Re: [websec] Frame-Options: Why a header and not a CSP directive?

=JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com> Fri, 04 May 2012 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
X-Original-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: websec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A814521F8616 for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2012 10:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.131
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.131 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.364, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nyuFKkD7wzSE for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2012 10:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy6.bluehost.com [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B371121F8615 for <websec@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 May 2012 10:13:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 8043 invoked by uid 0); 4 May 2012 17:13:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box514.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.114) by cpoproxy3.bluehost.com with SMTP; 4 May 2012 17:13:30 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kingsmountain.com; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=eoGk6zfVp3lWnGLKzhWpjd1K9NMXWRBiDaTGozYcKwM=; b=1de2LK61WFENj0WJ8JRXvCTi/LmLMQ+ciNPv18IJcHAES9X0TzYVw2LyI01J2bF08o8sgnq22oFr0TubmjMkGcPBO+1K1+wqMz9PLZMFRgeM3YBXGewPdyuL6lIjEZ85;
Received: from outbound4.ebay.com ([216.113.168.128] helo=[10.244.136.90]) by box514.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>) id 1SQM4P-0001wR-W2 for websec@ietf.org; Fri, 04 May 2012 11:13:30 -0600
Message-ID: <4FA40E3B.6020608@KingsMountain.com>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 10:13:31 -0700
From: =JeffH <Jeff.Hodges@KingsMountain.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120313 Thunderbird/3.1.20
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF WebSec WG <websec@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {11025:box514.bluehost.com:kingsmou:kingsmountain.com} {sentby:smtp auth 216.113.168.128 authed with jeff.hodges+kingsmountain.com}
Subject: Re: [websec] Frame-Options: Why a header and not a CSP directive?
X-BeenThere: websec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Web Application Security Minus Authentication and Transport <websec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec>
List-Post: <mailto:websec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec>, <mailto:websec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 17:13:31 -0000

 > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>; wrote:
 >> On 2012-05-04 01:58, Adam Barth wrote:
 >>> In http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gondrom-frame-options-02 we're
 >>> introducing a new HTTP header called Frame-Options.  Is there a
 >>> particular reason to create yet-another-HTTP-header for carrying this
 >>> security policy?  Rather than inventing a new HTTP header, we can use
 >>> the extensible Content-Security-Policy header.
 >>> ...
 >>
 >> Well, the header field already exists as "x-frame-options", so the only
 >> thing new here is that there's a spec, and that it's promoting a prefix-less
 >> name.
 >>
 >> I have no opinion on whether it should be a CSP directive, but a goal should
 >> be to document what's out there, even if we don't like it. In *particular*
 >> if it is related to security, and used in practice.
 >
 > Yes, I agree that we should document the existing X-Frame-Options
 > header.  However, the Frame-Options header doesn't yet exist.  Rather
 > than introduce it, I wonder if we'd be better off making the
 > "unprefixed" version a CSP directive rather than an HTTP header.


To hopefully clarify here, there's indeed an intended Informational track draft 
regarding the "x-frame-options" header field such that it's documented in a 
referenceable spec (rather than only a blog post)..

   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gondrom-x-frame-options-00


And then there's the "frame-options" draft which is proposing (as Adam notes) a 
new header field along with some functionality that's beyond the existing 
"x-frame-options" mechanism..

   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gondrom-frame-options-02


It's w.r.t. this latter draft that Adam is wondering whether we could simply 
specify a new directive for the content security policy header (CSP) rather 
than invent yet another header field.

Also note that as of 24-Apr, both of the above drafts are accepted as WG 
drafts, but it seems they haven't yet been re-issued with new filenames (see 
msg from Alexey to websec@ on Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:13 +0100)

=JeffH