3 ms·

> It is inappropriate for presence or absense in PSL to be used by Facebook as a means to include or reject entries due to the IOS14 change, as PSL is not any f

by fotta 6y ago

> It is inappropriate for presence or absense in PSL to be used by Facebook as a means to include or reject entries due to the IOS14 change, as PSL is not any form of security screen whatsoever, and the volunteer team maintaining the PSL is receiving the burden of being a sieve for the changes on interaction between those systems, which is taxing our resources. > The ONLY validation performed by PSL volunteers and Github process to add listing in the PSL is to check that a DNS entry is added by the domain administrator that can be tied to, and this can be completely illusory and lite in reality in contrast to perhaps the deisred level of security that had been intended between Facebook Pixel and Apple. > We are freezing the approval of new submissions that cite the FB / IOS 14 interop issue in order to provide Facebook or Apple, with a much more robust set of resources, the opportunity to sort this out amongst/betwixt themselves. https://github.com/publicsuffix/list/issues/1245#issuecomment-812228981 https://github.com/publicsuffix/list/issues/1245#issuecommen... ~~Seems like FB was abusing the work of volunteers here as a reaction to changes in iOS 14.~~ I don't see why they can't run their own PSL a la NTP servers. edit: Seems like Apple was the one to declare PSL as canonical.

marketingtech 6y ago
Apple is the company that declared this the canonical Public Suffix List. Facebook is just directing their customers towards it. "If you need to be considered a public suffix for Apple's new policy, you'll need to send your pull request to this repo."
- HappyTypist 6y ago
  Apple should be officially supporting this project and turn it into an independent, but full-time gig. If the maintainers decline, Apple should hire someone to manage their own.
- fotta 6y ago
  Ah I just read the links in jefftk's comment and it seems like you're right.
tialaramex 6y ago
The existence of multiple independent definitions for eTLD+1 would be very likely to create security holes, via a Confused Deputy-type scenario. If I was a security researcher, or a blackhat, and I found that bar.example is on the Mozilla PSL, and so Firefox considers foo.bar.example and quux.bar.example to be separate sites - while it isn't on the Apple PSL and so Apple's APIs treat foo.bar.example and quux.bar.example as parts of the same site (or vice versa), then I know I'm going to find weird bugs where Apple and the Firefox browser understand things about these two names differently and I can likely exploit that. The preference from PSL team members is to do less with this hack over time, to put it behind us. But alas instead it motivates people to turn a hand-wavy notion "You know, a web site" into further reliance on the PSL instead of actually building a robust solution to their problem. This is particularly inexcusable from Apple because it's not like Apple is hurting for resources. If they actually wanted to solve problems, they could put the work in; so I think we can conclude they weren't much interested in solving the problem, only as usual in ensuring somebody else takes the blame.
NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
>edit: Seems like Apple was the one to declare PSL as canonical. Dependency on the Public Suffix List is already baked into essentially 100% of the global browser market for purposes like control of setting cookies - I'm not sure Apple made it any more 'canonical' by depending on it here.
- user3939382 6y ago
  It kind of reminds me of the manually-shared HOSTS.TXT list of domain names before we had DNS, and seems like a problem we also need formal infrastructure to solve long term.

by fotta 6y ago

marketingtech 6y ago

Apple is the company that declared this the canonical Public Suffix List. Facebook is just directing their customers towards it. "If you need to be considered a public suffix for Apple's new policy, you'll need to send your pull request to this repo."

HappyTypist 6y ago
Apple should be officially supporting this project and turn it into an independent, but full-time gig. If the maintainers decline, Apple should hire someone to manage their own.
fotta 6y ago
Ah I just read the links in jefftk's comment and it seems like you're right.

tialaramex 6y ago

The existence of multiple independent definitions for eTLD+1 would be very likely to create security holes, via a Confused Deputy-type scenario. If I was a security researcher, or a blackhat, and I found that bar.example is on the Mozilla PSL, and so Firefox considers foo.bar.example and quux.bar.example to be separate sites - while it isn't on the Apple PSL and so Apple's APIs treat foo.bar.example and quux.bar.example as parts of the same site (or vice versa), then I know I'm going to find weird bugs where Apple and the Firefox browser understand things about these two names differently and I can likely exploit that. The preference from PSL team members is to do less with this hack over time, to put it behind us. But alas instead it motivates people to turn a hand-wavy notion "You know, a web site" into further reliance on the PSL instead of actually building a robust solution to their problem. This is particularly inexcusable from Apple because it's not like Apple is hurting for resources. If they actually wanted to solve problems, they could put the work in; so I think we can conclude they weren't much interested in solving the problem, only as usual in ensuring somebody else takes the blame.

NovemberWhiskey 6y ago

>edit: Seems like Apple was the one to declare PSL as canonical. Dependency on the Public Suffix List is already baked into essentially 100% of the global browser market for purposes like control of setting cookies - I'm not sure Apple made it any more 'canonical' by depending on it here.

user3939382 6y ago
It kind of reminds me of the manually-shared HOSTS.TXT list of domain names before we had DNS, and seems like a problem we also need formal infrastructure to solve long term.