W3C

WebAppSec WG Teleconference, 11-Sep-2012

11 Sep 2012

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Regrets
Chair
Brad Hill, Eric Rescorla
Scribe
ekr

Contents


<jeffh> is aadd me ?

<abarth> Zakim: aabb is abarth

scribe is ekr

ScribeNick+ ekr

bhill: any objections to the previous minutes?

none seen.

bhill: friday wrapped up official call for consensus on CSP. No objections within WG to consensus. Some LC comments recorded as issues.

… if you object to moving to CR for CSP 1.0, speak now

no objections heard

RESOLUTION: approved

bhill: on to issues.

… Issue 11

Issue 11: http://www.w3.org/2011/webappsec/track/issues/11

abarth: I don't understand this issue.

bhill: me neither

dveditz: it does reveal the CSP header, but it's the same server sending it out

… I don't think this is a users' issue. At most it's an attack from one server onto another

bhill: is this revealing information about the user's configuration that wouldn't have been anticipated by the CSP policy author.

dveditz: we o know that this happens

… twitter reported it, e.g., people's addons or carriers injecting content and then being blocked

bhill: this seems to be related to issue #17
... should we expand on this more in the implementation considerations

dveditz: does anything stop the UA from injecting policies?

if so, who cares.

a well-behaved add-on should take this into account

bhill: is this something we should add in implementation considerations?

abarth: right now just says don't interfere with operation of extensions but doesn't say how. Maybe add advice about providing some way to let add-ons modify polocy

… my instinct is to wait

bhill: this wouldn't need to be standardized
... will add notes to issues and close them out

moving to issues: http://www.w3.org/2011/webappsec/track/issues/12

http://www.w3.org/2011/webappsec/track/issues/15

abarth: for issue 12 decided to leave self but report document uri

… maybe we can wait since there is only one src doc implementation

… there was a thread with hickson but I forget what he wanted to do. let me find it

… discussion on June 24-29 on public webappsec. decided to wait until 1.1

bhill: will mark this as postpone and re-raise for 1.1

abarth: for src doc, there's no url so it's hard to express

Issue 16 is editorial: http://www.w3.org/2011/webappsec/track/issues/16

bhill: resolved to issue at CR and issue a call for implementations

No objections

bhill: will wait wor adam to tell me he's done
... next step is CORS

… issue is lacking an editor

… is there anyone extremely comfortable with CORS who could co-edit with cory

abarth: I could help out with htis

bhill: if you [abarth] could just help him get over the line. Mostly the comments from Jeff that are editorial/pedagogical
... probably will be ready to issue a CfC once we incorporate last set of changes
... last item is my proposed user safety stuff

<bhill21> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/user-interface-safety/raw-file/tip/user-interface-safety.html

bhill: I made a big edit pass...

… how to import definitions from CSP?

abarth: propose to reference the TR URL

<jeffh> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSP/

[bunch of discussion about editorial toolchain]

bhill: host-src is the current behavior of x-frame options

… with csp we could use a source expression so have more granularit

dveditz: default should respect host and port. agnostic about pathc

abarth: hoping to convince them to allow >1 source

dveditz: this seems more useful
... the problem is that if you can only do 1 you can't construct the CSP header until you have seen the refererer.

abarth: people to convince here are tobias and david ross

bhill: will bring them into the discussion

<jeffh> agreed

<jeffh> yes, this is fine for fpwd

… is this a good enough starting point for FPWD

general consensus yes

dveditz: even if ultimate consensus was only 1, still better han inventing something new

bhill: other options i frame ancestors CSP directive
... next directive is input protection

<dveditz> what list are we working through now?

this is the list of directives on http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/user-interface-safety/raw-file/tip/user-interface-safety.html

<dveditz> thx

bhill: If we block an event due to policy should we raise anothr event

<scribe> [UNKNOWN]: maybe discuss this on the list since David isn't here

bhill: most issues have to do with script interfaces and reporting

… how about I raise these issues on the list

bhill: we have a little bit of time. Do we have odin and gopal?

gopal: trying to get in touch with odin. he had good luck with opera tests.

… and I have been having rpoblems with the tests

… once this starts running I will need to go annotate the tests for each section

… going to try t get a sense of the coverage and let peopl eknbow where to contribute

<erlend> Results from the tests so far: http://csptesting.herokuapp.com/home/results

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]