- From: Devdatta Akhawe <dev.akhawe@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:00:33 -0800
- To: Michal Zalewski <lcamtuf@coredump.cx>
- Cc: David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>, Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>, "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
+1 I am also far and away more positive on being able to roll out sub-origins than caja. thanks Dev On 10 November 2014 11:31, Michal Zalewski <lcamtuf@coredump.cx> wrote: > The basic reasoning behind suborigins is to provide a very simple, > intuitive, and low-cost way to compartmentalize applications, reason > about the compartmentalization, and test it with automated tools. > > If I understand it correctly, your critique is that suborigins are a > bad idea because application compartmentalization can be achieved with > a bit more work with existing tools. But I think this applies to most > other mechanisms: we also do not strictly require CSP or referer > directives or most of the other security work. Almost all of its is > driven by the desire to just make things simpler, more intuitive, less > likely to fail, and easier to audit for. > > We're definitely acutely aware of Caja and similar solutions and have > spent years trying to convince product teams to use it in a variety of > settings :-) I *think* that suborigins will strictly improve status > quo and has a chance of working out, but of course, no promises. > > > /mz >
Received on Monday, 10 November 2014 20:01:28 UTC