Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Review different cross-domain import mechanisms and their security models #157

Closed
tantek opened this issue Dec 5, 2019 · 12 comments
Closed
Assignees

Comments

@tantek
Copy link

tantek commented Dec 5, 2019

During #TC39 73 I’ve learned about ES Modules Attributes being proposed to address security concerns when importing JSON modules: ES Module Attributes. Filing this design issue for the TAG to more broadly consider various web-based cross-domain import mechanisms like HTML Modules (334), CSS Modules (405), and ES Modules. Specifically I request the TAG analyze and provide clarity on the exact security model or models and hopefully some degree of consistency and explicit architectural design across these mechanisms.

See the following related issues and efforts:

From a web author, developer, publisher perspective, a more consistent and understandable security model across these would help with easier understanding and better chance of conveying author intent. Thanks for your consideration!

(Originally published at: https://tantek.com/2019/339/b1/cross-domain-import-mechanisms-security)

@plinss plinss changed the title W3C TAG: Review different cross-domain import mechanisms and their security models Review different cross-domain import mechanisms and their security models Dec 6, 2019
@hober
Copy link
Contributor

hober commented Dec 16, 2019

See also w3ctag/design-reviews#375 (JSON modules)

@kenchris
Copy link
Contributor

@hober
Copy link
Contributor

hober commented Dec 16, 2019

@cynthia, do you think you could also take a look at this one?

@hober
Copy link
Contributor

hober commented Feb 24, 2020

I request the TAG analyze and provide clarity on the exact security model or models and hopefully some degree of consistency and explicit architectural design across these mechanisms.

I think we should take this up as an issue on our Design Principles document, so I propose transferring this issue to that repo. Thoughts?

@plinss
Copy link
Member

plinss commented Feb 24, 2020

Yes, transfer to the design principles repo

@dbaron
Copy link
Member

dbaron commented Feb 24, 2020

Yes, sounds good to me as well. This was briefly discussed in Breakout B today; minutes should be posted on Wednesday after the plenary.

@hober hober transferred this issue from w3ctag/design-reviews Feb 24, 2020
@hober
Copy link
Contributor

hober commented Feb 24, 2020

Transferring. I'll take the action to write a PR for this.

@dbaron
Copy link
Member

dbaron commented Feb 27, 2020

@hober
Copy link
Contributor

hober commented May 29, 2020

I think we should wait for the ES Module Attributes and JSON modules proposal to advance to Stage 3. At that point, we should do a design review of it, and evaluate if we need to add a principle here.

@cynthia cynthia added this to the 2020-07-06-week milestone May 29, 2020
@plinss plinss removed this from the 2020-08-10-week milestone Sep 5, 2020
@hober
Copy link
Contributor

hober commented Sep 23, 2020

I wrote:

I think we should wait for the ES Module Attributes and JSON modules proposal to advance to Stage 3.

It's Stage 3 now.

At that point, we should do a design review of it,

Done: w3ctag/design-reviews#535

and evaluate if we need to add a principle here.

Personally, I think this issue is well in hand and we don't need to add a principle here.

@cynthia
Copy link
Member

cynthia commented Sep 23, 2020

@hober and I discussed this during the "Cork" "F2F.

Looking at the issue at hand, while this is indeed a pretty high-impact problem generally the principles is based on specific antipatterns we have seen in API designs. For this we only have one case, so it feels like this should be treated as a design review problem and see if there are any best practices to extract from the outcome of it, which could potentially be a future principle. But for the time being, it feels a bit preemptive to write a separate section at this point.

@hober
Copy link
Contributor

hober commented Sep 24, 2020

Resolved to close this in the breakout 11/12 summary session today.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants