leary > Adam Bresee > Ian Melven > >
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 17:43:12 UTC