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