+1 to names. On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> wrote:
> No comments about the names yet, but I'm now leaning towards: > > cordova-plugin-legacy-whitelist > > and > > cordova-plugin-whitelist > > as the two new git repos to create (rather than "url-policy") > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I think how Cordova works right now was the best way. Have access blocked > > by default, but have a <access origin="*"/> in the default template. It > > makes the setting visible, while still working out-of-the-box. > > > > If we turned on requests when no whitelist plugin is installed, then > > existing apps that have <access> tags will have their whitelist removed > > with 4.0.0 and not know it. If someone updates and their app can't hit > the > > network anymore, then I think Stack Overflow will tell them why pretty > > quickly. We should also be very clear in the release notes and upgrade > > guide. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Nikhil Khandelwal < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> I like Ian's proposal of blocking network access only when a whitelist > >> plugin is added to do so and is choosing to override the default > behavior. > >> > >> Scanning config.xml on upgrade might be a good way to warn devs to refer > >> them to use this plugin. These changes should also be documented in the > >> migration guide from Android 3.x to 4.0. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Nikhil > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jesse [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 11:05 AM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: Android's new Whitelist Plugins > >> > >> I like the defaults as discussed, regardless of how they are achieved. > >> ie. network yes, intents no > >> This is similar to how a plain webview works if you add it to a native > >> app on ios or android, at least the network part, not sure what the > default > >> intent handling is. > >> > >> Are there portions of this functionality that make more sense as part of > >> the platform native code? To me a plugin that is installed by default > is > >> just modular platform code. Is there ever a reason to NOT want this > plugin, > >> versus just opening up access? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> @purplecabbage > >> risingj.com > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Michal Mocny <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> > I've been working on adding support to just install the whitelist > >> > plugin by default, and to add the <access origin="*"> to the default > >> app. > >> > > >> > Is that sufficient? I think we may still need to do what Ian suggests > >> > and prompt on upgrade (or prepare)? > >> > > >> > For downstreams, especially IDE based ones, they will need to make > >> > sure the plugin is added by default however they do that. > >> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Ian Clelland <[email protected] > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Nikhil Khandelwal < > >> > [email protected]> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Here are my thoughts on the default behavior: > >> > > > - navigation should be disabled. > >> > > > - XHR & network request should be enabled. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > And application launch through intent URLs should also be disabled. > >> > > (IMO) > >> > > > >> > > That's not a bad default -- it enables CSP usage by default, which I > >> > think > >> > > is good. It also (I think) means we're giving up on suggesting that > >> > network > >> > > requests can be completely blocked by default, because that's > >> > > definitely not the case on Android. > >> > > > >> > > We can implement this within the new framework: there is the idea of > >> > > a 'default policy' that only comes into effect when no plugins take > >> > > responsibility for the whitelist. As soon as any plugin, though, > >> > > handles the shouldAllowRequest() call, for instance, the default > >> > > policy is no longer in effect, and it is a true whitelist > >> > > (block-by-default) > >> > > > >> > > My biggest concern with this is that developers are going to blindly > >> > update > >> > > to Cordova 4.0.0, and when their app *just works*, they are not > >> > > going to realize that they are actually less secure than before. > >> > > (Without a > >> > plugin, > >> > > we've opened up all network access) > >> > > > >> > > Idea -- maybe we can scan config.xml -- at run time, or on prepare, > >> > > or on upgrade -- and if we see any access tag other than <access > >> > > origin="*"> we can display a loud message, suggesting strongly that > >> > > they install an appropriate plugin. > >> > > > >> > > Ian > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > The plugin name is fine. > >> > > > > >> > > > I'm not convinced about a user having to add this plugin to enable > >> > > network > >> > > > requests for Android/iOS. This default behavior should work with > >> > > > the platform and should not require a plugin. This inhibits users > >> > > > from > >> > > getting > >> > > > the ground running on a Cordova app. It breaks existing templates > >> > > > in > >> > IDEs > >> > > > and other downstream CLIs as well - as all of them need to include > >> > > > this plugin to have any network access work. > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > >> > > > Nikhil > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > >> > > > Michal Mocny > >> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 11:22 AM > >> > > > To: dev > >> > > > Subject: Re: Android's new Whitelist Plugins > >> > > > > >> > > > I've filed a JIRA issue with my thoughts on how to approach this: > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-8597 > >> > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Andrew Grieve > >> > > > <[email protected]> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Like your ideas a lot. Updating the project template makes a lot > >> > > > > of > >> > > > sense. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Tried to make it clear in the README, so if any part was not > >> > > > > clear please fix it. But, the CSP tag is the more important bit, > >> > > > > since <access> can't actually block all requests. The only > >> > > > > reason to even leave <access> in there is to support pre-kitkat > >> > > > > webviews, where no CSP support exists. CSP is also used to set a > >> > > > > navigation whitelist > >> > for > >> > > > > subframes, which the native side is not able to do. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Michal Mocny > >> > > > > <[email protected]> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > My thoughts: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > - The split between <allow-navigation>, <allow-intent>, and > >> > <access>: > >> > > > > Like > >> > > > > > it a lot. > >> > > > > > - I think the defaults *for the plugin* are very reasonable. > >> > > > > > However, we may want to provide a default set of tags for the > >> > > > > > hello world app. A > >> > > > > year > >> > > > > > or so ago we added a default access * whitelist and I think > >> > > > > > maybe > >> > we > >> > > > > should > >> > > > > > continue that. (on the other hand, I've gotten used to > >> > > > > > explicitly whitelisting every url as part of chrome packaged > >> > > > > > app development and its not so bad). > >> > > > > > - Additionally, that means this plugin should be installed > >> > > > > > by > >> > > > default. > >> > > > > > As we discussed this morning, with the new plugin --save > >> > > > > > functionality we could just add this to the helloworld > >> > > > > > config.xml, > >> > I > >> > > > think! > >> > > > > > - Do you really need a CSP meta tag *and* <access> > declarations? > >> > > > Thats > >> > > > > > what the README.md implies, but I would assume CSP trumps? > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > -Michal > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Andrew Grieve < > >> > [email protected]> > >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I've tried to explain it in the plugin's readme: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/cordova-plugins/tree/master/url-po > >> > > > > > > licy > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Some points for discussion: > >> > > > > > > - What should the default behaviour be for the three > >> > > > > > > whitelists (what should happen if not whitelist plugin is > >> installed). > >> > > > > > > - right now it can't open external URLs > >> > > > > > > - and can't do XHRs to http(s) > >> > > > > > > - Is the plugin name decent ("url-policy"). We should make a > >> > > > > > > dedicated > >> > > > > > git > >> > > > > > > repo for it (as well as for legacy-whitelist plugin) > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > > > >
