Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme-05

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:00:38 -0700

Hi Richard,

Thanks for the review.  This is an individual comment.

At 05:33 04-06-2012, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
>I wonder how useful this document is, given that the use of "about:" 
>URIs is currently very inconsistent across browsers. (See, for 
>example, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/About_URI_scheme>)  Some 
>browsers also use alternative URI schemes for essentially the same 
>function ("opera:", "chrome:").  Has there been input from the 
>browser vendor community on this document?

One of the editors of draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme-04 
affiliated with Opera Software ASA provided input about the draft.

The Wikipedia article mentions that it needs additional citations for 
verification.  Although the "about" URI scheme is well-known, it has 
never been registered.  The document describes the URI scheme and 
registers it in the "URI Schemes".  The document does not seek to 
impose any requirement.  It leaves it to browser vendors to decide 
what to do.

>4.
>The document correctly notes that "about:" URIs sometimes point to 
>sensitive data, and that browsers need to protect them.  However, 
>the document fails to specify what the threats are and how to 
>mitigate them.  It seems to me that the major risk is cross-site 
>scripting, in the sense that a remote web page might include an 
>"about:" URI (e.g., via an XMLHttpRequest) in order to access 
>sensitive data.  At a high level, then, the mitigation would be to 
>ensure that such URIs are accessible only as a result of direct user 
>action (e.g., typing in a URI) or trusted browser code (e.g., extensions).

Section 4 of draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme-06 mentions that 
"about" URIs may be used to reference, for example, user passwords 
stored in a cache.  The document does not register such a token 
though. It leaves it to person with expertise to write the 
specification about that token to consider the security 
implications.  Adding text to discuss about cross-site scripting 
might be misconstrued as a recommendation.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy