W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webappsec@w3.org > March 2013

RE: Nonces/hashes in source expressions.

From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:31:46 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKXHy=f6Bv7Msc65PvcKpOagrH=hdxYxik7qTCu0etkXXNnfVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Hill <bhill@paypal-inc.com>
Cc: dveditz@mozilla.com, public-webappsec@w3.org, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Thanks for the link, it's very informative. The only reservation I have is
that it seems to imply a 1:1 relationship between the URL and the resource
being described (modulo collisions). Nonces are meant to collide, probably
multiple times on a single page.

That said, I don't feel strongly about the format. I'd be happy to adopt
that format wholesale, assuming the general idea (which, the more I think
about, the more strongly I favor) is acceptable.

On Mar 18, 2013 5:19 PM, "Hill, Brad" <bhill@paypal-inc.com> wrote:

> <hat type="individual">
> I like it.
> </hat>
> <hat type="chair">
> This draft is relevant to consider vs. inventing a new identifier syntax,
> though it is less compact than what you suggest:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-decade-ni-10
> </hat>
> Brad Hill
> -------------------------
> From: Mike West [mailto:mkwst@google.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 10:04 AM
> To: public-webappsec@w3.org; dveditz@mozilla.com; Adam Barth
> Subject: Nonces/hashes in source expressions.
> Before I copy/paste a bunch of text to stub out a 'style-nonce' directive
> for CSP 1.1, I'd like to run something by you lovely folks that I think
> we've talked about once or twice on the calls. It seems like it could
> reduce repetition and confusion if we fold nonces or hashes into the
> existing directives as another type of source expression.
> As a strawman, how would you feel about rewriting 'script-nonce ABCDEFG'
> as 'script-src nonce:ABCDEFG'? This would make an "or" relationship with
> 'script-src' clear on the one hand, and make room for something like
> 'script-src sha1:...' on the other. I think it would simplify the structure
> in a nice way, and seems more comprehensible and reusable in general.
> I'm sure others of you will have ideas about syntax (perhaps it's a bad
> idea to replicate scheme-like structures... maybe '#' would be a better
> separator, since it's sometimes read as "hash" anyway), but I'm hoping the
> general idea is reasonable.
> --
> 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
Received on Monday, 18 March 2013 16:32:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:31 UTC