-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 74
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Improve test coverage of sink values #494
Comments
Example change web-platform-tests/wpt#45058 |
One step towards fixing w3c/trusted-types#494. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D232363 bugzilla-url: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1907849 gecko-commit: cb3e58c8b7ff8d78bfab512fae053cc7de5d787b gecko-reviewers: smaug
…eHTMLUnsafe". r=smaug One step towards fixing w3c/trusted-types#494. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D232363
…eHTMLUnsafe". r=smaug One step towards fixing w3c/trusted-types#494. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D232363
One step towards fixing w3c/trusted-types#494. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D232363 bugzilla-url: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1907849 gecko-commit: c006cb26e155686ac4c27d2a0797ff2ce03e39a8 gecko-reviewers: smaug
…eHTMLUnsafe". r=smaug One step towards fixing w3c/trusted-types#494. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D232363
One step towards fixing w3c/trusted-types#494. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D232363 bugzilla-url: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1907849 gecko-commit: c006cb26e155686ac4c27d2a0797ff2ce03e39a8 gecko-reviewers: smaug
…eHTMLUnsafe". r=smaug One step towards fixing w3c/trusted-types#494. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D232363 UltraBlame original commit: cb3e58c8b7ff8d78bfab512fae053cc7de5d787b
…eHTMLUnsafe". r=smaug One step towards fixing w3c/trusted-types#494. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D232363 UltraBlame original commit: c006cb26e155686ac4c27d2a0797ff2ce03e39a8
…eHTMLUnsafe". r=smaug One step towards fixing w3c/trusted-types#494. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D232363 UltraBlame original commit: cb3e58c8b7ff8d78bfab512fae053cc7de5d787b
…eHTMLUnsafe". r=smaug One step towards fixing w3c/trusted-types#494. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D232363 UltraBlame original commit: c006cb26e155686ac4c27d2a0797ff2ce03e39a8
…eHTMLUnsafe". r=smaug One step towards fixing w3c/trusted-types#494. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D232363 UltraBlame original commit: cb3e58c8b7ff8d78bfab512fae053cc7de5d787b
…eHTMLUnsafe". r=smaug One step towards fixing w3c/trusted-types#494. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D232363 UltraBlame original commit: c006cb26e155686ac4c27d2a0797ff2ce03e39a8
…eHTMLUnsafe". r=smaug One step towards fixing w3c/trusted-types#494. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D232363
…eHTMLUnsafe". r=smaug One step towards fixing w3c/trusted-types#494. Differential Revision: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D232363
Trusted Types spec: HTML spec: DOM spec: CSP spec: SVG spec (merged PR don't seem to show up on https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft): Service Workers spec: execCommand draft: Note that checking the IDL does not give the complete list of sinks, for example eval and function constructors ends up using https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-csp/#can-compile-strings |
Trusted Types spec:
HTML spec:
DOM spec:
CSP spec:
SVG spec:
Service Workers spec:
execCommand draft:
|
There's also SVGScriptElement which needs handling it's just not specced yet |
@lukewarlow yes I noticed that. It seems some PRs have been merged but are still not public. will follow-up with you privately |
This verifies some API for ParentNode/ChildNode [1] [2] don't do any check for trusted types. This might already be covered by IDL tests but we just perform a direct verification here. This test fails in Chromium, which is not aligned with the DOM spec here [3] and performs specific checks for HTML script elements. Chromium also implements similar behavior for `ChildNodePart.replaceChildren()` but that's currently not shipped [4]. [1] https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#interface-parentnode [2] https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#interface-childnode [3] w3c/trusted-types#494 (comment) [4] https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/wIADRnljZDA/m/whzEaaAADAAJ
…49920) This verifies some API for ParentNode/ChildNode [1] [2] don't do any check for trusted types. This might already be covered by IDL tests but we just perform a direct verification here. This test fails in Chromium, which is not aligned with the DOM spec here [3] and performs specific checks for HTML script elements. Chromium also implements similar behavior for `ChildNodePart.replaceChildren()` but that's currently not shipped [4]. [1] https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#interface-parentnode [2] https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#interface-childnode [3] w3c/trusted-types#494 (comment) [4] https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/wIADRnljZDA/m/whzEaaAADAAJ
We should ensure that we have exhaustive coverage of the "sink" value, this is the prefix for violation object samples, aswell as being one of the arguments for the default policy.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: