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

Re: [MIX] Consider all CORS requests "active"

From: Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:40:01 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJ5xic9PdNXk4smHxE5u49wsNPPbV5C3d5LafLzvVhK-hGPJFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Cc: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
Looks great to me.

In https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/mixedcontent/#category-blockable,
I don't think we need:

* ServiceWorkers - we don't allow them on http pages & they can't be on
other origins
* Data - doesn't the CORS rule take care of this? (except WebSockets)



On 22 July 2014 10:54, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:

> I've pushed
> https://github.com/w3c/webappsec/commit/63b19a728191e74059c190d2769f7cf44e3a0fec
> in an attempt to resolve the two items this thread raised. It drops the
> 'active'/'passive' distinction as we've previously discussed, and blocks
> CORS-enabled mixed requests.
>
> Does the current draft (
> https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/mixedcontent/) accurately capture
> the intent of those two proposals?
>
> -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 Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 22 July 2014 08:00, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org> wrote:
>>
>>> >n Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:21 AM, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Mixed content will be opaque (like all responses to no-cors requests),
>>> it's
>>> > down to the eventual consumer (<img>, <script>, @font-face etc)
>>> whether to
>>> > block or allow.
>>>
>>> Why? I think it is not worth supporting the edge case of a site that
>>> has passive mixed content AND is progressive enough to be using
>>> ServiceWorker AND is unwilling/unable to get rid of the passive mixed
>>> content fixed. If nothing else, the security analysis of
>>> ServiceWorkers is a lot clearer if mixed content doesn't have to be
>>> considered.
>>>
>>
>> ServiceWorker already has to deal with opaque responses for cross-origin
>> no-cors responses. MIX already has to deal with blocking cors requests to
>> http for <img crossorigin>, <link crossorigin> & XHR. Special-casing pages
>> with a serviceworker is adding complication.
>>
>> An empty serviceworker should not alter page behaviour.
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2014 10:40:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:06 UTC