I was reading about CORS and I think the implementation is both simple and effective.
However, unless I'm missing something, I think there's a big part missing from the spec. As I understand, it's the foreign site that decides, based on the origin of the request (and optionally including credentials), whether to allow access to its resources. This is fine.
But what if malicious code on the page wants to POST a user's sensitive information to a foreign site? The foreign site is obviously going to authenticate the request. Hence, again if I'm not missing something, CORS actually makes it easier to steal sensitive information.
I think it would have made much more sense if the original site could also supply an immutable list of servers its page is allowed to access.
So the expanded sequence would be:
I know that malicious code could still use JSONP to do its dirty work, but I would have thought that a complete implementation of CORS would imply the closing of the script tag multi-site loophole.
I also checked out the official CORS spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/cors) and could not find any mention of this issue.
Cross-origin resource sharing (CORS) defines a way for client web applications that are loaded in one domain to interact with resources in a different domain. With CORS support, you can build rich client-side web applications with Amazon S3 and selectively allow cross-origin access to your Amazon S3 resources.
If the server is under your control, add the origin of the requesting site to the set of domains permitted access by adding it to the Access-Control-Allow-Origin header's value. You can also configure a site to allow any site to access it by using the * wildcard. You should only use this for public APIs.
Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) is an HTTP-header based mechanism that allows a server to indicate any origins (domain, scheme, or port) other than its own from which a browser should permit loading resources.
Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) errors occur when a server doesn't return the HTTP headers required by the CORS standard. To resolve a CORS error from an API Gateway REST API or HTTP API, you must reconfigure the API to meet the CORS standard.
But what if malicious code on the page wants to POST a user's sensitive information to a foreign site?
What about it? You can already do that without CORS. Even back as far as Netscape 2, you have always been able to transfer information to any third-party site through simple GET and POST requests caused by interfaces as simple as form.submit()
, new Image
or setting window.location
.
If malicious code has access to sensitive information, you have already totally lost.
3) Page wants to make an XHR request to malicious.com - request rejected locally
Why would a page try to make an XHR request to a site it has not already whitelisted?
If you are trying to protect against the actions of malicious script injected due to XSS vulnerabilities, you are attempting to fix the symptom, not the cause.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With