On 3/24/25 10:24 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 4:37 PM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) <yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote:On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 6:45 AM Domenic Denicola <dome...@chromium.org> wrote: Great to hear! I see you've already updated the spec PR. My instinct is that we should give folks a week-ish to react to the new name, finish the spec review, etc. What do you think? Normally I would think this makes perfect sense. But given the 136 branch point a week from now, I prefer one of the two options: * Enable the flag in 136 before it branches and revert in the unlikely case there's some disagreement on the spelling. This option sounds good to me. LGTM1.
Me too, LGTM2
* Get help from Google folks to Finch enable it in 136 after branch point. Does that make sense? (Also, I can't quite understand what's blocking the spec PR from landing... I guess there's still some discussion about whether the bar is "2 interested implementers" or "2 actively implementing implementers"? Maybe it's worth poking to see if you can get more clarity on that?) I believe it's held back on getting SRI L2 to FPWD <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2025Mar/0011.html> (as a future Living Standard), and then potentially on getting a working mode agreed on, and for the PR to meet it. So it may take a while to land the PR. +Mike West <mailto:mk...@chromium.org> - Is my understanding correct? On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 2:28 PM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) <yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: Following discussions <https://github.com/w3c/webappsec/blob/main/meetings/2025/2025-03-19-minutes.md#require-sri-for-compatibility-and-spelling> at WebAppSec and the WAICT <https://docs.google.com/document/d/16-cvBkWYrKlZHXkWRFvKGEifdcMthUfv-LxIbg6bx2o/edit?tab=t.0> proposal, I'm renaming the directive to `integrity-required`. (CL <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/6382018>) That would also reduce the compatibility risk to zero AFAICT. On Monday, March 10, 2025 at 10:55:02 AM UTC+1 Yoav Weiss wrote: FWIW, I'm planning to discuss <https://github.com/w3c/webappsec/issues/668#issuecomment-2709995028> a syntax change at next week's WebAppSec meeting, that can help us avoid these compat issues. On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 7:54 PM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) <yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 6:08 PM Mike Taylor <miketa...@chromium.org> wrote: On 2/24/25 4:24 PM, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote:On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 7:18 PM Mike Taylor <miketa...@chromium.org> wrote: On 2/21/25 8:33 AM, Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) wrote:On Thursday, February 20, 2025 at 1:56:59 PM UTC+1 Yoav Weiss wrote: On Thursday, February 20, 2025 at 11:47:00 AM UTC+1 Yoav Weiss wrote: Contact emailsyoavwe...@chromium.org Explainerhttps://github.com/w3c/webappsec-subresource-integrity/pull/129#:~:text=for%20some%20assets.-,require%2Dsri%2Dfor%20CSP%20directive,-Subresource%2DIntegrity%20 <https://github.com/w3c/webappsec-subresource-integrity/pull/129#:~:text=for%20some%20assets.-,require%2Dsri%2Dfor%20CSP%20directive,-Subresource%2DIntegrity%20> Specificationhttps://github.com/w3c/webappsec-subresource-integrity/pull/129 <https://github.com/w3c/webappsec-subresource-integrity/pull/129> The feature and PR were discussed <https://github.com/w3c/webappsec/blob/main/meetings/2025/2025-02-19-minutes.md#reviving-require-sri-for> at the WebAppSec WG call. No objection beyond questions on whether we'd need to expand this to cover stylesheets as well. We'd be able to do that in the future (as a separate intent) if needed. Summary The `require-sri-for` directive gives developers the ability to assert that every resource of a given type needs to be integrity checked. If a resource of that type is attempted to be loaded without integrity metadata, that attempt will fail and trigger a CSP violation report. This intent covers the "script" value of this directive. Blink componentBlink>SecurityFeature>ContentSecurityPolicy <https://issues.chromium.org/issues?q=customfield1222907:%22Blink%3ESecurityFeature%3EContentSecurityPolicy%22> TAG reviewhttps://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1048 <https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1048> TAG review statusPending - No response just yet Risks Interoperability and Compatibility On the compatibility front: This directive was already implemented in the past, and there are some developer docs <https://udn.realityripple.com/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Content-Security-Policy/require-sri-for> that still describe it. The current PR and implementation did not diverge from the past implementation. If developers deployed the feature in the past and are now relying on it */not really working/*, that may result in surprising breakage. The HTTPArchive shows *0.0011% of page responses*(178 out of 15760519)have an existing `require-sri-for` directive. That's an upper bound - only those that enforce scripts, and have no integrity attributes on some scripts may get broken. Doing some more HA digging I found that it's 153 sites, which is not significantly different. I downloaded their URLs <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NlFHLytc8lQcdP5FXXDltKEPQVE0e8oyjw9k1S-9KPI/edit?usp=sharing> and started going to these sites with the feature enabled. Of those 153, 22 had any blocked assets, 9 had broken functionality or layout and 1 had missing ads. Non-visiblity broken but blocked sites mostly had their analytics blocked. Extrapolating that data brings us to 0.000158% for any blocked assets, and 0.000065% for broken functionality. I'm planning to reach out to the broken sites and make them aware of this change. Many of them seem to be coming from a single provider (similar site and breakage). I also found ~3500 sites that have the `require-sri-for` string in their response bodies (and hence may have it applied). I put together a script that so far scanned ~1800 of them and found no blocked assets. So, it seems like the risk is very low on that front.Thanks, I appreciate you digging in to understand the possible risks. My understanding of the compat risk goes something like (please let me know if I'm missing something): 1. This feature never really shipped, but was implemented behind a flag. 2. Early adopter developers (or menu framework authors?) added require-sri-for for some scripts that they wanted to lock down Tiny correction: they added it to the document's CSP, not specific scripts. (to prevent 3rd-party attackers from modifying them, etc). 3. Now, you actually ship the feature. That means the risks are: a) Some CDN was compromised at some point, and now some sketchy scripts will fail to load. Seems like that's security positive, even if it surprises users or developers. b) Perhaps more likely, a page was redesigned and they updated their analytics provider but didn't remember to add hashes. Now some things don't work. I suspect it's c) they added the header but never actually tested with the feature enabled, as it never shipped. It seems like they added the CSP header, but never added an "integrity" attribute to many/most of their scripts. From your sheet (which is great, thanks), it seems like largest impact is busted menus. Is this a single library? Or common pattern? It seems like a common provider. 6 out of the 9 sites with issues are Canadian health/edu related sites.Breaking health/edu-releated sites is not good... Indeed, although I'm not sure how load-bearing they are.. When broken, is it cosmetic, or are the links in the menu still accessible? (I see you're gathering contact info - let me know if you need help with that.) It seems like the desktop view is functional, but the mobile view's hamburger menu is not working (at least in some cases). Assuming we can sort out the menu breakage somehow, I think for the rest - the best we can do is roll it out and be ready to killswitch if needed.-- You received this message because you are subscribed to/Gecko/: No signal (https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1173 <https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1173>) /WebKit/: No signal (https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/458 <https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/458>) /Web developers/: Shopify is interested in this. I suspect PCIv4 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RcUpbpWPxXTyW0Qwczs9GCTLPD3-LcbbhL4ooBUevTM/edit?tab=t.0> would make some developers interested in making sure their documents' scripts have complete integrity checks. /Other signals/: 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? None Debuggability None Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and Android WebView)?Yes Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md>?Yes https://wpt.fyi/results/content-security-policy/tentative/require-sri-for?label=experimental&label=master&aligned <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/5877633> Flag name on about://flagsNone Finch feature nameCSPRequireSRIFor Requires code in //chrome?False Estimated milestonesShipping on desktop135DevTrial on desktop134Shipping on Android135DevTrial on Android134Shipping on WebView135 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). None Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Statushttps://chromestatus.com/feature/5090023365672960?gate=5186570942152704 <https://chromestatus.com/feature/5090023365672960?gate=5186570942152704> Links to previous Intent discussionsIntent to Prototype: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAOmohSJUygAmobR9dRkDr%3DBWQ1h5hv2Lj3WUFN31QZF360A47A%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAOmohSJUygAmobR9dRkDr%3DBWQ1h5hv2Lj3WUFN31QZF360A47A%40mail.gmail.com> This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status <https://chromestatus.com/>.-- You received this message because youare 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 visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/8d3107ca-61cc-47f6-badd-8bc6a1f30145n%40chromium.org <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/8d3107ca-61cc-47f6-badd-8bc6a1f30145n%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.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 visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/49037f78-2795-4d2e-9645-361e632c61f7n%40chromium.org <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/49037f78-2795-4d2e-9645-361e632c61f7n%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 visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/0b112bbd-5132-4d64-a85f-78afb6ba3005%40chromium.org.
