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

Re: iframe sandbox for third-party widgets and ads (was Re: [CSP] Clarifications on nonces)

From: Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 18:49:18 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEeYn8hXJYrYqWC3dQ5099AfB79TC4WSPBOfmP1XXe_j3qAhHw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jim Manico <jim.manico@owasp.org>, Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Cc: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
<hat=individual>

In the end, like so much of security, this is going to boil down to
economics and incentives.  We should take it as a given that we are not
going to solve everybody's problem and create a perfect security utopia for
advertising.

What we can do is create primitives that allow those on the supply-side who
care to offer reasonable security guarantees without having to turn away
too much demand.

>From my perspective, the easiest way to accommodate that demand-side
feature pressure is not a bunch of fine-grained feature flags, but
prioritizing a model that can be easily integrated into the *authoring
tools* for advertising creative content, so that it is clear to agencies
what will work and how they can build stuff that will be supported in a
"secure" ad placement.

-Brad

On Mon Feb 09 2015 at 4:29:49 AM Jim Manico <jim.manico@owasp.org> wrote:

> > It would be great
> to hear from you and others about why it is unrealistic now.
>
> If you want to get premium-level compensation from some ad providers
> then you need to give them full DOM access.  This "goes away" in a
> world where ads are fully sandboxed or not allowed DOM access.
>
> I am just wondering is the end game to shut this down or perhaps
> provide a more flexible sandbox? I am hoping a flexible sandbox is the
> end game.
>
> If there is a configurable ad-friendly web standard for DOM accessible
> advertising, please point me in the direction.
>
> Aloha,
> --
> Jim Manico
> @Manicode
> (808) 652-3805
>
> > On Feb 9, 2015, at 12:55 PM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > It would be great
> > to hear from you and others about why it is unrealistic now.
>
>
Received on Monday, 9 February 2015 18:49:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:10 UTC