Re: Nonces/hashes in source expressions.

1.0 supports neither paths nor nonces. Which values are you concerned about?

-mike

--
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 Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Hill, Brad <bhill@paypal-inc.com> wrote:

>  Given that it is a valid character in use at least some places that
> might show up as directive values, I think encoding is a better answer.***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> I don’t think requiring the additional encoding is a problem, but this is
> probably something we also need to address in the 1.0 CR draft.****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Mike West [mailto:mkwst@google.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 18, 2013 11:13 AM
>
> *To:* Hill, Brad
> *Cc:* dveditz@mozilla.com; public-webappsec@w3.org; Adam Barth
> *Subject:* Re: Nonces/hashes in source expressions.****
>
>  ** **
>
> We currently just define the grammar such that ';' can't appear in a
> directive's value: see section 3.2.1 (
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/content-security-policy/raw-file/tip/csp-specification.dev.html#policies
> ).****
>
> ** **
>
> The only place this might be worrisome at the moment is nonce and URL
> paths. I don't have a problem with excluding ';' from the valid nonce
> characters, nor with asking developers to percent-encode ';' as '%3B'.
> Would that sufficiently address the problem, or is there something deeper
> I'm missing?****
>
> ** **
>
> -mike****
>
>
> ****
>
> --
> 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 Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Hill, Brad <bhill@paypal-inc.com> wrote:*
> ***
>
> A twitter follower pointed out this is also in data URIs.  How do we deal
> with this?
>
> (time to get back to working on tests now that IETF is over...)****
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hill, Brad****
>
> > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 10:44 AM
> > To: Hill, Brad; Mike West
> > Cc: dveditz@mozilla.com; public-webappsec@w3.org; Adam Barth
> > Subject: RE: Nonces/hashes in source expressions.
> >
> > I seem to recall that Tomcat uses the ';' to do URL rewriting for session
> > management.  Not a secure practice, but certainly popular in the 90's.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Hill, Brad [mailto:bhill@paypal-inc.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 10:39 AM
> > > To: Mike West
> > > Cc: dveditz@mozilla.com; public-webappsec@w3.org; Adam Barth
> > > Subject: RE: Nonces/hashes in source expressions.
> > >
> > > Eww.. yes.   But that does point out a potential problem more
> generally in
> > CSP:
> > >
> > > According to RFC3986 section 2.2, ';' is a reserved character as a
> > > subcomponent delimiter.
> > >
> > > Is this going to bite us elsewhere?
> > >
> > > :(
> > >
> > > -Brad Hill
> > >
> > > ---------------------
> > > From: Mike West [mailto:mkwst@google.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 10:35 AM
> > > To: Hill, Brad
> > > Cc: dveditz@mozilla.com; public-webappsec@w3.org; Adam Barth
> > > Subject: RE: Nonces/hashes in source expressions.
> > >
> > > One more observation: we can currently safely assume that ';'
> > > separates directives. We could no longer make that assumption with
> > > this format, which would make parsing slightly more complicated.
> > > -mike
> > > On Mar 18, 2013 5:31 PM, "Mike West" <mkwst@google.com> wrote:
> > > 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.
> > > -mike
> > > 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
> ****
>
> ** **
>