[whatwg] Blacklist for regsiterProtocolHandler()
ojan at chromium.org
Tue Apr 19 10:39:35 PDT 2011
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> > We are investigating registerProtocolHandler and have been discussing
> > the need for a blacklist of protocols to forbid.
> > [...]
> > We'd like to know if we've missed any important schemes that must be
> > blocked, and we think it might be useful if the spec listed most of
> > those, except for the vendor specific schemes, which should probably be
> > left up to each vendor to worry about.
> I haven't updated the spec yet, but it strikes me that maybe what we
> should do instead is have a whitelist of protocols we definitely want to
> allow (e.g. mailto:), and define a common prefix for protocols that are
> used with this feature, in a similar way to how with XHR we've added Sec-*
> as a list of headers _not_ to support.
> So e.g. we could whitelist any protocol starting with "web+" and then
> register that as a common extension point for people inventing protocols
> for use with this feature, so that people writing OS-native apps would
> know that if they used a protocol with that prefix it's something that any
> web site could try to take over.
> I'd be curious about people's opinions on that matter.
> (If we did this, the whitelist may have to be updated occasionally to add
> new protocols that people invented that we think are fine to be
> overridden, but that are not "web+"-prefixed.)
This seems like the right approach. Even if we blacklist correctly now,
needing to remember to blacklist each new protocol is too risky. A whitelist
somewhat limits the potential for people using registerProtocolHandler in
unexpected useful ways, but it still meets the primary use cases.
More information about the whatwg