- From: Emily Stark <estark@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 12:31:55 -0700
- To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
- Cc: WebAppSec WG <public-webappsec@w3.org>, Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, Joe DeBlasio <jdeblasio@chromium.org>, "cthomp@chromium.org" <cthomp@chromium.org>
- Message-ID: <CAPP_2SZ_jaXAfz0nNrnEj03VrpZTO5xxSw8umvnW2GDBKbuGGA@mail.gmail.com>
We are looking at exes, dmgs, and crxs as executables, and zip/gzip/rar/tar/bzip/etc. as archives. You can see how our current metrics are classifying mime types here <https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/components/download/internal/common/download_stats.cc?sq=package:chromium&g=0&l=718> . On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 12:21 PM Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > Emily – can you give some idea of the list of filetypes that you would > thinking of blocking? > > > > Leonard > > > > *From: *Emily Stark <estark@google.com> > *Date: *Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 11:30 AM > *To: *WebAppSec WG <public-webappsec@w3.org> > *Cc: *Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, Joe DeBlasio <jdeblasio@chromium.org>, > "cthomp@chromium.org" <cthomp@chromium.org> > *Subject: *Blocking high-risk non-secure downloads > *Resent-From: *<public-webappsec@w3.org> > *Resent-Date: *Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 11:29 AM > > > > Hi webappsec friends, > > > > Over in Chrome land, we've been considering how to drive down non-secure > downloads, particularly high-risk ones like executables. I wanted to see if > other browsers would be interested in joining us on this adventure. > > > > We want to achieve the right balance between compatibility/user-disruption > and security improvements, so we will likely start by treating certain > high-risk downloads initiated from secure contexts as active mixed content > and block them. We're still finalizing our metrics before we can share them > publicly, but right now it's looking like it will be feasible to block a > set of high-risk filetypes (executables and archives as determined by the > Content-Type header or sniffed mime-type). We will likely focus on > protecting desktop users because Android and Safe Browsing already provide > protection > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsource.android.com%2Fsecurity%2Freports%2FGoogle_Android_Security_2018_Report_Final.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Cefa52096384c4a60b59808d6bd197188%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636904314310205375&sdata=yDpr%2BhdTCLweZQqho5qHzDfLcUWwZ9R%2Fcns9oU%2BAz8Q%3D&reserved=0> > against malicious APKs. > > > > We're not planning to focus on non-secure downloads initiated from > non-secure contexts at the moment, because users at least see the "Not > Secure" omnibox badge on those pages. > > > > Feedback welcome! > > Thanks, > > Emily >
Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2019 19:32:36 UTC