This recent security talk talks about why inline scripts are on the way out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WljJ5guzcLs

A good amount of the spec deals with application distribution, which is out
of our hands when talking about App Stores.

It uses a separate AppCache manifest to define what files are in the
bundle. Does this not imply that the whitelist is still in effect via the
Network: section of the AppCache manifest?





On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Braden Shepherdson <[email protected]>wrote:

> On the subject of no inline scripts or eval, this is used in the new v2
> Chrome Apps too. It eliminates a wide spectrum of security risks at a
> stroke, though it does require changing some of the older web dev practices
> (onclick="whatever", primarily). If you're already attaching handlers using
> jQuery, or using something like AngularJS, this is no change.
>
> Only loading scripts from inside the app package, I'm not sure. It
> eliminates the possibility of using a CDN, but the caching benefits of that
> are inferior to shipping the files in the bundle.
>
> Braden
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:46 AM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Ok, picking this up again. At the working group Fil it would be good
> > to give our feedback on the manifest as it has related to the Cordova
> > reality.
> >
> > I really dislike:
> >
> > - scripts can only be loaded from inside the app package
> > - no inline scripts, no eval
> >
> > I really like the idea of killing the whitelist feature..
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Michal Mocny <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > > Thanks for the highlights Fil.  Makes for easier reading!
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Highlights w.r.t. Cordova:
> > >>
> > >> 1. Application manifest JSON (yay!) [1]:
> > >>
> > >> 2. There is an Application interface now in charge of handling:
> > >>   - pause/resume/launch/terminate events
> > >>   - readonly parameters such as install time, origin, parameters,
> update
> > >> state (downloading, installing), package size
> > >>   - methods such as exit, hide, uninstall, update (interesting!)
> > >>     - related to update, the spec calls for the update firing
> > >> asynchronously, reporting back progress events to the app. metaaaa
> > >> 3. App Management interface, which is deemed as a "privileged" API, to
> > get
> > >> events about the (un)installation of other applications.
> > >>
> > >> Interesting "security" conclusions [2]:
> > >>
> > >> - scripts can only be loaded from inside the app package
> > >> - no inline scripts, no eval
> > >> - "Media (audio and video) can still be loaded from anywhere;" => this
> > >> should inform our media APIs once we get to the audit and finally
> > >> determine that the whitelist has no effect on media. This already
> > applies
> > >> to images on the web.
> > >> - "Network connections can still be opened anywhere using data-centric
> > >> APIs like XMLHttpRequest or WebSocket." => implication here is that
> the
> > >> whitelist is, really, useless (which has been my opinion always :D )
> > >>
> > >> Related, I will be attending the SysApps Face to Face in madrid [3]
> next
> > >> month. If anyone from the Cordova community has specific issues that
> > they
> > >> would like to see addressed, let me know!
> > >>
> > >> [1] http://runtime.sysapps.org/#application-manifest
> > >> [2] http://runtime.sysapps.org/#csp-policy
> > >> [3]
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/System_Applications:_1st_F2F_Meeting_Agenda
> > >>
> > >> On 3/18/13 9:03 AM, "Giorgio Natili" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >It should be followed (I have had a quick look) but it depends what
> > does
> > >> >it means from a development point of view.
> > >> >I mean that there is already a roadmap and that this draft should
> > impact a
> > >> >lot, so is up to the contributors trying to explain us how much
> effort
> > is
> > >> >required.
> > >> >
> > >> >Giorgio
> > >> >
> > >> >On 3/18/13 8:02 AM, "Brian LeRoux" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>Have a look: http://runtime.sysapps.org/
> > >> >>
> > >> >>What do we think?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>

Reply via email to