3 ms·

What we lack, in my opinion, is a form of access control for static websites, such that they are disallowed from making any outgoing requests. The browser is in

by runeks 9y ago

What we lack, in my opinion, is a form of access control for static websites, such that they are disallowed from making any outgoing requests. The browser is in control of the site code; it should be possible to guarantee that no outgoing requests can take place. As far as I can see, it shouldn’t be difficult, but it’s possible I’m missing something — I assume the difficult part is just reaching agreement. Perhaps it would be possible to permit outgoing requests where the URL is statically embedded in the HTML (such that the URL cannot depend on form data), thus allowing fetching e.g. remote CSS/JS resources.

XJ0OYtjb 9y ago
Something like uMatrix can be used by the client, and Content Security Policy combined with Subresource Integrity can be used by the publisher.
ComodoHacker 9y ago
Who would be the party who ensures the site is actually static and doesn't send data from backend?
- runeks 9y ago
  The browser handles requests to the backend, and would thus be the one in charge of not allowing requests in case the site enables this proposed “offline mode”. So all the browser would allow would be the initial, user-initiated fetch of the static site, whereas subsequent requests — initiated by the site itself — would be disallowed.
didgeoridoo 9y ago
Isn't that basically CORS?
- kybernetikos 9y ago
  CORS stops you from contacting an external service that doesn't opt in. It doesn't solve the problem of having private data in the browser that you don't want it to send out, since it could contact an evil site that opts in to receiving messages from other web pages. To implement something like the suggestion would require two phases - one where the page was loading/updating its cache from the remote service, but was unable to look at locally stored data, and another phase, where the user is able to log in and allow access to locally stored data. Once transition has been made to the second phase network access would not be allowed. This sounds pretty involved.
rizky05 9y ago
Just turn off your network while using the site
arcbyte 9y ago
Turn off Javascript

by runeks 9y ago

XJ0OYtjb 9y ago

Something like uMatrix can be used by the client, and Content Security Policy combined with Subresource Integrity can be used by the publisher.

ComodoHacker 9y ago

Who would be the party who ensures the site is actually static and doesn't send data from backend?

runeks 9y ago
The browser handles requests to the backend, and would thus be the one in charge of not allowing requests in case the site enables this proposed “offline mode”. So all the browser would allow would be the initial, user-initiated fetch of the static site, whereas subsequent requests — initiated by the site itself — would be disallowed.

didgeoridoo 9y ago

Isn't that basically CORS?

kybernetikos 9y ago
CORS stops you from contacting an external service that doesn't opt in. It doesn't solve the problem of having private data in the browser that you don't want it to send out, since it could contact an evil site that opts in to receiving messages from other web pages. To implement something like the suggestion would require two phases - one where the page was loading/updating its cache from the remote service, but was unable to look at locally stored data, and another phase, where the user is able to log in and allow access to locally stored data. Once transition has been made to the second phase network access would not be allowed. This sounds pretty involved.

rizky05 9y ago

Just turn off your network while using the site

arcbyte 9y ago

Turn off Javascript