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

Re: [Integrity] Signature based subresource integrity?

From: Eduardo Robles Elvira <edulix@agoravoting.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:41:19 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHwZu3fab5j69Y=TBZOc5RUzEoNRV=QmFS+9ufJdinW8goCKiA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Roesler <diafygi@gmail.com>
Cc: public-webappsec@w3.org
Hello Daniel:

Sure, that's possible. It's called TLS :-P Seriously, that's what TLS
was invented for. I would expect that the normal usage of hashed
subresources never change. If you link to
http://example.com/jquery-1.5.1.min.js and you need to use a newer
version, you can put it in another URL and link to it. subresource
integrity doesn't seem to be targeted for dynamic subresources.


On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Daniel Roesler <diafygi@gmail.com> wrote:
> Howdy all,
> I'm trying to figure out how I can validate an included remote
> javascript file (i.e. subresource) and still allow that file to be
> updated by the trusted remote party?
> I know the spec currently just allows you to set a hash of the
> expected resource. However, when the trusted remote party updates
> their resource, it breaks the integrity and I have to go and update my
> site with the new hash (a pain for me).
> To solve this pain point, would it be possible to use signatures as
> the method for validating integrity? That way, I could just include
> the public key for the remote party in the integrity attribute and
> have the browser check some sort of signature sent with the resource
> from the remote party.
> Obviously, this would require some sort of cooperation from the remote
> party (a Signature header, maybe?), but I would be okay with that
> since they are trusted.
> Is there a way to do this in this specification or another specification?
> Thanks!
> Daniel
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2014 09:42:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:39 UTC