[whatwg] updateWithSanitizedHTML (was Re: innerStaticHTML)
kornel at geekhood.net
Tue Dec 1 08:03:47 PST 2009
>> And even whitelist for CSS properties couldn't be used to implement
>> external access" policy (allow images with data: urls, allow http:
>> but not http: images). This would be useful for webmails and other
>> where website doesn't want to allow 3rd parties tracking views.
> I don't think an no external access policy is worth supporting
> explicitly. If it falls out of a general design, that's great, but I
> don't think the use case is compelling enough to accept the design
> constraints required to support it.
I think it is quite important for privacy. Otherwise "web bugs" can be
placed and used to track every use of content in every mashup.
Most often I'd like formatted text in applications to be just text,
>> "No clickjacking" option might be useful as well.
> I don't have a clear idea how this would work. Did you have something
> different in mind than X-Frame-Options (already supported by WebKit)?
On a second thought clickjacking is probably not the right term for
what I have in mind, although it's a similar issue.
The problem is that content added in DOM could use styles to overlay
web application's "chrome" and steal data with forms or redirect
standard links/buttons to phising site, e.g. <form action=evil
style="position:fixed; top:0; right:0"> that's positioned on top of
website's standard login form.
Position:fixed escapes elements with
"position:relative;overflow:hidden", so AFAIK this cannot be prevented
without removal of all position:fixed styles from untrusted content.
Such hack has been used on auction site allegro.pl, where auctions'
descriptions are allowed to use CSS. In that particular case content
should have been filtered server-side, but I imagine webmails, web-
based feed readers and all kinds of mashups dynamically loading
untrusted content could face similar problems, and having <iframe> for
every bit of content is sometimes problematic.
More information about the whatwg