这是indexloc提供的服务,不要输入任何密码
Skip to content
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 3 additions & 1 deletion explainer/README.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ This discussion assumes that third-party cookies, like all other third party sto

## Security considerations

Even though a fenced frame is isolated from its embedding context, it cannot be used as a workaround to the security restrictions that the top-level site wants to enforce on the embedding frames, without the knowledge of the top-level site. The design decisions of fenced frames related to security mechanisms like sandbox, csp, permission policy etc. are based on the following two principles:
Even though a fenced frame is isolated from its embedding context, it cannot be used as a workaround to the security restrictions that the top-level site wants to enforce on the embedding frames, without the knowledge of the top-level site. The design decisions of fenced frames related to security mechanisms like sandbox, csp, permission policy etc. are based on the following principles:
* Attributes like cspee, sandbox etc. and headers like frame-ancestors etc. cannot be used as a communication channel with the embedding context.
* Fenced frame should not be able to escalate privileges without the knowledge of the top-level site e.g. all permission policy delegation based features in a fenced frame are therefore disallowed.
* There are headers from the fenced frame site that are not honored as they would in an iframe, e.g. frame-ancestors, due to being a privacy leak. This is the reason fenced frames need to be opted in by the site using the opt-in response header.
Expand All @@ -140,6 +140,8 @@ More about security mechanisms are detailed in:
* [Fenced frames and policies](https://github.com/shivanigithub/fenced-frame/blob/master/explainer/permission_document_policies.md)
* [Fenced frames and sandbox](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RO4NkQk_XaEE7vuysM9LJilZYsoOhydfh93sOvrPQxU/edit?usp=sharing)

**Inheritance for local resources:** Documents hosting [local](https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#is-local) resources inherit their [policy containers](https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/origin.html#policy-container) from their initiator or parent document, however for fenced frames, no such inheritance will take place. Fenced frames hosting local Documents will have a fresh policy container as they were created with no initiator document, just like the first Document in a top-level browsing context created with no initiator document.

**xsleaks:** In terms of cross site leak attacks, fenced frames is at least as secure as iframes are and better in some cases by default e.g. always having noopener, no joint history etc. For more details, the fenced frames xsleaks audit can be found [here](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YkQxcQlOd24XmSUQ8RpQU0zINYSTTih8drNibV0LIXE/edit?usp=sharing).

**Secure contexts:** Fenced Frames are only allowed if all ancestor frames are [secure contexts](https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-secure-contexts/), the FF's html document is from a [potentially trustworthy URL](https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-secure-contexts/#potentially-trustworthy-url) and all subresources inside the FF will follow [mixed mode restrictions](https://web.dev/fixing-mixed-content/).
Expand Down