- From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:08:13 -0800
- To: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>, Adam Barth <abarth@chromium.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKXHy=facrdW=u49wpzKBOXFMEcwdqqpgpBmraHWTQUZXXZUfQ@mail.gmail.com>
You're correct: the referrer directive is meant to provide similar functionality to what's specced at http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Meta_referrer. The goal is certainly to fold that functionality into this standard, in the same way that we've brought in the 'X-Frame-Options' and 'X-XSS-Protection' functionality. Ideally, you'd be able to just use CSP, rather than configuring in a few different places. The note about conflicting policies remains important, however, for two reasons: 1. It's quite possible for more than one Content Security Policy to be delivered with a page: a server might be configured in such a way that it emits two policy headers, for instance. 2. The spec mandates behavior for processing `<meta http-equiv="Content-Security-Policy" ...>`. It does not otherwise address alternate mechanisms of setting policies outside the scope of CSP. If we removed the note, I don't believe it would be clear what a user agent should do when both a 'referrer' directive and a 'referrer' meta tag were present. Same story for XSS protection and X-Frame-Options. -mike -- Mike West <mkwst@google.com> Google+: https://mkw.st/+, Twitter: @mikewest, Cell: +49 162 10 255 91 Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores (Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.) On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:10 AM, David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com> wrote: > [Not sure if this list or whatwg is most appropriate. > cc'ing Adam Barth in any case] > > Hi, > > It looks to me that combining CSP 1.1 referrer directive and HTML meta > element, one gets at least to the same result than what was intended for > <meta name="referrer">. > Should we forget about <meta name="referrer"> then? > > The referrer directive currently has a note about conflicting policies. > This note could be removed. Conflicts could only occur if there is > conflicts between header and meta policy and the CSP spec is very clear on > the fact that the header is more important. > > David > >
Received on Thursday, 30 January 2014 15:09:02 UTC