4 ms·
>a world without CORS would be a world where those rights are always granted. Or a world where those rights are never granted. Which of those you conclude is
by unclebucknasty 5y ago
>a world without CORS would be a world where those rights are always granted.
Or a world where those rights are never granted.
Which of those you conclude is a matter of semantics, and this interpretability contributes to the confusion around what CORS actually does. It's that confusion which another commenter was addressing [0] and that my comments sought to support/clarify. You may be unaware that some people believe that CORS is intended to "lock things down" vs. "open them up". They don't understand that it's opt-in or the default behavior without it.
But, it's a matter of fact that usage of CORS presents risks vs the default policy, and those risks must be considered. That's really the point vs the idea that CORS has no utility.
It's worth noting too that, strictly speaking, there are frequently workarounds to the default policy that don't require CORS, some of which are arguably more secure by way of being less prone to configuration errors.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30320613 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30320613
- Dylan16807 5y ago> Which of those you conclude is a matter of semantics, and this interpretability contributes to the confusion around what CORS actually does. It's that confusion which another commenter was addressing [0] and that my comments sought to support/clarify. You may be unaware that some people believe that CORS is intended to "lock things down" vs. "open them up". They don't understand that it's opt-in or the default behavior without it. Okay, sure, there's a semantics question and also some people are just confused. So here is where I took issue: Yes, many confused people are conflating functionality and security. But while fivea/pshc's words might accidentally encourage that confusion, they were not confused, and were not conflating the two.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago>while fivea/pshc's words might accidentally encourage that confusion, they were not confused, and were not conflating the two. Probably more semantics. I don't claim to know what's in fivea/pshc's heads or whether they themselves are confused. I was speaking to my observation that their comments merged the two issues. You may prefer phrasing like, "their words might accidentally encourage confusion" versus "conflation". I'd say conflation is the mechanism there, but OK. Or you might prefer I specifically clarify "their comments conflated the two" vs "they conflated the two". OK.
- Dylan16807 5y agoHere's how I see the difference: They made a definite distinction between the two, but if someone read too fast they might miss the distinction. So their comments did not conflate, but might accidentally cause future conflation, so it's reasonable to reply to make the difference extra clear, but I don't think it's reasonable to accuse them of conflation.
- unclebucknasty 5y agoThen it's not merely semantics. We legitimately disagree. It happens. Thanks for clarifying.