couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jan Lehnardt (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (COUCHDB-431) cors - aka Cross-Origin Resource Sharing support
Date Sun, 11 Nov 2012 20:39:11 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-431?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13494987#comment-13494987
] 

Jan Lehnardt commented on COUCHDB-431:
--------------------------------------

http://www.w3.org/TR/cors/#security

> Care must always be taken by applications when making cross-origin requests with user
credentials, and servers processing such requests must take care in the use of credentials,
including the Origin header.

> When requests have significance other than retrieval, and when relying on the Origin
header as a credential, servers must be careful to distinguish between authorizing a request
and authorizing access to the representation of that resource in the response.

> Authorization for a request should be performed using only the intersection of the authority
of the user and the requesting origin(s). In the case of redirects, more than one value for
Origin may be present and all must be authorized.

> Servers using the Origin header to authorize requests are encouraged to also verify that
the Host header matches its expected value to prevent forwarding attacks. Consider two sites,
corp.example and corp.invalid. A web application at corp.example makes a cross-origin request
to corp.invalid, and the user agent sends the Origin header corp.example. If corp.invalid
or the network is malicious, it may cause the request to be delivered to corp.example, with
the result that corp.example would receive a requst that appears to originate from itself.
Verifying the Host header would reveal that the user agent intended the request for corp.invalid
and it can be discarded. Even better would be to exclusively use secure connections for cross-origin
requests to enable user agents to detect such misdirections.

> It is often appropriate for servers to require an authorization ceremony asking a user
to consent that cross-origin requests with credentials be honored from a given origin. In
such cases, passing security tokens explicitly as part of the cross-origin request can remove
any ambiguity as to the scope of authorization. OAuth is an example of this pattern. [OAUTH]

Maybe this doesn’t apply to us, I just want to make sure.

* * *

> - if one forgot the http header then the origin won't be matched. The Origin *must* follow
the uri spec which contains the scheme 

That’s good. I’m thinking about users here though, we might want to log warnings when
they forget to configure the scheme and then stuff doesn’t work. I just see myself trying
to set this up next year :)

> - imo OPTIONS works everywhere and the xhr clienst won't be able to override if most
of the time 

Agreed, Nevermind.

> - I will add some doc. Though which versions of erlang are we supposed to support for
specs and co? 

I would say that just regular comments will suffice for now. We can always turn them into
whatever is available in later erlang versions for auto-doc generation. If we already require
a sufficient minor version, then go with whatever is there :)





                
> cors - aka Cross-Origin Resource Sharing  support
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: COUCHDB-431
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-431
>             Project: CouchDB
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: HTTP Interface
>    Affects Versions: 0.9
>            Reporter: James Burke
>            Assignee: Benoit Chesneau
>            Priority: Blocker
>             Fix For: 1.3
>
>         Attachments: 0001-cors-support.-should-fix-COUCHDB-431-2.patch, 0001-cors-support.-should-fix-COUCHDB-431.patch,
0001-cors-support.-should-fix-COUCHDB-431.patch, 0001-cors-support.-should-fix-COUCHDB-431.patch,
0001-cors-support.-should-fix-COUCHDB-431.patch, A_0001-Generalize-computing-the-appropriate-headers-for-any.patch,
A_0002-Send-server-headers-for-externals-responses.patch, A_0003-Usably-correct-w3c-CORS-headers-for-valid-requests.patch,
A_0004-Respond-to-CORS-preflight-checks-HTTP-OPTIONS.patch, check_method_cors.patch, cors.html,
cors_test.html, test_cors2-1.tgz, test_cors2.tgz
>
>
> Historically, browsers have been restricted to making XMLHttpRequests (XHRs) to the same
origin (domain) as the web page making the request. However, the latest browsers now support
cross-domain requests by implementing the Access Control spec from the W3C:
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/access-control/
> In order to keep older servers safe that assume browsers only do same-domain requests,
the Access Control spec requires the server to opt-in to allow cross domain requests by the
use of special HTTP headers and supporting some "pre-flight" HTTP calls.
> Why should CouchDB support this: in larger, high traffic site, it is common to serve
the static UI files from a separate, differently scaled server complex than the data access/API
server layer. Also, there are some API services that are meant to be centrally hosted, but
allow API consumers to use the API from different domains. In these cases, the UI in the browser
would need to do cross domain requests to access CouchDB servers that act as the API/data
access server layer.
> JSONP is not enough in these cases since it is limited to GET requests, so no POSTing
or PUTing of documents.
> Some information from Firefox's perspective (functionality available as of Firefox 3.5):
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en/HTTP_access_control
> And information on Safari/Webkit (functionality in latest WebKit and Safari 4):
> http://developer.apple.com/safari/library/documentation/AppleApplications/Conceptual/SafariJSProgTopics/Articles/XHR.html
> IE 8 also uses the Access Control spec, but the requests have to go through their XDomainRequest
object (XDR):
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc288060%28VS.85%29.aspx
> and I thought IE8 only allowed GET or POST requests through their XDR.
> But as far as CouchDB is concerned, implementing the Access Control headers should be
enough, and hopefully IE 9 will allow normal xdomain requests via XHR.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

Mime
View raw message