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

Re: Strict mixed content checking (was Re: MIX: Exiting last call?)

From: Tanvi Vyas <tanvi@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:22:46 -0800
Message-ID: <54B82196.7040801@mozilla.com>
To: Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>, Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
CC: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, David Walp <David.Walp@microsoft.com>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
Dan and I brought this up on Monday's call because we were worried about 
it being added to the spec late in the Last Call period.  But after 
looking at Chrome's implementation and discussing it further, I have no 
objection to keeping strict mode in the spec as written.

Thanks!

~Tanvi



On 12/16/14 10:25 AM, Brad Hill wrote:
> LGTM!  Thanks.  I'm running it by some other Facebook folk to see if 
> they have further thoughts.
>
> On Tue Dec 16 2014 at 1:40:40 AM Mike West <mkwst@google.com 
> <mailto:mkwst@google.com>> wrote:
>
>     FWIW, this definition of strict mode turns out to be pretty
>     trivial to implement in Blink:
>     https://codereview.chromium.org/811773002/ is up for review to put
>     it behind the experimental flag so we can start playing with it.
>     I'm hopeful it would be equally simple to poke at in other engines.
>
>     -mike
>
>     --
>     Mike West <mkwst@google.com <mailto: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 Flores
>     (Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to
>     emails. Bleh.)
>
>     On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com
>     <mailto:mkwst@google.com>> wrote:
>
>         I don't think this has much to do with your cluefulness, but
>         rather with the sloppily written strawman. I've dropped the
>         <iframe> bit and clarified the effects of strict mode in the
>         hopes of being a bit more comprehensible. WDYT of
>         https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/mixedcontent/#strict-mode?
>
>         -mike
>
>         --
>         Mike West <mkwst@google.com <mailto: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 Flores
>         (Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to
>         emails. Bleh.)
>
>         On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Brad Hill
>         <hillbrad@gmail.com <mailto:hillbrad@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>             Yes.  Upon a more careful re-read, I see there is one more
>             algorithm that needs to be updated.
>
>             if(mkwst.confused) /* shouldn't happen */ {
>               doubleCheck(brad.clue)
>             }
>
>             On Mon Dec 15 2014 at 11:52:38 AM Mike West
>             <mkwst@google.com <mailto:mkwst@google.com>> wrote:
>
>                 On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Brad Hill
>                 <hillbrad@gmail.com <mailto:hillbrad@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>                     Aha, yes, my mistake.
>
>                     So then I more emphatically suggest that we need a
>                     resource-level flag.  One of the other unfortunate
>                     things ads do is start as a <script> tag and then
>                     dynamically inject an <iframe>. Preventing any
>                     HTTP requests from happening in descendant
>                     contexts seems a reasonable goal. (even if
>                     <script> => <iframe> is a horrible pattern)
>
>
>                 Right. That's what the CSP header would do, right?
>
>                 I guess what you're saying is that we don't need both
>                 the header and the attribute. That is, if you opt into
>                 strict checking for a protected resource, then it and
>                 all of its descendents block all mixed content period.
>                 That property makes the <iframe> attribute a bit
>                 superfluous, and there's probably no good reason that
>                 you'd want a single frame to be strictly processed
>                 while others weren't.
>
>                 Is that your point?
>
>                 -mike
>
>                 --
>                 Mike West <mkwst@google.com
>                 <mailto: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 Flores
>                 (Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting
>                 detail to emails. Bleh.)
>
Received on Thursday, 15 January 2015 20:23:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:09 UTC