Closed Bug 2008916 Opened 4 months ago Closed 3 months ago

Report Integrity-Policy violations using the Reporting API

Categories

(Core :: DOM: Security, task)

task

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
149 Branch
Tracking Status
firefox149 --- fixed

People

(Reporter: tschuster, Assigned: tschuster)

References

(Blocks 2 open bugs, )

Details

(Keywords: dev-doc-complete)

Attachments

(3 files)

When we initially landed the Integrity-Policy we weren't able to add violation reports because the Reporting API was/is disabled by default. It seems like we might soon have the Reporting API enabled by default so we should also use it for the Integrity-Policy.

Assignee: nobody → tschuster
Attachment #9537163 - Attachment description: WIP: Bug 2008916 - Add IntegrityViolationReportBody skeleton → Bug 2008916 - Add IntegrityViolationReportBody skeleton. r?sfarre
Attachment #9537234 - Attachment description: WIP: Bug 2008916 - Report Integrity-Policy violations → Bug 2008916 - Report Integrity-Policy violations. r?sfarre
Keywords: dev-doc-needed
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 3 months ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → 149 Branch
QA Whiteboard: [qa-triage-done-c150/b149]

FF149 MDN docs work for this can be tracked in https://github.com/mdn/content/issues/43199

FWIW Tom, the implementation here doesn't quite match the spec: https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-subresource-integrity/#report-violations
The code defines the report body as a ReportBody derived interface with toJson() while the spec intent is that this is a dictionary. You're probably aware and I am just missing something. The request for info is so you see this, in case it matters.

Flags: needinfo?(tschuster)

(In reply to Hamish Willee from comment #6)

FF149 MDN docs work for this can be tracked in https://github.com/mdn/content/issues/43199

FWIW Tom, the implementation here doesn't quite match the spec: https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-subresource-integrity/#report-violations
The code defines the report body as a ReportBody derived interface with toJson() while the spec intent is that this is a dictionary. You're probably aware and I am just missing something. The request for info is so you see this, in case it matters.

Thank Hamish for working on this. We are are aware of the dictionary discrepancy: bug 1976189 comment 2.

Flags: needinfo?(tschuster)

Thanks! In no way on you but this is so frustrating. I'm currently moving all the MDN docs to dictionaries on the assumption that this is happen - at suggestion of compat team. We're very much in an intermediate state ... and have been for over a year.

You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: