Re: CfC to publish FPWD of "Upgrade Insecure Resources"; Deadline Feb 17th.

On 2/10/15 10:57 AM, Jim Manico wrote:
>> That there should be a “strict” mode e.g. for banks that want absolutely all traffic encrypted, and a “slack” mode e.g. for mashup web sites that want to encrypt all of their own content, but not that coming from some other web sites that they are pulling from.
>
> Slack makes no sense to me; if the adversarial observer on your
> network sees part of the page loaded via HTTP they can inject their
> own content and game over. You are either all HTTPS or not HTTPS,
> right?
What if the HTTP non-same origin data is optionally-blockable content?  
The same-origin content will get upgraded and mixed passive / 
optionally-blockable HTTP content from other origins will get loaded.  
The cookies associated with the origin won't get exposed since the 
same-origin requests have been updated and the content that is loaded 
can't use document.cookie.

Alternatively, instead of a strict and slack mode, we could have a mode 
that upgrades just blockable content.  We can do this my assigning a 
value to the directive
upgrade-insecure-requests: all                   // attempts to upgrade 
all mixed content
upgrade-insecure-requests: blockable        // attempts to upgrade 
blockable mixed content and loads optionally-blockable content without 
an attempt to upgrade
upgrade-insecure-requests                        // attempts to upgrade 
all mixed content

Just depends on how granular and how complicated we want to make the 
directive.

~Tanvi