- From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:19:59 -0700
Michal Zalewski wrote: > I kinda assumed this suggestion was tongue-in-cheek, but if not - > banning cross-domain IFRAMEs to fix one flaw, without providing viable > methods for sandboxing untrusted same-origin content, would leave web > developers with no tools to deal with quite a few classes of major > security issues. It's tongue-in-cheek that I don't expect it to be adopted or seriously considered (this year). It's not tongue-in-cheek in that I very much wish it were adopted. That is, I think it's in the realm of the desirable, not the possible. I am curious what issues you see with same origin content. They certainly exist, but I tend to feel those are orthogonal to the issues at hand, and subject for a separate discussion. I do think we have an existence proof that security in this realm is possible. That's Java. Modulo some outright bugs in VMs (since repaired) the default Java applet security model has worked and worked well since 1.0 beta 1. (1.0 alpha 1 wasn't quite strict enough.) I have seen no security design flaws exposed in Java applets in over ten years. That's why I suspect duplicating Java's security policy in HTML is a safe way forward. I'm skeptical that anything less will suffice. I don't expect this to happen, however, because many large players are exploiting existing security design flaws in the web to do things they shouldn't be allowed to do in the first place, especially tracking users. Any scheme that limits the ability of advertisers and others to track users will be strenuously resisted. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo at metalab.unc.edu
Received on Friday, 26 September 2008 14:19:59 UTC