FWIW, when I had to face this problem in ABE ( http://noscript.net/abe/ ) I decided to keep *.xyz.com with its restrictive, universally accepted meaning (matching all the subdomains, but not the base domain) and introduce .xyz.com (leading dot, with no star) as a syntactic sugar for "*.xyz.com xyz.com". -- G On 30/06/2014 08:07, Mike West wrote: > On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Hill, Brad <bhill@paypal.com > <mailto:bhill@paypal.com>> wrote: > > This is already "a problem" in PKIX certificates today. > <snip> > > I question how important making this change actually is to > developing policies. In the certificate case, I think the where > this issue almost always comes up is when a site hosts itself on > both "www.example.com <http://www.example.com>" and "example.com > <http://example.com>", in which case for CSP the 'self' token > handles it adequately and should be preferred. I think it's > probably a much rarer case that a third-party site needs to > include resources across that boundary in a wildcard manner. > > > I don't think it's "important", but it's a case where Firefox and > Chrome diverge. > > I continue to think it's counter-intuitive for the wildcard to exclude > the base host, but I certainly don't think it's worth arguing at > length about, nor do I think it'll have much practical impact. > > I'll go change Blink, and we'll leave things as they are. > > -mike > > > -- > Mike West <mkwst@google.com <mailto: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.)
Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 10:10:08 UTC