Isolate site permissions by OriginAttributes
Categories
(Core :: Permission Manager, enhancement, P2)
Tracking
()
Tracking | Status | |
---|---|---|
firefox72 | --- | fixed |
People
(Reporter: groovecoder, Assigned: emz)
References
(Depends on 2 open bugs, Blocks 4 open bugs)
Details
Attachments
(4 files)
Comment 1•8 years ago
|
||
Comment 2•7 years ago
|
||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Updated•6 years ago
|
Comment 5•6 years ago
|
||
This now works for FPI per the work done in bug 1330467.
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•6 years ago
|
||
As discussed with Johann, I'll update the permission manager to put origin attribute stripping for user context and private browsing behind prefs and disable stripping by default.
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•6 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•6 years ago
|
||
Depends on D48664
Comment 9•6 years ago
|
||
Thanks Paul for your work on this!
How does this effect the work done in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1330467 for First Party Isolation? Does it rely on the many patches in that bug, or can FPI permission implementation be simplified now that this bug is almost complete?
For multi-account Containers and Facebook Container, we should consider whether we want to keep permissions.isolateBy.userContext on or turn it off.
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•6 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Tanvi Vyas[:tanvi] from comment #9)
How does this effect the work done in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1330467 for First Party Isolation? Does it rely on the many patches in that bug, or can FPI permission implementation be simplified now that this bug is almost complete?
The FPI patch removed the origin stripping for first party domain. My patch disables the remaining OriginAttributes strip code for user context and private browsing. From what I've seen, the other FPI changes involved refactoring permission access to use principals, which my patch is based on. Removing the remaining URI based permission checks was a prerequisite to this patch, see Bug 1402957.
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•6 years ago
|
||
Depends on D48665
Updated•6 years ago
|
Assignee | ||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Comment 12•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 13•6 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
Comment 14•6 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Tanvi Vyas[:tanvi] from comment #9)
For multi-account Containers and Facebook Container, we should consider whether we want to keep permissions.isolateBy.userContext on or turn it off.
This strikes me as it should be a default, once it's tested for a few releases.
This is a really exciting patch :).
Comment 15•6 years ago
|
||
I wonder if this needs to be leave-open or if we can defer containers to a follow-up bug.
Assignee | ||
Comment 16•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 17•6 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Jonathan Kingston [:jkt] from comment #14)
(In reply to Tanvi Vyas[:tanvi] from comment #9)
For multi-account Containers and Facebook Container, we should consider whether we want to keep permissions.isolateBy.userContext on or turn it off.
This strikes me as it should be a default, once it's tested for a few releases.
This is a really exciting patch :).
Yes, after thinking about it more, lets leave it on by default for Containers (in Nightly) and the Multi-Account Containers (MAC) extension.
How do we migrate existing permissions? Do we assume they are all in the default container? That might be odd if MAC is configured to only visit a site in a specific container. Could this be exploited in anyway? (I hypothesize that its not more exploitable than already possible without isolated permissions).
We could also throw away all permissions and start over for users who have containers enabled, but that is also poor user experience.
Comment 18•6 years ago
|
||
Comment 19•6 years ago
|
||
bugherder |
Comment 20•6 years ago
|
||
bugherder landing |
Assignee | ||
Comment 22•6 years ago
|
||
Hi Ryan, the bug is still open because we have container permission isolation preffed off by default. However, we could file that as a follow up and close this one.
Comment 23•6 years ago
|
||
I think that'd be a very good idea.
Comment 24•5 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Paul Zühlcke [:pbz] from comment #22)
Hi Ryan, the bug is still open because we have container permission isolation preffed off by default. However, we could file that as a follow up and close this one.
Was a followup for this ever filed?
Assignee | ||
Comment 25•5 years ago
|
||
Oh, sorry it seems I didn't file a follow up. I've filed one now: Bug 1641584
Description
•