3 ms·
AFAIK most of that info is in HN and twitter discussions between webappsec people. Here's a link[0] to a CSP leak that was briefly discussed on the webappsec ma
by ejcx 11y ago
AFAIK most of that info is in HN and twitter discussions between webappsec people. Here's a link[0] to a CSP leak that was briefly discussed on the webappsec mailing list. I also know Homakov wrote one[1].
That's one of the reasons I like this talk so much. It really cemented these type of issue with real attacks, instead of a loosely described bunch of PoC. I remember reading somewhere on an RFC (perhaps CSP) that reporting can cause unwanted information leakage, but I didn't find it in the security considerations with a quick control+f just now.
[0] - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2015Jul/0030.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2015Ju...
[1] - http://homakov.blogspot.com/2014/01/using-content-security-policy-for-evil.html http://homakov.blogspot.com/2014/01/using-content-security-p...
- meowface 11y agoAh, I feel silly now. I remember reading Egor's blog post on that last year. Thanks.
- bcrypt 11y agoIn addition to Egor's stuff, I'd recommend just reading the "Privacy and Security Considerations" sections of various RFC's and W3C specs. Lots of theoretical attacks in there that people simply haven't built demos for! In case anyone's interested, slides are up at https://zyan.scripts.mit.edu/presentations/toorcon2015.pdf https://zyan.scripts.mit.edu/presentations/toorcon2015.pdf and talk recording at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk2GkZv6Wjs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk2GkZv6Wjs
- ejcx 11y agolike you said, the security considerations are mostly theoretical. It actually might seem basic turning it into a real attack but it requires a fair bit of work. It is always my favorite section of the RFCs. Along with anywhere that says "The UA [MUST|MAY|...] \w+". Much fun to be had....