cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: whitelist as a plugin
Date Thu, 09 Oct 2014 16:09:58 GMT
This should land in 4.0.x
On Oct 9, 2014 7:38 AM, "Ian Clelland" <iclelland@chromium.org> wrote:

> I'm running into more and more problems caused by the whitelist (today,
> it's because of the dual use of the internal whitelist for "should be able
> to navigate to URL" and "should be able to XHR from URL")
>
> I'm going to start to pull it out, on a topic branch based off of Android
> 4.0.x right now. I'll create a JIRA issue to track the work.
>
> Is 4.0.x the best place for this to land, or is there any support for
> putting it on master as well, for an eventual 3.7 release?
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 to remove it  for all the above reasons (and WKWebView in iOS 8)
> > Those interested in this security blanket for checkmark ✓ purposes can
> > install the plugin, and perhaps maintain it as well.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
> > > Or remove it altogether and let the evolution of that code be
> maintained
> > by
> > > those interested in the narrative it provides? :)
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, July 9, 2014, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Sounds like we both agree that it doesn't work and adds a false sense
> of
> > >> security (to those that do opt into it) :P.
> > >>
> > >> Maybe what we should do is redesign the whitelist to do something more
> > >> useful.
> > >>
> > >> e.g. A whitelist that says what URLs you can navigate to is useful and
> > easy
> > >> to implement. Let's just drop the trying to stop network requests
> > aspect of
> > >> it?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com
> > >> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I'm in agreement with Andrew on this one.  If we can get CSP
> working,
> > >> > that's a far better solution than our Whitelist, which was done
> > >> > because it was needed at the time for the enterprise use case that
> IBM
> > >> > had.  I don't think we're ever going to stop are users from doing
> dumb
> > >> > things like including thirdpartyadnetworkthatdoesnoteusehttps.js in
> > >> > their apps any time soon, but they'll have to jump through more
> hoops
> > >> > to do dumb things, and making dumb things harder is a good thing.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io
> > <javascript:;>>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > Heh. Why do we always seem to be at the opposite end of
> > considerations?
> > >> > > (Not a bad thing anyhow. ;)
> > >> > >
> > >> > > So making whitelist a plugin would most certainly isolate the
code
> > >> which
> > >> > > would help us better understand:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 1.) where the surface for bugs are (we seem to miss/find new
> > security
> > >> > holes
> > >> > > each quarter…)
> > >> > > 2.) if people actually use it
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I'm more interested in #2. I suspect the only people whom do
use
> it
> > are
> > >> > > security researchers disproving the whitelist veracity. I feel
> this
> > API
> > >> > was
> > >> > > a mistake, is misleading, and ultimately leads to poor web
> security
> > >> > > practices wrt 3rd part scripts. I'd like the evidence to remove
it
> > >> > > completely and making it a plugin would do that. (And still allow
> > for
> > >> its
> > >> > > existence to those whom want to contribute to a "marketing" based
> > api.)
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Andrew Grieve <
> agrieve@chromium.org
> > >> <javascript:;>>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> I don't think moving the whitelist to a plugin would aid
in its
> > >> > >> understanding. Right now the whitelist is used for two things:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> 1. Whether to allow network requests through (although this
is
> > broken
> > >> > for
> > >> > >> <audio>/<video> on iOS, and broken for them +
websockets on
> Android
> > >> > >> 2. Whether to allow top frame navigations (e.g. clicking
a link
> to
> > >> > http://
> > >> > >> *
> > >> > >> opens in system browser vs. webview)
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> #1 doesn't work very well due to technical limitations.
> > >> > >> #2 is actually the more import one security-wise I think,
and I
> > don't
> > >> > think
> > >> > >> should be relegated to a plugin.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> I'm hoping medium-term that CSP can replace the use-case
of #1.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 10:21 PM, Ian Clelland <
> > iclelland@chromium.org
> > >> <javascript:;>>
> > >> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > What would be the security implication of removing it
from
> core?
> > No
> > >> > >> access
> > >> > >> > at all by default? Or unlimited access by default?
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > I suspect that if the default policy with no plugin
installed
> is
> > the
> > >> > >> > latter, then we will be given the impression that it's
not
> > important
> > >> > at
> > >> > >> all
> > >> > >> > :)
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > I had considered just turning the whitelist settings
into a
> > plugin
> > >> --
> > >> > >> > either leaving the default rules as they are, and writing
a
> > >> > >> > "cordova-security" plugin that locks it down, or tighten
> > everything
> > >> by
> > >> > >> > default, and tell people to install "cordova-plugin-insecurity"
> > if
> > >> > they
> > >> > >> > want to open it up :)
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > I like the idea of making the entire whitelist architecture
> into
> > a
> > >> > >> plugin,
> > >> > >> > though. If nothing else, it should be easier to reason
about
> it,
> > and
> > >> > >> easier
> > >> > >> > to fix or replace it in the future if we need to.
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com
> > >> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > > Actually it's already possible in any iOS version,
we just
> > have to
> > >> > >> > > make sure the plugin loads at startup. This is
for UIWebView
> > only,
> > >> > >> > > WKWebView has this issue:
> > >> > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-7049 -
you can't
> > >> intercept
> > >> > >> > > any requests from it currently (not sure if anything
changed
> in
> > >> iOS
> > >> > 8
> > >> > >> > > beta 3)
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io
> > >> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >> > >> > > > Was discussing this w/ Shaz and Joe and, in
theory, this is
> > >> > possible
> > >> > >> > from
> > >> > >> > > > iOS8 onward and possibly w/ some refactoring
in the 4.x
> > series
> > >> of
> > >> > >> > > Android.
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > Its also probably the single most problematic
areas of
> > >> > >> misunderstanding
> > >> > >> > > as
> > >> > >> > > > it relates to security we have. Isolating
it from core
> would
> > >> give
> > >> > us
> > >> > >> a
> > >> > >> > > > better picture of how important it truly is.
> > >> > >> > > >
> > >> > >> > > > Thoughts?
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message