W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webappsec@w3.org > December 2015

Re: [CSP] "sri" source expression to enforce SRI

From: Joel Weinberger <jww@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:32:30 +0000
Message-ID: <CAHQV2K=Y+cSRUogUinveLJT6Tg_kJujKd=uZqRa6nzC_hpeYWw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Patrick Toomey <patrick.toomey@github.com>, public-webappsec@w3.org
That's a good point about SRI in general; it's hard to know if you've
forgotten to SRI anything. I'm not sure source-expression is the right
place to put it in CSP, though, as that's meant to be "locations that are
safe," and that's not exactly what you're requesting. It probably makes
sense to have an 'sri-options' directive, though, since we'll probably want
SRI 'report-only' eventually anyway.

I've filed this as a feature request in GitHub, too:

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 2:50 AM Patrick Toomey <patrick.toomey@github.com>

> We recently deployed subresource integrity across GitHub.com:
> https://github.com/blog/2058-github-implements-subresource-integrity.
> However, a few days after deployment we determined that one of our JS
> scripts did not have an "integrity" attribute assigned to it. It was our
> intent to add the integrity attribute to all subresources on GitHub.com. We
> statically vendor in all CSS/JS and use Sprockets (SRI support was added in
> https://github.com/sstephenson/sprockets/pull/645) to package these
> assets for production deployments. There happened to be one JS file that
> had not been vendored, and hence was not being packaged by Sprockets. This
> violated two of our goals:
> * Not allowing any dynamically sourced JS (we vendor everything to ensure
> what is in version control is what is used in production)
> * Enforcing SRI on all supported subresources on GitHub.com
> Reflecting back on this situation, it would have been nice to have support
> in CSP for a source expression such as
> "sri"/"sri-only"/"sri-naming-things-is-hard" to ensure SRI is being used
> everywhere. In the above scenario, the related JS would have failed to load
> and we would have identified both of the issues listed above in testing.
Received on Tuesday, 22 December 2015 16:33:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:53 UTC