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

Re: [CSP] Accepting base64-url

From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:14:13 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKXHy=eThyngoEgEkYrZZ_VkhDRRAzJBBaMrS2gtZi58=p8Hnw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>
Cc: Joel Weinberger <jww@chromium.org>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
We should certainly match SRI's behavior here, both for base64url and for
"sha-256" vs "sha256": WDYT of
https://github.com/w3c/webappsec/commit/7b3b425ae340734a088323ff2ffb7f575d7e3163
?

-mike

--
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
Flores
(Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)

On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 12:13 AM, Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sounds good to me.  There is no ambiguity in the decoded set of bits, so I
> don't think there's much risk in doing so as long as UA implementations are
> uniform in accepting both encodings.
>
> On Fri Jan 16 2015 at 3:08:56 PM Joel Weinberger <jww@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> In CSP Source List Syntax
>> <https://w3c.github.io/webappsec/specs/content-security-policy/#base64_value> definition,
>> base64-value is listed as purely a base64 value. This is inconsistent with
>> the Subresource Integrity draft, which proposes to use base64url
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/SRI/#integrity-metadata-1>. Furthermore, in
>> practice, Chrome accepts both base64 and base64url for Subresource
>> Integrity *and* CSP. I propose that we standardize this and accept
>> either base64 *or* base64url in CSP. I've opened issue 147
>> <https://github.com/w3c/webappsec/issues/147> on GitHub to propose this.
>> --Joel
>>
>
Received on Saturday, 17 January 2015 12:15:00 UTC

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