4 ms·

I'm pretty sure you're incorrect - requests to sites different from the one you are currently on will not include auth data by default because of the same-origi

I'm pretty sure you're incorrect - requests to sites different from the one you are currently on will not include auth data by default because of the same-origin policy. The auth data would only be included if the server that the request is being sent to responds with an Access-Control-Allow-Origin header whose value matches the origin the request was made from.

mehrdadn 7y ago
I think we're agreeing? Like using CORS headers is a mechanism used to bypass SOP when needed, which was implemented because HTTP handles cookies in a stupid way and now nobody wants to change how that's done, right? Like neither CORS nor SOP should've been necessary in the first place had cookies explicitly included the allowed senders instead of just the receivers. (P.S. the way you phrased the request handling would violate causality, so I'm assuming you were referring to the OPTIONS check beforehand...)
anaphor 7y ago
> I'm pretty sure you're incorrect - requests to sites different from the one you are currently on will not include auth data by default because of the same-origin policy Not necessarily true. You can have Javascript running on evil.com that submits a form to banking.com and it will send your session cookies for banking.com along with the request. It's just that evil.com can't read the response content.
- pixelperfect 7y ago
  I thought the browser at evil.com would first send a pre-fetch request without the cookies, but not send the full request when it doesn't get the correct value from Access-Control-Allow-Origin in the response from banking.com. I'll admit I may be one of the developers that doesn't understand CORS...
  - anaphor 7y ago
    I think you could implement that with CORS + CSRF tokens (blocking all types of Cross-Origin requests) but the default behaviour is to allow Cross-Origin writes (e.g. with form submissions). See https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Same-origin_policy#Cross-origin_network_access https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Same-o... This is why we have CSRF tokens. So that you can effectively block Cross-Origin writes.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      I think pixelperfect is talking about preflights.
      - anaphor 7y ago
        That makes more sense then. Yes, it will make sure not to send authentication data in that case.
    - pixelperfect 7y ago
      I see what you mean, evil.com could still make a request that includes cookies, which is why we need CSRF tokens. But from my understanding, it wouldn't be able to do that in a XMLHttpRequest hidden on the page. It would have to be a request from something like submitting a form which would navigate the user off the page. Is that correct? Of course it doesn't make much difference from a security perspective.
      - anaphor 7y ago
        You can work around that by submitting it within an invisible iframe element, e.g. https://stackoverflow.com/a/17953761/903589 https://stackoverflow.com/a/17953761/903589 But yeah, you can't just make arbitrary requests like this with XHR
  - sascha_sl 7y ago
    If you use fetch or XHR, yes. If you just create an HTML form with the bank as action, fill in the inputs and submit via JS, no, because that's _navigating away_. This is also why GET requests that perform actions are dangerous, you can just embed them as an image to provoke a request. Which is exactly how zoom built their API. (they also then measured the size of the image to determine the response code, which is.... inventive)
  - bzbarsky 7y ago
    CORS doesn't apply to navigations by default, so anaphor is correct: evil.com can just submit a form to banking.com and it will send the banking.com cookies. This is the whole field of CSRF (cross-site request forgery) mitigation. CORS was introduced as a way to allow requests that browsers used to not allow at all: things like cross-site XHR in the first instance. Then it was expanded so that requests that are not normally subject to CORS checks (image loads, script loads, stylesheet loads) could opt-in to being subject to them, for various reasons. The default for those loads is still "no CORS". And there still isn't a way to do a navigation subject to a CORS check, even with opt-in. Disclaimer: I work on Gecko and I've reviewed/implemented parts of the CORS spec.
    - mehrdadn 7y ago
      Is my take on this also generally correct? That it wouldn't have been a problem had cookies and such been designed to take into account the origin properly (and hence why it's unintuitive and catches people off-guard)?
      - bzbarsky 7y ago
        If cookies were scoped to the (source, target) pair, then that would remove one of the main motivations for CORS, yes: evil.com would not be able to get any information from bank.com by making your browser make the request that they could not get by doing the request server-side. There's a second problem CORS kinda tries to solve, which is the ambient authority problem: services that run behind firewalls and assume that if someone can reach them the someone should have access. If someone runs a browser behind the firewall and opens a page on unsafe side of the firewall, that page can then issue network requests from the browser and thus end up access things on the "safe" side of the firewall. This is a large part of why CORS has the whole preflight complication and the rules around when preflights happen: the idea is that in this situation just making the request, not even receiving a response, is potentially damaging. There are the carve-outs for requests that could be generated without things like XHR that are subject to CORS (e.g. by doing a form submission or <img> load or whatnot); if your ambient-authority-using server responds in interesting ways to those, CORS is not going to help you... The _right_ fix for this stuff, of course, is for services to stop using ambient authority and/or for browsers to block requests from public sites to private IPs. Unfortunately in practice detecting "private IPs" reliably is not trivial, because fundamentally it depends on the routing and firewall topology, which the browser doesn't really know about.

mehrdadn 7y ago

I think we're agreeing? Like using CORS headers is a mechanism used to bypass SOP when needed, which was implemented because HTTP handles cookies in a stupid way and now nobody wants to change how that's done, right? Like neither CORS nor SOP should've been necessary in the first place had cookies explicitly included the allowed senders instead of just the receivers. (P.S. the way you phrased the request handling would violate causality, so I'm assuming you were referring to the OPTIONS check beforehand...)

anaphor 7y ago

> I'm pretty sure you're incorrect - requests to sites different from the one you are currently on will not include auth data by default because of the same-origin policy Not necessarily true. You can have Javascript running on evil.com that submits a form to banking.com and it will send your session cookies for banking.com along with the request. It's just that evil.com can't read the response content.

pixelperfect 7y ago
I thought the browser at evil.com would first send a pre-fetch request without the cookies, but not send the full request when it doesn't get the correct value from Access-Control-Allow-Origin in the response from banking.com. I'll admit I may be one of the developers that doesn't understand CORS...
- anaphor 7y ago
  I think you could implement that with CORS + CSRF tokens (blocking all types of Cross-Origin requests) but the default behaviour is to allow Cross-Origin writes (e.g. with form submissions). See https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Same-origin_policy#Cross-origin_network_access https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Same-o... This is why we have CSRF tokens. So that you can effectively block Cross-Origin writes.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    I think pixelperfect is talking about preflights.
    - anaphor 7y ago
      That makes more sense then. Yes, it will make sure not to send authentication data in that case.
  - pixelperfect 7y ago
    I see what you mean, evil.com could still make a request that includes cookies, which is why we need CSRF tokens. But from my understanding, it wouldn't be able to do that in a XMLHttpRequest hidden on the page. It would have to be a request from something like submitting a form which would navigate the user off the page. Is that correct? Of course it doesn't make much difference from a security perspective.
    - anaphor 7y ago
      You can work around that by submitting it within an invisible iframe element, e.g. https://stackoverflow.com/a/17953761/903589 https://stackoverflow.com/a/17953761/903589 But yeah, you can't just make arbitrary requests like this with XHR
- sascha_sl 7y ago
  If you use fetch or XHR, yes. If you just create an HTML form with the bank as action, fill in the inputs and submit via JS, no, because that's _navigating away_. This is also why GET requests that perform actions are dangerous, you can just embed them as an image to provoke a request. Which is exactly how zoom built their API. (they also then measured the size of the image to determine the response code, which is.... inventive)
- bzbarsky 7y ago
  CORS doesn't apply to navigations by default, so anaphor is correct: evil.com can just submit a form to banking.com and it will send the banking.com cookies. This is the whole field of CSRF (cross-site request forgery) mitigation. CORS was introduced as a way to allow requests that browsers used to not allow at all: things like cross-site XHR in the first instance. Then it was expanded so that requests that are not normally subject to CORS checks (image loads, script loads, stylesheet loads) could opt-in to being subject to them, for various reasons. The default for those loads is still "no CORS". And there still isn't a way to do a navigation subject to a CORS check, even with opt-in. Disclaimer: I work on Gecko and I've reviewed/implemented parts of the CORS spec.
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    Is my take on this also generally correct? That it wouldn't have been a problem had cookies and such been designed to take into account the origin properly (and hence why it's unintuitive and catches people off-guard)?
    - bzbarsky 7y ago
      If cookies were scoped to the (source, target) pair, then that would remove one of the main motivations for CORS, yes: evil.com would not be able to get any information from bank.com by making your browser make the request that they could not get by doing the request server-side. There's a second problem CORS kinda tries to solve, which is the ambient authority problem: services that run behind firewalls and assume that if someone can reach them the someone should have access. If someone runs a browser behind the firewall and opens a page on unsafe side of the firewall, that page can then issue network requests from the browser and thus end up access things on the "safe" side of the firewall. This is a large part of why CORS has the whole preflight complication and the rules around when preflights happen: the idea is that in this situation just making the request, not even receiving a response, is potentially damaging. There are the carve-outs for requests that could be generated without things like XHR that are subject to CORS (e.g. by doing a form submission or <img> load or whatnot); if your ambient-authority-using server responds in interesting ways to those, CORS is not going to help you... The _right_ fix for this stuff, of course, is for services to stop using ambient authority and/or for browsers to block requests from public sites to private IPs. Unfortunately in practice detecting "private IPs" reliably is not trivial, because fundamentally it depends on the routing and firewall topology, which the browser doesn't really know about.