Hi Govid, Thank you for the help but is not working: You can test here: https://salesdemo.successfactors.eu/login?company=SFPART061393 mircea.crac...@sap.com<mailto:mircea.crac...@sap.com> Welcome1!
Best regards, Mircea From: Kaustubha Govind <kaustub...@google.com> Sent: Saturday, 8 April 2023 02:21 To: blink-dev <blink-dev@chromium.org> Cc: Kaustubha Govind <kaustub...@google.com>; Mircea Craciun <mircea.craciun%sap....@gtempaccount.com>; Eric Lawrence <eric...@microsoft.com>; dylan...@google.com <dylancut...@google.com>; Alexandru Mihai <a.mi...@eyeo.com>; Chris Harrelson <chris...@chromium.org>; joha...@google.com <johann...@google.com>; blink-dev <blink-dev@chromium.org>; rby...@chromium.org <rby...@chromium.org>; yoav...@chromium.org <yoavwe...@chromium.org>; Eric Lawrence <bay...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [blink-dev] Intent to Ship: Cookies Having Independent Partitioned State (CHIPS) You don't often get email from kaustub...@google.com<mailto:kaustub...@google.com>. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> Mircea: Since CHIPS is only enabled via Finch/ChromeVariations for versions Chrome 110-113. One other thing you could try is to set the ChromeVariations Policy<https://chromeenterprise.google/policies/#ChromeVariations> value to "CriticalFixesOnly" (value 1) temporarily; restart the browser, and check if that disables CHIPS. Note that this will also disable any other Chrome features that are enabled via Finch/ChromeVariations as well. CHIPS is enabled by default in the binary starting in Chrome 114 (stable release date: May 30, 2023), so this mechanism will not be effective when your clients upgrade to Chrome 114. On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 7:29:15 PM UTC-4 Kaustubha Govind wrote: Eric: Thanks for identifying the issue so quickly, and flagging this. Mircea: Since CHIPS is an opt-in feature; and isn't expected to impact legacy code, we do not have an enterprise policy in place. The most expedient fix here would be to identify the cookies that had the Partitioned attribute mistakenly added, and to remove the attribute. I believe Eric was able to pinpoint the exact cookie(s) in question; so I'm hoping that this fix can be implemented quickly. Happy to discuss over a call if helpful (we can make ourselves available over the weekend if needed). On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 7:11:20 PM UTC-4 Mircea Craciun wrote: hi all, Eric explained already the issue that we are having . We have more than 1500 customers impacted by this change with Millions of end-users and no valid workaround on Corporate level. Is there any way to set up a Chrome policy for chrome://flags/#partitioned-cookies to disabled by default on Corporate level?Or on the next update at least to disable it by default and give us some time to fix our auth flow? On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 10:10:07 PM UTC+2 Eric Lawrence wrote: There is not a Chrome Policy to control this feature (and no similar mechanism for an Enterprise to turn off chrome://flags/#partitioned-cookies), is there? I ask because a major enterprise SaaS vendor today reached out to me to say that their product abruptly stopped working properly. Investigation revealed that their web App is dependent upon a SSO flow where there's a subframe in the main page that checks for an auth cookie, and failing to find one, the subframe spawns a new tab to the auth provider. That new tab sets the cookie and closes its tab. The main page then retries its operation, and (problematically) the subframe again reports that its cookie was not set, and the new popup repeats. This happens forever. I looked at traces and confirmed that the problem is that the Auth provider is setting its cookie as "Partitioned" and this causes the cookie to never appear in the subframe of the app. Turning off support for Partitioned cookies causes the site to work correctly. I built a reduced repro here: https://debugtheweb.com/test/auth/app.html Now, as far as I can tell, this is all expected as far as how things are supposed to work, but this SaaS vendor is concerned that they don't seem to have any sort of temporary escape hatch to give their customers until the Web App devs can fix their auth flow (either changing the auth provider to not use Partitioned, or changing the way the main site works such that it is not impacted in this way). On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 9:41:02 AM UTC-5 dylan...@google.com<mailto:dylan...@google.com> wrote: Good catch, Eric. I just updated the Chromestatus page for CHIPS to enabled by default on 114. On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 10:33 AM Eric Lawrence <bay...@gmail.com<mailto:bay...@gmail.com>> wrote: Should the change to "Enabled by default" appear for 114 on https://chromestatus.com/roadmap ? On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 4:16:05 PM UTC-5 Kaustubha Govind wrote: CHIPS is now enabled for 100% of Chrome 110+ users. The feature is also now enabled by default<https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/4385140> on the Chromium tip-of-tree, which corresponds to the Chrome 114 release. On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 9:10:50 AM UTC-4 Kaustubha Govind wrote: On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 1:24 AM Alexandru Mihai <a.m...@eyeo.com<mailto:a.m...@eyeo.com>> wrote: Awesome, thanks for letting me know 🙂 The rollout will cover all versions from 110 to current, not just the latest version right? Correct, all versions from Chrome 110 onwards are covered. On Mar 30, 2023, at 03:49, Kaustubha Govind <kaust...@google.com<mailto:kaust...@google.com>> wrote: Hi Alex, Apologies for the late response. The rollout is currently still at 10%; but we've been able to make progress on resolving metrics regressions; and intend to go to 100% either later this week, or early next week. We'll send an update here when that happens. K On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 12:47:46 PM UTC-4 Alexandru Mihai wrote: Hi @Dylan, What's the current status of the rollout? Have you moved to 50%? Best, Alex M On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 8:48:09 PM UTC+2 Dylan Cutler wrote: Hey all, Another update. We decided to roll out CHIPS to 10% of stable instead of 50% to get a better picture on whether CHIPS is having impacts on any of our guiding metrics before rolling out to 50%. Our plan is to let the experiment gather data for 7 days at 10% before checking metrics again and rolling out to 50%. Thanks, Dylan On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 4:15 PM Dylan Cutler <dylan...@google.com<mailto:dylan...@google.com>> wrote: Hey all, We were planning to ramp up CHIPS to 50% of stable this week, but upon doing metrics analysis we see some guardrail metrics have variations between our control/experiment groups. We are delaying the ramp-up a couple days to do additional analysis to make sure the variations are legitimate and/or are actually caused by partitioned cookies. Thanks, Dylan On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 6:40 PM Dylan Cutler <dylan...@google.com<mailto:dylan...@google.com>> wrote: Hey all, Another update for CHIPS, we will be rolling out to 5% stable starting tomorrow. Canary/beta/dev will remain enabled at 50%. Thanks, Dylan On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 11:36 AM Dylan Cutler <dylan...@google.com<mailto:dylan...@google.com>> wrote: Hey all, We have enabled the PartitionedCookies feature on 1% of stable. We will continue to keep the feature enabled on 50% of canary/dev/beta. Thanks, Dylan On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 1:46:10 PM UTC-5 Dylan Cutler wrote: Hey all, Another quick update. Due to a partitioned cookies privacy bug<https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1405772> that was discovered, we have to delay the launch of CHIPS to M110, which is the most recent release with the patch. Since M110 has been released to beta, we have enabled the PartitionedCookies feature on 50% of dev/beta/canary. We will begin rolling out to 1% stable next week. Thanks, Dylan On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 1:07 PM Dylan Cutler <dylan...@google.com<mailto:dylan...@google.com>> wrote: Hey all, quick update. We intend to roll out the feature in gradual increments starting January 10, 2023; and expect to reach 5% of Chrome instances on January 24, 2023 and stay there for a couple of weeks. Once we are satisfied that there is no regression in metrics/behavior, we will proceed with the rollout. On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 10:55 AM Rick Byers <rby...@chromium.org<mailto:rby...@chromium.org>> wrote: LGTM3 On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 5:24 AM Yoav Weiss <yoav...@chromium.org<mailto:yoav...@chromium.org>> wrote: LGTM2 On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 10:43 AM Johann Hofmann <joha...@google.com<mailto:joha...@google.com>> wrote: On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 5:37 PM Chris Harrelson <chri...@chromium.org<mailto:chri...@chromium.org>> wrote: On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 10:34 AM 'Johann Hofmann' via blink-dev <blin...@chromium.org<mailto:blin...@chromium.org>> wrote: Hi Yoav, On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 5:28 AM Yoav Weiss <yoav...@chromium.org<mailto:yoav...@chromium.org>> wrote: On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 10:57 PM 'Dylan Cutler' via blink-dev <blin...@chromium.org<mailto:blin...@chromium.org>> wrote: Contact emails: dylan...@google.com<mailto:dylan...@google.com>, kaust...@google.com<mailto:kaust...@google.com> Proposal repository: https://github.com/privacycg/CHIPS Design doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wL2lCXpaVOi0cWOn_ehfLFIZQxT3t0SH-ANnZYPEB0I/edit?usp=sharing Specification: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cutler-httpbis-partitioned-cookies/ Can you expand on the plans for this I-D? Have y'all talked to the HTTPWG? Yes, this is being discussed in HTTPWG. Dylan presented CHIPS at IETF 115, minutes are here: https://httpwg.org/wg-materials/ietf115/minutes.html#cookies Great. Were there any concerns raised there that might create a risk for CHIPS? Not as far as I'm aware of. I couldn't attend the meeting in person, but revisited it with the team. From what I was told the main discussion point was whether we shouldn't just partition all 3P cookies by default instead of giving developers the ability to decide. It's a valid question, but one that has been extensively discussed between browser vendors in Privacy CG, and both Safari and Chrome have made it clear that they strongly prefer blocking 3P cookies by default (with Firefox not being opposed to that). We'll of course keep on engaging with these concerns and questions in HTTPWG, but it seems like a decision that ultimately browsers should have the most authority on. In any case, I don't think that this discussion presents any compat risk for CHIPS, as the Partitioned attribute would be compatible with a hypothetical partition-by-default future (i.e. by being a no-op). Thanks for the details! :) One important thing to note is that the HTML/Fetch <-> Cookies spec interfaces aren't well defined at the moment, which also affects other specs that deal with cookie changes such as the Storage Access API. We're working on fixing this in a larger effort called "cookie layering"<https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/2084>, which is intended to give Fetch some more responsibility in providing the information that is used to select cookies from the cookie store. This way we can actually access concepts like "top-level site" at the right implementation layer. So, in the mid-term, parts of CHIPS will likely end up back in HTML and Fetch. In the meantime, like for SameSite, the RFC will hand-wave some of the browser bits. Summary: Given that Chrome plans to deprecate unpartitioned third-party cookies, we want to give developers the ability to use cookies in cross-site contexts that are partitioned by top-level site to meet use cases<https://developer.chrome.com/en/docs/privacy-sandbox/chips/#use-cases> that don't track users cross-site (e.g. SaaS embeds, headless CMS, sandbox domains, etc.). Chrome will introduce a mechanism to opt into having third-party cookies partitioned by top-level site using a new cookie attribute, Partitioned. Since we announced our Intent to Experiment<https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/_dJFNJpf91U/m/OXzFi_6wAwAJ?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> with CHIPS, there have been some changes to the API: * The Partitioned attribute no longer requires<https://github.com/privacycg/CHIPS/pull/46> the __Host- prefix or its required attributes. The Secure requirement remains. * We are changing the per-partition-per-domain limit to be based on the total size (in bytes) of the cookies set by a domain in a particular partition in addition to the number of cookies. We intend<https://github.com/privacycg/CHIPS/issues/48#issuecomment-1264126065> to impose a limit of 10 KB per-embedded-site, per-top-level-site and increase the numeric limit from 10 to 180. * For sites embedded in top-level domains that are in a First-Party Set<https://github.com/WICG/first-party-sets>, their cookies' partition key will no longer be the owner domain of that set. Rather, the partition key will always be the top-level domain that the cookie was created on. Blink component: Internals>Network>Cookies<https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component:Internals%3ENetwork%3ECookies> TAG review: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/654 (Supportive early review) https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/779 (Oct 19 specification review) Risks Interoperability and Compatibility Firefox: Positive<https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#chips> WebKit: Supported incubation<https://github.com/privacycg/proposals/issues/30#issuecomment-1113257336>, Official position pending<https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/50> Web developers: Developers have indicated that CHIPS does solve for many use cases that depend on access to cookies in cross-site contexts (1<https://github.com/privacycg/CHIPS/issues/8>, 2<https://github.com/privacycg/CHIPS/issues/30#issuecomment-1104225686>, 3<https://triplelift.com/privacy-hub/w3c-proposals-explained-privacy-with-a-side-of-chips/>). Through incubation, and the Origin Trial, we received feedback to improve ease-of-use, particularly to allow for easier migration of existing systems to use CHIPS. We believe we have satisfactorily resolved these concerns (see changes made listed under Summary section). Other signals: Ergonomics N/A Activation This feature introduces a new cookie attribute, Partitioned, which is opt-in only. Sites which do not set their cookies with Partitioned should not see any change in the browser's behavior when we ship. Security See S&P questionnaire for TAG<https://github.com/privacycg/CHIPS/blob/main/TAG-S%26P-questionnaire.md> WebView application risks Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such that it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications? This feature does not deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs. This feature is behind a killswitch. Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and Android WebView)? Yes Is this feature covered by web platform tests? Yes<https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/cookies/partitioned-cookies> Flag name partitioned-cookies Requires code in //chrome? No Tracking bug: https://crbug.com/1225444 Non-OSS dependencies Does the feature depend on any code or APIs outside the Chromium open source repository and its open-source dependencies to function? Not anymore than cookies already do now. Estimated milestones OriginTrial desktop last 106 OriginTrial desktop first 100 OriginTrial Android last 106 OriginTrial Android first 100 Anticipated spec changes Open questions about a feature may be a source of future web compat or interop issues. Please list open issues (e.g. links to known github issues in the project for the feature specification) whose resolution may introduce web compat/interop risk (e.g., changing to naming or structure of the API in a non-backward-compatible way). List of open issues: https://github.com/privacycg/CHIPS/issues Chrome Platform Status page: https://chromestatus.com/feature/5179189105786880 Links to previous Intent discussions Intent to Prototype: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/hvMJ33kqHRo/ Intent to Experiment: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/_dJFNJpf91U/m/YqP09XbbAgAJ Intent to Extend Experiment: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/kZRtetS8jsY/m/ppK4kDbqAwAJ https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/MKQODOL0Fso/m/nZXI2dqwAQAJ -- 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+...@chromium.org<mailto:blink-dev+...@chromium.org>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAMCNMFTt9hEnH1%2BBzB6c0qQijbBEJwvUKPKSO2gu7E-A%2BY_v8w%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAMCNMFTt9hEnH1%2BBzB6c0qQijbBEJwvUKPKSO2gu7E-A%2BY_v8w%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+...@chromium.org<mailto:blink-dev+...@chromium.org>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfUDzq6pUpw_%2BGMBxzrsb23qtw5Vnv-QG6yZQ35G_j%2BZfQ%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfUDzq6pUpw_%2BGMBxzrsb23qtw5Vnv-QG6yZQ35G_j%2BZfQ%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+...@chromium.org<mailto:blink-dev+...@chromium.org>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAD_OO4gVfT1aAHE4%3D3Cs6KoCA54q14bGaPepuqofdTEKJVkkgw%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAD_OO4gVfT1aAHE4%3D3Cs6KoCA54q14bGaPepuqofdTEKJVkkgw%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+...@chromium.org<mailto:blink-dev+...@chromium.org>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfXOZKtBQPewkukz85JZdT6OXSqLTz8%2BvUZQ6rBaY4hQ3g%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfXOZKtBQPewkukz85JZdT6OXSqLTz8%2BvUZQ6rBaY4hQ3g%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/AM9PR02MB77222FDA5FA40CA02C2DEC8D89979%40AM9PR02MB7722.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com.
