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

Re: Proposal: A pinning mechanism for CSP?

From: Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 17:53:19 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEeYn8jWF8Y6Hefm71U6SSov6yi2WEhMf+BK_A3pYYfkWc0OEw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, Deian Stefan <deian@cs.stanford.edu>
Cc: yan zhu <yan@mit.edu>, Dan Veditz <dveditz@mozilla.com>, Yan Zhu <yzhu@yahoo-inc.com>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>, Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com>, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>, Frederik Braun <fbraun@mozilla.com>, Jim Manico <jim.manico@owasp.org>
We didn't discuss it at AppSec, so you're not missing any notes.


I like option #2, and Facebook would have real use for such a feature.

I think Yan's use case is valid and interesting, but I don't think it's a
CSP pinning feature, it's a something-else meta-stable-crypto-key
confinement something feature, and I think both it and CSP would be harmed
by trying to shoehorn it in as CSP pinning.


On Fri Jan 30 2015 at 6:06:06 AM Mike West <mkwst@google.com> wrote:

> On Jan 30, 2015 12:56 PM, "Mike West" <mkwst@google.com> wrote:
> > For simplicity's sake, I'd vote for #2, with the option of moving to #3
> in the future. That 'no-override' model leaves the majority of the power
> with the _pin_ and not the _page_, which seems like the right tradeoff.
> I confused myself, apologies. I vote for #2 with the option of moving to
> #2a in the future. Not #3.
> -mike
Received on Friday, 30 January 2015 17:53:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:45 UTC