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

Re: [CSP] Additional report field: report-only: "true|false"

From: Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 15:23:39 -0800
Message-ID: <CAEeYn8geEsLeDgr8etRyaVBsiuaTaHu-BbUkiVdP3nZskQ6zfQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Neil Matatall <neilm@twitter.com>
Cc: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, Devdatta Akhawe <dev.akhawe@gmail.com>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
Neil,

  We discussed at TPAC
(http://www.w3.org/2014/10/27-webappsec-minutes.html#item08) and
consensus was that this is best handled by setting different report
URIs (either path or GET string) rather than adding an explicit
feature.

thanks,

Brad Hill

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Neil Matatall <neilm@twitter.com> wrote:
> This request was motivated by getting more metrics. Metrics for this
> purpose certainly do not align with your basic value concept, and I
> can only think of one far-fetched example of where this might help in
> changing how I act on reports.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:
>> What would you do with this information?
>>
>> The basic value of the reporting functionality is to find places where
>> unexpected requests for resources are being made. What would knowing whether
>> the request went through or not change in the way that you deal with the
>> report?
>>
>> -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, Jun 26, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Devdatta Akhawe <dev.akhawe@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the separate report URIs (via extra params or different end
>>> points) is the easier option here.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 25 June 2014 20:33, Neil Matatall <neilm@twitter.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to propose adding a new field to the CSP reports: report-only.
>>>>
>>>> It's [arguably] valuable to know whether or not the policy was
>>>> enforced when a given violation report is generated. Sometimes
>>>> policies are enforced for a percentage or defined subset of users (or
>>>> not at all), but there is no way to determine this from the report
>>>> without "smuggling" params in the report-uri.
>>>>
>>>> As you can probably tell, I'm not entirely convinced this is even
>>>> worth while (like my status code proposal).
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2014 23:24:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:07 UTC