<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<!DOCTYPE bugzilla SYSTEM "https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/page.cgi?id=bugzilla.dtd">

<bugzilla version="5.0.4"
          urlbase="https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/"
          
          maintainer="sysbot+bugzilla@w3.org"
>

    <bug>
          <bug_id>17816</bug_id>
          
          <creation_ts>2012-07-18 06:54:20 +0000</creation_ts>
          <short_desc>appcache: Prevent sensitive data from being cached</short_desc>
          <delta_ts>2012-10-12 19:01:44 +0000</delta_ts>
          <reporter_accessible>1</reporter_accessible>
          <cclist_accessible>1</cclist_accessible>
          <classification_id>1</classification_id>
          <classification>Unclassified</classification>
          <product>WHATWG</product>
          <component>HTML</component>
          <version>unspecified</version>
          <rep_platform>Other</rep_platform>
          <op_sys>other</op_sys>
          <bug_status>RESOLVED</bug_status>
          <resolution>WONTFIX</resolution>
          
          
          <bug_file_loc></bug_file_loc>
          <status_whiteboard></status_whiteboard>
          <keywords></keywords>
          <priority>P3</priority>
          <bug_severity>normal</bug_severity>
          <target_milestone>Unsorted</target_milestone>
          
          
          <everconfirmed>1</everconfirmed>
          <reporter>contributor</reporter>
          <assigned_to name="Ian &apos;Hixie&apos; Hickson">ian</assigned_to>
          <cc>ian</cc>
    
    <cc>mike</cc>
    
    <cc>tobie.langel</cc>
          
          <qa_contact>contributor</qa_contact>

      

      

      

          <comment_sort_order>oldest_to_newest</comment_sort_order>  
          <long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>70102</commentid>
    <comment_count>0</comment_count>
    <who name="">contributor</who>
    <bug_when>2012-07-18 06:54:20 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>This was was cloned from bug 15700 as part of operation convergence.
Originally filed: 2012-01-24 22:23:00 +0000
Original reporter: Tobie Langel &lt;tobie.langel@gmail.com&gt;

================================================================================
 #0   Tobie Langel                                    2012-01-24 22:23:11 +0000 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, the editor&apos;s draft allows preventing content from being cached by using the no-store http header. Often, developers cannot or do not know how to modify http headers to block sensitive parts of a website from being cached (when visited) by AppCache. e.g.:

A website containing both public and sensitive HTML pages needs to be made available offline. The sensitive data must not be stored on the device. The website is hosted on a virtual host and HTTP headers cannot be modified. The web developer can prevent such pages from being cached by specifying them directly in the manifest.
================================================================================
 #1   Ian &apos;Hixie&apos; Hickson                             2012-01-31 23:24:05 +0000 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would any pages be cached if they&apos;re not listed in the manifest?

Also, who on earth is dealing with sensitive data yet can&apos;t change caching headers? That&apos;s a frightening thought.
================================================================================
 #2   Tobie Langel                                    2012-03-27 14:16:09 +0000 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They&apos;d be cached as master entries simply by being visited.
================================================================================</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>74560</commentid>
    <comment_count>1</comment_count>
    <who name="Ian &apos;Hixie&apos; Hickson">ian</who>
    <bug_when>2012-09-26 18:20:06 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>A file is only going to end up cached as a master entry if it&apos;s got a manifest=&quot;&quot; attribute, no?</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>76036</commentid>
    <comment_count>2</comment_count>
    <who name="Ian &apos;Hixie&apos; Hickson">ian</who>
    <bug_when>2012-10-11 21:23:30 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>I don&apos;t really understand the problem here. The only files that are going to get cached are the ones the author opts to have cached, either by setting a manifest=&quot;&quot; attribute, or by putting them in the manifest. Even in browsers that don&apos;t have manifest support, if you go to a page, it&apos;ll get cached unless you have headers set to avoid caching. So if you don&apos;t want caching, you need to update headers, that&apos;s got nothing to do with appcache. Updating headers for caching is much simpler to do than other things you have to do when dealing with sensitive data, so I don&apos;t understand who would have a problem here.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>76039</commentid>
    <comment_count>3</comment_count>
    <who name="Ian &apos;Hixie&apos; Hickson">ian</who>
    <bug_when>2012-10-11 21:25:18 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>Tobie: Please reopen this bug if you can provide the information needed. Thanks.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>76041</commentid>
    <comment_count>4</comment_count>
    <who name="Tobie Langel">tobie.langel</who>
    <bug_when>2012-10-11 21:30:57 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>The requirement here was to be able to prevent caching the master entry, while caching the sub-resources.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>76157</commentid>
    <comment_count>5</comment_count>
    <who name="Ian &apos;Hixie&apos; Hickson">ian</who>
    <bug_when>2012-10-12 19:01:44 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>That would be pointless. It would literally mean you got no benefit from appcache whatsoever beyond just normal HTTP caching.</thetext>
  </long_desc>
      
      

    </bug>

</bugzilla>