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

Re: Proposal: A pinning mechanism for CSP?

From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 20:21:16 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKXHy=dU9PWvxGQf0wsreL_=miJZHadPRnSuuNM9oW8G1fyhig@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>
Cc: Deian Stefan <deian@cs.stanford.edu>, 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>
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not to bikeshed too much, but everywhere else we have a subtractive
> combination logic for policy.  We're proposing (with good reason) a
> replacement model here.  I only wonder how to make that as clear as
> possible.
>
> Perhaps instead of "Content-Security-Policy-Pin",
> "Content-Security-Policy-Origin-Default" ?
>

Hrm. Two things come to mind:

1. We're not pinning to an origin, but to a host, or set of hosts (via
'includeSubDomains').

2. Pinning is fairly well understood (by people who care about this sort of
thing). I think calling it a "default" is probably more accurate, but it
still invites the same questions about how the specified policy interacts
with policies delivered by a page. I don't think "default" is enough to
explain the nuances, and if folks will have questions anyway, I'd prefer to
keep the word that I think evokes the right sort of concept.

*shrug* But whatever. A better argument against "origin default" is that
the spec would have a shortname of "COD", which doesn't sound awesome
enough. :)

--
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.)
Received on Friday, 30 January 2015 19:22:05 UTC

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