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

Re: Proposal: A pinning mechanism for CSP?

From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 11:04:40 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKXHy=erTqkMkvtSa3yag24g2LpwBcq9t24yQi6BjMaK1+kkgQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com>
Cc: Deian Stefan <deian@cs.stanford.edu>, yan zhu <yan@mit.edu>, Yan Zhu <yzhu@yahoo-inc.com>, Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>, Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com>, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>, Frederik Braun <fbraun@mozilla.com>, Jim Manico <jim.manico@owasp.org>
On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Daniel Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com> wrote:

> I prefer #2a and #2 would be OK as an interim. I like the consistency of
> #1 but worry it will be too inflexible for complex sites; sites can emulate
> that effect by adding another site-wide CSP header as traffic goes through
> their load-balancer or similar front-end server.
> I don't like the way #3 puts the override power in the hands of the
> possibly-injected content. #3a solves that problem but in the end is
> equivalent to a wordier #2a.

Ok, it sounds like we're running up on consensus to run with #2 for the
moment, and to seriously consider adding a "no-override" directive to allow
folks to shoot themselves in the foot in the pursuit of greater security in
the future.



Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, @mikewest

Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München,
Germany, Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der
Gesellschaft: Hamburg, Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth
(Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)
Received on Monday, 2 February 2015 10:05:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:45 UTC