Awesome, thanks for the feedback, Yoav. The Chrome Enterprise team also recommended having an enterprise policy in for this change just in case, and they recommended having it be available for at least a couple of milestones after we've implemented the change. We will plan on that as well.
I'll post back here once we have an update on implementing the DevTools Issue + deprecation reporting. -Andrew On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 1:19 AM Yoav Weiss <yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 8:14 PM Andrew Williams <awil...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> Thanks for the link, Daniel, and thank you to Mike as well for sending me >> a Chrome Enterprise PoC to reach out to. >> >> Yoav, do you think waiting two or three months between when we implement >> DevTools Issues / deprecation reports for this and when we do the removal >> would be sufficient? >> > > That sounds reasonable to me. The known risk seems low, I'm mostly > concerned about the unknown risk. I'm hoping that a couple of months of > deprecation reports + enterprise policy can help us reduce risks on that > front. > > >> Is there a precedent for the minimum amount of time to provide notice for >> changes like this that don't seem like they will have widespread impact but >> that we want to proceed with caution on nonetheless? >> >> -Andrew >> >> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 4:02 PM Yoav Weiss <yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 7:02 PM Andrew Williams <awil...@chromium.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks for the LGTMs Yoav, Mike, and Daniel! >>>> >>>> Yoav, we haven't implemented warnings of any kind (DevTools Issues or >>>> deprecation reports via the Reporting API) for this yet... >>>> >>> >>> That part seems paramount before starting with the actual removal. What >>> timelines do you have in mind? >>> >>> >>>> This effort has been on the backburner but I aim to revisit it soon. >>>> Also, I'm happy to reach out to Chrome Enterprise about this - do you have >>>> a recommendation regarding a good PoC? Also, our plan is still to implement >>>> this behind a feature flag that could be disabled via Finch in the event >>>> that significant breakage is encountered (although I know Finch updates are >>>> not a panacea). >>>> >>>> -Andrew >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 7:26 AM Daniel Bratell <bratel...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> LGTM3 >>>>> >>>>> /Daniel >>>>> On 2021-12-01 12:31, Mike West wrote: >>>>> >>>>> LGTM2, with less caution than Yoav. :) >>>>> >>>>> This seems safe to me, and philosophically correct for the platform. >>>>> Good luck shipping it! >>>>> >>>>> -mike >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 11:41 AM Yoav Weiss <yoavwe...@chromium.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> LGTM1 to ship given the low numbers, although we still want to do >>>>>> this carefully. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are such cookies currently issuing deprecation reports? Have we >>>>>> talked to Chrome Enterprise folks about their thoughts on adding an >>>>>> enterprise policy? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 2:17:27 PM UTC+1 Andrew Williams >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding cookie strings that get truncated in Chrome today but that >>>>>>> still get treated as valid: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 0.0007 % of valid cookie strings were truncated by a \x0a character >>>>>>> <0.0001 % of valid cookie strings were truncated by a \x0d character >>>>>>> <0.0001 % of valid cookie strings were truncated by a \x00 character >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thus, with the proposed change to reject cookie strings containing >>>>>>> any of these characters, 0.0007% of cookie strings would be rejected. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Andrew >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 12:14 PM Andrew Williams < >>>>>>> awil...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Chris, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We've collected 7 days worth of metrics since M96 went live, and >>>>>>>> the number of cookie strings containing a \x00, \x0d, or \x0a >>>>>>>> character is >>>>>>>> very small compared to the total number of cookie strings processed. >>>>>>>> I'll >>>>>>>> post the percentages here once I get approval to do so, likely next >>>>>>>> week >>>>>>>> given the holiday in the U.S.. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Andrew >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 11:29 AM Chris Harrelson < >>>>>>>> chris...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Andrew, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> M96 has now shipped. Is the UseCounter data now available? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 7:33 PM Andrew Williams < >>>>>>>>> awil...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Daniel, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for following up on this. UMA metrics to count the >>>>>>>>>> prevalence of \x00, \x0d, and \x0a characters in cookie strings will >>>>>>>>>> roll >>>>>>>>>> out with the M96 release. We'll post back here once those metrics >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> available. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regarding deprecation warnings, we've mapped out how to generate >>>>>>>>>> DevTools Issues that would warn developers when cookies containing >>>>>>>>>> these >>>>>>>>>> characters are detected, but we haven't implemented anything yet. >>>>>>>>>> Also, we >>>>>>>>>> haven't implemented the sending of deprecation reports yet. Both are >>>>>>>>>> still >>>>>>>>>> on our radar, though. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -Andrew >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 2:37 PM Daniel Bratell < >>>>>>>>>> bratel...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The last thing happening in this thread was that we decided to >>>>>>>>>>> wait for data. What is the current status of those usecounters, >>>>>>>>>>> have they >>>>>>>>>>> reached the user base now? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> /Daniel >>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-09-20 07:59, Yoav Weiss wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 6:36 PM Steven Bingler < >>>>>>>>>>> bing...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ian and Yoav, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I believe the general guidance now for warning users of some >>>>>>>>>>>> change is to use DevTools Issues rather than console warnings. >>>>>>>>>>>> Would using >>>>>>>>>>>> Issues, instead of console warnings, be acceptable to you? (This >>>>>>>>>>>> would be >>>>>>>>>>>> in addition to the reports.) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe the API OWNERS have a stand on console warnings >>>>>>>>>>> vs. issues for deprecations. Whatever is the general guidance that >>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>>> make this visible for developers seems good to me, assuming that >>>>>>>>>>> issues are >>>>>>>>>>> prominent in the UI and manage to grab the median developer's >>>>>>>>>>> attention. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Also, for posterity, it is possible to emit a console warning >>>>>>>>>>>> starting from EmitCookieWarningsAndMetrics() with a little work. >>>>>>>>>>>> We used to >>>>>>>>>>>> do just that for SameSite warnings before we transitioned them to >>>>>>>>>>>> DevTools >>>>>>>>>>>> Issue [1 >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/1cc31f46c2e6ae658a97b92fbc8c556eba382d3e/content/browser/frame_host/cookie_utils.cc#128>] >>>>>>>>>>>> [2 >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/1cc31f46c2e6ae658a97b92fbc8c556eba382d3e/content/browser/frame_host/render_frame_host_impl.cc#8309>] >>>>>>>>>>>> (many refactors ago). It looks like most of the necessary >>>>>>>>>>>> functions still >>>>>>>>>>>> exist, so it shouldn't be too hard to recreate that functionality >>>>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>>>> needed. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>> Steven >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 8:45:10 AM UTC-7 Andrew >>>>>>>>>>>> Williams wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback Mike, Yoav, and Ian. I will explore >>>>>>>>>>>>> the feasibility of using CountDeprecation (or something similar) >>>>>>>>>>>>> from the >>>>>>>>>>>>> cookie-related code and will report back once I have an update on >>>>>>>>>>>>> this. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -Andrew >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 10:11 AM Ian Clelland < >>>>>>>>>>>>> iclell...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That looks right -- that code path won't get you anywhere >>>>>>>>>>>>>> near adding a console message, as far as I can tell, but you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be able >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to queue a report that way. Ideally, we'd have something like >>>>>>>>>>>>>> deprecation.cc for browser-side that would handle the UMA as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> formatting the report body consistently. As a first pass, until >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more that one browser-generated deprecation report, just >>>>>>>>>>>>>> generating and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> queuing it would work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 6:42 AM Yoav Weiss < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I may very well be wrong, but it seems like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CookieUtils::EmitCookieWarningsAndMetrics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:content/browser/renderer_host/cookie_utils.cc;l=97;drc=8afc9e45a7e96afda8f22ef044d1e7cdc5a6f75a;bpv=1;bpt=1> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right plumbing to reach RenderFrameHost, and from it, get a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ReportingSource >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:content/browser/renderer_host/render_frame_host_impl.cc;l=1730;drc=8afc9e45a7e96afda8f22ef044d1e7cdc5a6f75a?q=RenderFrameHost&ss=chromium%2Fchromium%2Fsrc> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can enable us to send >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:content/browser/renderer_host/render_frame_host_impl.cc;l=10676;drc=8afc9e45a7e96afda8f22ef044d1e7cdc5a6f75a;bpv=1;bpt=1?q=RenderFrameHost&ss=chromium%2Fchromium%2Fsrc> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deprecation reports (even if through a different mechanism than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CountDeprecation). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ian - thoughts on the above? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 9:21 PM Mike West <mk...@chromium.org> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think `countDeprecation` is going to work here, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insofar as that's a Blink-layer concept, and the network stack >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't going >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have an understanding of page views or use counters or etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we've >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wired things up such that deprecation reports can be triggered >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> network stack, lovely, but I'm not sure that's the case. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another approach that might be reasonable to approach might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be to roll this out on a percentage-basis, starting with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substantial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> portion of beta, then rolling to stable iff we're confident in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This feels like both the right directional and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical thing to do with cookies. I'd like to see it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ship, and a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> staged rollout might well be a reasonable way of gaining >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confidence in our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ability to do so? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -mike >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 1:03 PM Yoav Weiss < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds good! Can you please ping this thread once results >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start coming in? Thanks! :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 3:59:36 AM UTC+2 Andrew >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Williams wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds good - we will add the CountDeprecation metrics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the suggestion, Yoav, and thank you Ian for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> additional info. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Andrew >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 10:07 AM Ian Clelland < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> iclell...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 4:55 AM Yoav Weiss < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Andrew, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given that the metrics are not a superset of what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're trying to deprecate, could you please add >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CountDeprecation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/blink/renderer/core/frame/deprecation.cc;drc=f6f22e82bcd0d50f390b23ee9688c58de5ae0bdc;bpv=1;bpt=1;l=702?q=deprecation&ss=chromium> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metrics of the case you are intending to deprecate? That >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would ensure .e.g >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deprecation reports are sent to folks that happen to have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such cookies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even though you haven't really asked, from my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective, it's also fine to add a console deprecation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message at this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point, in parallel to the metrics. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FYI, CountDeprecation will take care of adding that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> console message for you, as well as: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Generating a report object which can be seen with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ReportingObserver, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Sending that report to any configured endpoints for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the document, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Counting the usage for UMA, so that we can track the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (hopefully) declining usage of the deprecated feature. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yoav >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 5:05:44 PM UTC+2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew Williams wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the percentage for the metric mentioned in my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last email: over a 7 day period, 0.00004% of cookies seen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the stable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version of Chrome had truncated names and/or values. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately our plan is to ship this feature behind a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kill switch that we could flip if major issues are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reported. With that in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mind, and given the low number of truncated cookie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> names/values observed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> via our existing metrics, would it make sense to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement and collect the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new metrics in parallel with rolling out the changes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described in this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I2P&S? Or do you think taking the more cautious approach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing/collecting the new metrics before landing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this change is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better way forward (despite taking more time)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Andrew >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 1:45 PM Andrew Williams < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> awil...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback/questions Yoav and Daniel. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have some metrics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/700dc7fe1578ab5e0e50a6304f2a1960005b8f8b:tools/metrics/histograms/metadata/cookie/histograms.xml;l=56;bpv=1;bpt=0> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on Chrome's existing behavior to truncate cookie lines >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containing \x00, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> \x0d, and \x0a (specifically, in cases where the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truncation affects the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cookie name or the cookie value). The percentage of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cookies with truncated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> names or values is quite low, although I'm still waiting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on approval to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release the exact percentage. We don't have any metrics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for cases where >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truncation affected cookie attribute parsing (for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, the malicious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case this intent aims to address) or where truncation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was harmless (for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, a newline as the last character in the cookie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> line), though. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Especially for the latter case, it does seem plausible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that certain sites >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be constructing cookie lines in such a way that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control characters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slip in unnoticed. We will add new metrics to cover >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these cases so that we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can better predict the level of breakage that these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes may have. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Andrew >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 2:22 PM Daniel Bratell < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bratel...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if browsers are currently slightly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompatible, it seems this change will short term make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompatible. As Yoav said, it would be good to have an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea about how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common this is, i.e. how often will cookies that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today truncated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead be rejected? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Daniel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-08-25 16:18, Yoav Weiss wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Andrew! Thanks for working on this, this seems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a significant compatibility gap (with security >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implications) that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be great to close. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 3:45:50 PM UTC+2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew Williams wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Contact emails awil...@chromium.org, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> miketa...@chromium.org Explainer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1531 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/1589 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specification >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/blob/main/draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc6265bis.md >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Summary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Updates how control characters in cookie data are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handled. Specifically, the tab character is now >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> permitted, but all other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control characters cause the entire cookie to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejected (previously the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> \x00, \x0D, and \x0A characters in a cookie line >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused it to be truncated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of rejected entirely, which could have enabled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> malicious behavior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in certain circumstances). This behavior is also in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> line with the latest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drafts of RFC6265bis. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blink component >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internals>Network>Cookies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Internals%3ENetwork%3ECookies> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Motivation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the case where attacker controlled data is used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to set a new cookie, having certain control characters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truncate the cookie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> line could result in security-related cookie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attributes being ignored. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This behavior may also lead to cookie data corruption >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when control >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characters are introduced, which may cause >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unpredictable behavior on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application side (more so than cookies not being set, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is a case that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applications should already handle). Having control >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characters result in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the whole cookie being rejected helps mitigate these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns and aligns >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chrome with RFC6265bis. For the tab character, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> although it falls in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control character range (\x00 - \x1F, \x7F), it’s a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> printable character and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed by other browsers. Treating it the same way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the space >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> character is treated makes sense intuitively, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminates a potential >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fingerprinting vector, and aligns Chrome with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC6265bis. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the past, moving to a stricter models that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forbade certain characters resulted in at least some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breakage of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-malicious content. I doubt this one would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significantly different. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have a sense of the resulting breakage? If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not, I think it'd make sense to add metrics to our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cookie parsing algorithm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and see what that breakage would look like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Initial public proposal TAG review >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> N/A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-api-owners-discuss/c/uBxq9uCpKx0/m/A5LI0NbyAAAJ>: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this change is already specified in RFC 6265bis and is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a relatively minor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change to what's already implemented in Chrome (to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve spec compliance). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that this change is in lower layers than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those the TAG usually deals with. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TAG review status Not applicable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Risks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> N/A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interoperability and Compatibility >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WebKit / Safari: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - All control characters except the tab character >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause the cookie to be rejected if present in the name >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and cause the rest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the cookie line to be truncated if present in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gecko / Firefox: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 0x00 in the cookie value causes the rest of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value to be truncated (but subsequent attributes are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserved) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 0x00 in the cookie name causes the rest of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name and the value to be truncated (but subsequent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attributes are preserved) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 0x0d and 0x0a cause the entire cookie line to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truncated (attributes ignored) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 0x01 through 0x09 (the tab character), 0x0b >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through 0x0c, and 0x0e through 0x1f cause the cookie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be rejected if they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are present in the name, but are allowed in the cookie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 0x7f is allowed in the cookie name and cookie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The following issues exist reporting these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differences: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Firefox - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1702031#c1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WebKit - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=229088 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Allowing tab characters in cookie names aligns >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chrome with Safari but not Firefox, and allowing tabs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the cookie value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aligns Chrome with both. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding control characters (not including tab), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what will change in Chrome is the handling of 0x00, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0x0d, and 0x0a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characters. Today, Chrome truncates cookie lines when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these characters are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encountered, and this intent proposes having these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characters result in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cookie rejection instead. Rejecting cookie names >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containing these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characters aligns Chrome with Safari but not Firefox, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but rejecting cookie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values containing these characters is inconsistent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with existing Safari or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Firefox behavior. However, these changes unify >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chrome’s control character >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handling behavior, better align Chrome with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC6265bis, and also help >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent a class of cookie attribute removal attacks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (when malicious input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is used to build a cookie line under certain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditions). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gecko: N/A - these changes seem too small to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justify this effort WebKit: N/A - these changes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seem too small to justify this effort >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I somewhat agree that asking for a position here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be an overkill, but would love to get a signal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from both Mozilla and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Safari on their intents to align with the RFC. (the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> former seems more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely than the latter, as this seems like a CFNetwork >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the same time, the issues seem sufficient for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that purpose, assuming folks there respond. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Web developers: N/A - these changes are relatively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> small and are in alignment with the RFC, other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> browsers, and/or existing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, developers are unlikely to be happy about this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from a breakage perspective, even if it'd reduce compat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues. The main >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing we can do about that is ensure breakage is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minimal before shipping. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Debuggability >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DevTools debugging support will be implemented >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along with this change. Rejected response cookies are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already shown in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DevTools in the Network panel, with a status >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explaining why they were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejected. Another status will be added to annotate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cookies rejected due to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control characters. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/master/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In Progress - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3084521 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flag name >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UpdatedCookieControlCharacterChecks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Requires code in //chrome? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tracking bug >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1233602 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Estimated milestones >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> M96 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/5709264560586752 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Requesting approval to ship? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This intent message was generated by Chrome >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Platform Status <https://www.chromestatus.com/>. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emails from it, send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/e2de8b96-8878-47fe-99e2-5497b96c9adcn%40chromium.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/e2de8b96-8878-47fe-99e2-5497b96c9adcn%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emails from it, send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/44805dc7-edd8-218d-dcbe-9c589509b633%40gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/44805dc7-edd8-218d-dcbe-9c589509b633%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emails from it, send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/fcb32661-cecb-4f5a-a29d-9f3cdfbc5395n%40chromium.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/fcb32661-cecb-4f5a-a29d-9f3cdfbc5395n%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from it, send an email to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/984b9bba-57f7-4145-9e1e-ee50601aae68n%40chromium.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/984b9bba-57f7-4145-9e1e-ee50601aae68n%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>>>>>>> Google Groups "blink-dev" group. >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>>> send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. >>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAEa0%2BkWGVtOGPxUqQfk5u5Ds9BfiR5Ks%3DjkBp8NQ9AS2w-cL9g%40mail.gmail.com >>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAEa0%2BkWGVtOGPxUqQfk5u5Ds9BfiR5Ks%3DjkBp8NQ9AS2w-cL9g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAEa0%2BkUbJDBPAdrk4G2iMyj_852b_jFn5%3D9nJjOa_4HorFMOTw%40mail.gmail.com.
