Re: [websec] Same Origins and email

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com> Mon, 12 December 2011 19:38 UTC

Return-Path: <msk@cloudmark.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 8112D21F84FA for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:38:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.581
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 cMLm1cXRHEGv for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:38:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com (ht1-outbound.cloudmark.com [72.5.239.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18A7321F84B1 for <websec@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:38:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spite.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.72) by EXCH-HTCAS901.corp.cloudmark.com (172.22.10.73) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:38:29 -0800
Received: from EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.1.74]) by spite.corp.cloudmark.com ([172.22.10.72]) with mapi; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:38:29 -0800
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk@cloudmark.com>
To: "websec@ietf.org" <websec@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:38:28 -0800
Thread-Topic: [websec] Same Origins and email
Thread-Index: Acy5BT6afa831L/ZSsGYpcdYPbeTIQAAA67g
Message-ID: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C1551D@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com>
References: <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C15518@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <CAJE5ia8mDSjr6ww3uduUP_SQV2i9CB5cpuLDzL1tj8MvWb8PcA@mail.gmail.com> <F5833273385BB34F99288B3648C4F06F19C6C1551A@EXCH-C2.corp.cloudmark.com> <215EC5C2-A72E-461E-BF9E-1E291CDBD439@checkpoint.com> <CAJE5ia-GTD2GPxJw0KhPUjQQ9_Bhc4B7of2FAecBt9nZiKP27g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJE5ia-GTD2GPxJw0KhPUjQQ9_Bhc4B7of2FAecBt9nZiKP27g@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [websec] Same Origins and email
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: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:38:30 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Barth [mailto:ietf@adambarth.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 11:35 AM
> To: Yoav Nir
> Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy; websec@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [websec] Same Origins and email
> 
> The questions you're asking don't really have universal answers.
> These behaviors aren't standardized and so are likely to vary from MUA
> to MUA.

I think that's why I'm asking the question.

I wonder if it would be a useful area to explore in terms of standardization since MUA-based HTML pages suffer many of the same attacks as regular browsers do.  That seems to be an attack surface that's largely unaddressed here.