On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 at 23:05, Yoav Weiss <yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 3:56 PM Vladimir Levin <vmp...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> Are there any spec changes planned for this feature? I'm not sure if the >> README linked under Specification is meant to make it into WHATWG, maybe to >> close out https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/7189 >> >> The only spec I could find about CCNS is >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9111#section-5.2.1.5, so I'm not sure >> how to reconcile possibly contradicting language in the specs >> > > Great questions! Fergal - can you answer that? > RFC9111 is about HTTP caches. BFCache is not a HTTP cache, so RFC 9111 does not apply. Of course the reality of implementations and expectations vs spec is a problem. Some more discussion here <https://github.com/fergald/explainer-bfcache-ccns/blob/main/README.md#current-interactions-between-bfcache-and-ccns> BFCache and cases where it can/can't be used are specced in the HTML standard. We have had very little engagement from other vendors on this particular idea but Safari tried to cache all CCNS pages in the past. I am hoping that if we demonstrate a way to cache some of them safely, they would be on board. Also any browser is free to be *more* conservative than the spec while still staying in-spec as BFCaching at all is always optional. Here <https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/5744#issuecomment-661997090> is cdumez of Safari Safari / WebKit shipped with all pages going into the bfcache no matter what (including cache-control: no-store). The only push back we received was the fact that after you log out of a site, you could still go back and see a page you should no longer be able to see. We agreed that this feedback was valid and our short-term fix was to bypass the bfcache when the page uses cache-control: no-store. Sadly, many sites use this and their intention is likely not to prevent the bfcache. This is not something we like for the long term. F > > Also, Vlad previously asked about the recommended pattern for folks to > handle credential revocation with BFCache and his concerns with the snippet > suggested upthread. It'd be great to address that. > > >> Thanks! >> vmpstr >> >> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 2:32 AM Yoav Weiss <yoavwe...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >>> I just discussed this with Fergal offline: >>> >>> - The risky scenario is one where revocation of sensitive info >>> (logout, access revoked) happens on the server-side only without a >>> client-side update. >>> - In such a scenario on a shared computer, someone could back-button >>> their way into someone else's sensitive info. >>> - It might be interesting to talk to security folks (and maybe >>> Project Zero folks) to see if this is not happening already with content >>> that's not CCNS decorated. >>> - It would be good to run a survey of potentially-sensitive services >>> and try to get a signal from them on how many of them are properly doing >>> revocation on the client side. >>> - I'd love ideas on how we can scale such a survey beyond manual >>> inspection of a few known services. >>> - It could be interesting to try and ship a version of this with a >>> shorter timeout, to minimize the risk of users leaving the machine >>> unattended. >>> - If we go that route, it'd be good to think through how we'd be >>> able to increase that timeout over time, after gaining more >>> confidence that >>> the risky scenario isn't happening in the wild. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 2:36 AM Jason Robbins <jrobb...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> At this morning's API Owners meeting, they asked me to add all review >>>> gate types to all of the "web developer facing code change" features that >>>> are currently under review, including this one. So, I have added Privacy, >>>> Security, Enterprise, Debuggability, and Testing gates to your feature >>>> entry. >>>> >>>> Please click the gate chips in the "Prepare to ship" stage on your >>>> feature detail page. For each one, answer survey questions and request >>>> that of the cross-functional review. You can request them all in >>>> parallel. In cases where you already have the go/launch >>>> <https://goto.google.com/launch> bit approved, you can note that in a >>>> comment on that gate for a potentially faster review. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> jason! >>>> On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 9:09:18 AM UTC-7 Jason Robbins wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 1:01:54 PM UTC-7 Chris Harrelson >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Please also make sure to complete all of the other shipping gate >>>>> reviews >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/bqvB1oap0Yc/m/YlO8DEHgAQAJ> >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think a bug in ChromeStatus may have caused some confusion on this >>>>> feature entry. The feature entry has type "Web developer facing code >>>>> change", so its bilnk-dev thread should have had subject line prefix >>>>> "Web-facing change PSA" rather than "Intent to ship". And, according to >>>>> the launching-features doc >>>>> <https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/#psa-prepare-to-ship>, >>>>> it does not require any approvals, which is why there are no other gates >>>>> offered in the ChromeStatus UI. A fix for that subject-line prefix bug >>>>> should go live today. >>>>> >>>>> Of course, the point of a PSA is to allow concerns to be raised and I >>>>> see that this is a very active thread. So, all that should be worked >>>>> through. Its a mater of the the API Owners prerogative to request any >>>>> other reviews that they think are appropriate, but it is not automatically >>>>> required by the process for this feature type. Also, I see that the >>>>> launch >>>>> entry <https://launch.corp.google.com/launch/4251651> had some >>>>> approvals. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> jason! >>>>> >>>> -- >>> 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/CAL5BFfUszpq%3DS%3DOZ4k_GnopJMRcTnL_trq5iF8J-kAzeYEiqKA%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL5BFfUszpq%3DS%3DOZ4k_GnopJMRcTnL_trq5iF8J-kAzeYEiqKA%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/CAAozHLkA5eFwcvRsTAZhy728KFaBjd5W5EZpP2%3DMmC42ngMUuQ%40mail.gmail.com.
