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

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

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

 > 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

[websec] Frame-Options: Why a header and not a CS… Adam Barth
Re: [websec] Frame-Options: Why a header and not … Julian Reschke
Re: [websec] Frame-Options: Why a header and not … Adam Barth
Re: [websec] Frame-Options: Why a header and not … =JeffH