W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webappsec@w3.org > December 2014

Re: Strict mixed content checking (was Re: MIX: Exiting last call?)

From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 20:52:17 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKXHy=f4VrZh8RJxF-FcWVE9CY20tBUNN_gr42o7DbMQ80bGiA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>
Cc: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, David Walp <David.Walp@microsoft.com>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com> wrote:
> Aha, yes, my mistake.
> So then I more emphatically suggest that we need a resource-level flag.
> One of the other unfortunate things ads do is start as a <script> tag and
> then dynamically inject an <iframe>.  Preventing any HTTP requests from
> happening in descendant contexts seems a reasonable goal. (even if <script>
> => <iframe> is a horrible pattern)

Right. That's what the CSP header would do, right?

I guess what you're saying is that we don't need both the header and the
attribute. That is, if you opt into strict checking for a protected
resource, then it and all of its descendents block all mixed content
period. That property makes the <iframe> attribute a bit superfluous, and
there's probably no good reason that you'd want a single frame to be
strictly processed while others weren't.

Is that your point?


Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, @mikewest

Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München,
Germany, Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der
Gesellschaft: Hamburg, Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth
(Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)

Received on Monday, 15 December 2014 19:53:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:44 UTC