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

Re: Proposal: A pinning mechanism for CSP?

From: Jim Manico <jim.manico@owasp.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 09:47:46 -0800
Message-ID: <-8438159524680880897@unknownmsgid>
To: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Cc: Frederik Braun <fbraun@mozilla.com>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>, yan zhu <yan@mit.edu>, Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com>, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>, Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>, Dan Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com>
Yea, that is one of the problems with real-world pinning deployment today.
If I get something wrong I might lock out users for the max-age they were
previously pinned to. Safely being able reset that is compelling. :)

Aloha Mike,
--
Jim Manico
@Manicode
(808) 652-3805

On Jan 23, 2015, at 9:44 AM, Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Jim Manico <jim.manico@owasp.org> wrote:

> All I'm saying is that if pinning config can be set via a manifest like
> structure vs headers, I'd suggest that headers take precedence.
>

The csp-pinning proposal (and PKP (and HSTS)) ignores any pin for a host
that already has a pin. First one in wins, which is good for security, as
it can't be maliciously overridden. Of course, it's bad for flexibility for
the same reasons. *shrug* That's a trade off I think we should allow
developers to make.

Actually, there might be some subtlety here (can't HSTS/PKP turn itself off
with a 0 max-age? Chris? Ryan? I didn't see that logic in a quick skim of
the RFCs)


>
> If I'm way off base or being disruptive, let me know off-list and I'll go
> back to lurking and popcorn.
>

Not at all! Feedback/questions are totally welcome!

-mike
Received on Friday, 23 January 2015 17:48:16 UTC

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