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

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
Cc: websec <websec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [websec] Frame-Options: Why a header and not a CSP directive?
Precedence: list

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

[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