[whatwg] Caching of identical files from different URLs using checksums
ash at ashleysheridan.co.uk
Fri Feb 17 10:39:42 PST 2012
On Fri, 2012-02-17 at 19:05 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-02-17 09:42, Sven Neuhaus wrote:
> > Hello,
> > Google's. The benefits are:
> > the CDN and not from the site that uses them
> > * If enough sites refer to the same external file, the browser will cache the file and even if
> > There are however some drawbacks to this approach:
> > * Security: The site operator is trusting an external site. If the CDN serves a malicious file
> > it will directly lead to code execution in browsers under the domain settings of the site
> > including it (a form of cross site scripting).
> > * Availability: The site depends on the CDN to be available. If the CDN is down the site may not
> > be available at all.
> > * Privacy: The CDN will see requests for the file with HTTP referer headers for every visitor
> > of the site.
> > * Extra DNS lookup if file is not already cached
> > * Extra HTTP connection (can't use persistent connection because it's a different site) if file is not cached
> > I am proposing a solution that will solve all these problems, keep the benefits and offers
> > some extra advantages:
> > 1. The site stores a copy of the library file(s) on its own site.
> > 2. The web page includes the library from the site itself instead of from the CDN
> > 3. The script tag specifies a checksum calculated using a cryptographic hash function.
> > With this solution, whenever a browser downloads a file and stores it in the local cache, it calculates
> > its checksum. The browser can check its cache for an (identical) file with the same checksum
> > (no matter what URL it was retrieved from) and use it instead of downloading the file again.
> > This suggestion has previously been discussed here ( http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2006-November/thread.html#7825 ), however for a different purpose (file integrity instead of caching identical files from different sites) and I don't feel the points raised back then apply.
> > If a library is popular, chances are that many sites are including the identical file and it will
> > already be in the browser's cache. No network access is necessary to use it, improving the users'
> > privacy. It doesn't matter if the sites store the library file at a different URL. It will always
> > be identified by its checksum. The cached file can be used more often.
> > The syntax used to specify the checksum is using the fragment identifier component of a URI
> > (RFC 3986 section 3.5).
> > ...
> Stop here. That's not what the fragment identifier is for.
> Instead, you could specify the hash as a separate attribute on the
> containing element.
> Best regards, Julian
But wouldn't this all break one of the key reasons why shared libraries
Code, for example, and there's an urgent security update, I'd want it to
be applied and not left out. Also, plenty of the hosted libraries are at
URLs that will grab the latest stable release of something. I don't want
my site to break overnight just because the latest stable release for a
library came out whilst I was asleep.
More information about the whatwg