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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Fri, 04 May 2012 07:11 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 9F47F21F86BE for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2012 00:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.935
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.935 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.336, 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 GwZ2g22tT1ul for <websec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2012 00:11:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 25DDB21F867A for <websec@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 May 2012 00:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 04 May 2012 07:11:50 -0000
Received: from p5DD9779D.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [93.217.119.157] by mail.gmx.net (mp071) with SMTP; 04 May 2012 09:11:50 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/gSwd8DSvgHyk8kCKB8QnYkD4IAbG7NZJRKKzfWC PgkSeCpnMJ/aqL
Message-ID: <4FA38134.4000808@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 09:11:48 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
References: <CAJE5ia_82uobXnKiWf=+hH-QYtkLJvZ+bYChD7i_rjq3vjsD+g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJE5ia_82uobXnKiWf=+hH-QYtkLJvZ+bYChD7i_rjq3vjsD+g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: websec <websec@ietf.org>
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 07:11:53 -0000

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.

Best regards, Julian