Confirmed users
197
edits
Features/Platform/Iframe Sandbox: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Features/Platform/Iframe Sandbox (view source)
Revision as of 18:28, 22 November 2011
, 22 November 2011no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{FeaturePageBody | {{FeaturePageBody | ||
|Feature open issues and risks=* | |Feature open issues and risks=* how to do 'allow-top-navigation' - being discussed | ||
* The origin (in string form) of a null principal - this will be sent by CORS, the origin header (if/when it's implemented), postMessage etc - the HTML5 spec says that it should be a GUID in this case - need to see what gets used in these cases when content has a null principal | * The origin (in string form) of a null principal - this will be sent by CORS, the origin header (if/when it's implemented), postMessage etc - the HTML5 spec says that it should be a GUID in this case - need to see what gets used in these cases when content has a null principal | ||
* sandboxed IFRAME's should not be able to create popups, even with the 'allow-scripts' modified specified - need to figure out how to implement this block | * sandboxed IFRAME's should not be able to create popups, even with the 'allow-scripts' modified specified - need to figure out how to implement this block | ||
| Line 24: | Line 23: | ||
|Feature users and use cases=Users are web developers looking for a way to isolate content on their site and preventing it from having its default same origin privileges. The HTML5 spec specifies some modifying attributes that can re-grant permissions such as executing scripts and submitting forms, etc. | |Feature users and use cases=Users are web developers looking for a way to isolate content on their site and preventing it from having its default same origin privileges. The HTML5 spec specifies some modifying attributes that can re-grant permissions such as executing scripts and submitting forms, etc. | ||
|Feature requirements=If at all possible, this feature should be designed and implemented in a way that makes it usable for also implementing the sandboxing required to support the CSP (Content Security Policy) sandbox value also. | |Feature requirements=If at all possible, this feature should be designed and implemented in a way that makes it usable for also implementing the sandboxing required to support the CSP (Content Security Policy) sandbox value also. | ||
This feature requires a comprehensive test suite - Boris Zbarsky has suggested we also submit this test suit to the W3C for inclusion in their HTML5 test suite. | |||
|Feature non-goals=* Providing sandboxing above and beyond what's described in the HTML5 spec | |Feature non-goals=* Providing sandboxing above and beyond what's described in the HTML5 spec | ||
* implementing the IFRAME seamless attribute and interactions between it the sandbox attribute. | * implementing the IFRAME seamless attribute and interactions between it the sandbox attribute. | ||
| Line 55: | Line 56: | ||
* the HTML5 spec provides examples of how to apply flags with nested IFRAMEs, abarth has proposed that if both CSP and IFRAME sandbox can apply to content, the algorithm used in these example should be used to merge the policies which sounds reasonable | * the HTML5 spec provides examples of how to apply flags with nested IFRAMEs, abarth has proposed that if both CSP and IFRAME sandbox can apply to content, the algorithm used in these example should be used to merge the policies which sounds reasonable | ||
|Feature security review=This feature will likely need a full security review from the secteam. | |Feature security review=This feature will likely need a full security review from the secteam. | ||
|Feature qa review=We will need a test suite for this feature. Microsoft has released test cases for sandboxing | |Feature qa review=We will need a test suite for this feature. Microsoft has released test cases for sandboxing publically that have been submitted to the W3C for inclusion in the HTML5 test suite. We will definitely want to compare our implementation to other browsers' implementation for consistency etc. and likely address inconsistencies via suggested modifications to the HTML5 spec and discussion on the whatwg list. Boris Zbarsky has suggested submitting our sandbox test suite to the W3C also. | ||
|Feature landing criteria=* Needs a test suite | |Feature landing criteria=* Needs a test suite | ||
* Needs to be compared against other implementations for consistency | * Needs to be compared against other implementations and public test suites for consistency | ||
* Needs a full security review | * Needs a full security review | ||
}} | }} | ||