Echoing Anis here. The easiest use case is for corporate use (internal), where any connections are restricted to a certain domain for paranoid IT types.
I can see the case of us allowing everything _by default_ though (eg adding the '*'), which really should have been the default so as to be "backwards compatible" with how it was before the whitelist came in. The system could detect this sole wildcard entry, and print out a warning in the console log, as well as the documentation of course pointing this out -- the latter which we should have done in the first place. On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Anis KADRI <anis.ka...@gmail.com> wrote: > Just because you guys don't like/use it doesn't mean it is useless. There > are multiple cases where you want to have an access control list [1] So > many apps can benefit from this features (I am thinking banking apps, > etc...). > > If you don't care about security or you're developing the next best social > app (that opens links all over the place) then you can * everything. > However, I am sure that there are people out there that care about security > and want this feature. While not protecting your app from every possible > attack it certainly doesn't hurt. > > I agree that this feature should be documented in the getting started guide > as well. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-access/ > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Jesse <purplecabb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I am with Fil, I never use it, and the first thing I do is * it. > > > > I think it also gives developers the impression that they just load > > arbitrary untrusted content into their apps, and the whitelist will > > protect them. > > > > Untrusted content will always need to be sanitized, however, having > > the whitelist even prevents use of the InAppBrowser ( formerly > > ChildBrowser ) plugin for it's main use-case. > > If I were to make a twitter client with cordova, I would have to * the > > whitelist so I could load links without exiting, and I would still > > have to sanitize the data ... > > > > What use cases are we enabling by having the whitelist? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > > > I feel its a good feature for a release time but not so during > > development > > > time. So what ends up happening is the thing gets *, forgotten about, > and > > > negates the usefulness. > > > > > > I'm in favor of opening it up and using docs to guide how ppl should > > secure > > > their app for release/production. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Personally I think the whitelist is pretty useless... > > >> > > >> On 11/1/12 7:32 PM, "Ken Wallis" <kwal...@rim.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> >Not sure why the BlackBerry version white lists everything. We don't > do > > >> >that in WebWorks ;) > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >From: Steven Gill > > >> >To: dev@cordova.apache.org > > >> >Reply To: dev@cordova.apache.org > > >> >Re: Whitelist defaults > > >> >2012-11-01 10:30:42 PM > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >+1 to point it out in the getting started guides. > > >> >On Nov 1, 2012 6:35 PM, "Marcel Kinard" wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> Also sounds like a good step/topic in the "getting started" guides. > > >> >> > > >> >> -- Marcel Kinard > > >> >> > > >> >> On 11/1/2012 8:36 PM, Dave Johnson wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >>> Yup agree it should whitelist nothing but it also needs to be very > > >> >>>clear > > >> >>> in > > >> >>> the log when we block a request that it's due to the whitelist. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> On Thursday, November 1, 2012, Shazron wrote: > > >> >>> > > >> >>> I concur with Kevin. It won't be much of a whitelist if no one > uses > > it > > >> >>>> -- I > > >> >>>> would argue that if you set it to "*" by default, no dev will > > >> >>>>(usually) > > >> >>>> change that, especially if they don't know there is a whitelist > in > > the > > >> >>>> first place. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Kevin Hawkins < > > >> >>>> kevin.hawkins.cordova@gmail.**com > wrote: > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> From a security perspective, I'm partial to the iOS (nothing) > > default, > > >> >>>>> recognizing of course that there are certain usability drawbacks > > to > > >> >>>>>that > > >> >>>>> approach. > > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Filip Maj > > > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>> wrote: > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>>> Quick q: how come Android + BB's whitelists by default whitelist > > >> >>>>>> everything (*), but iOS does the opposite (whitelist nothing)? > > >> >>>>>> > > >> >>>>>> I'd like to see this unified across all platforms we support. > > >> >>>>>> > > >> >>>>>> > > >> >>>>>> > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> >This transmission (including any attachments) may contain > confidential > > >> >information, privileged material (including material protected by the > > >> >solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute > > >> >non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other > > than > > >> >the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this > > >> >transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and > > delete > > >> >this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, > or > > >> >reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not > > >> >authorized and may be unlawful. > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > @purplecabbage > > risingj.com > > >
