![]() Embedding the content of our client page in an iframe on the host page and investigating what the client iframe is and is not allowed to do. ![]() Setting up two node servers to simulate two different origins.With all of that in mind, the guided walkthrough will consist of the following parts: What we should end up with is a sandboxed environment in which we can execute any arbitrary JavaScript and still sleep well at night, knowing our host application will be safe from harm. In this post, we’ll demonstrate setting up a demo application from the ground up that will simulate running JavaScript coming from a different origin. The goal of this tutorial is to walk through the various security risks associated with running third-party JavaScript on your page and explain how sandboxed iframes can alleviate those issues by restricting the permissions it is allowed to run with. We all know about the iframe element in HTML, but how much do we really know about how it works? What are the security concerns associated with running code inside of an iframe and, furthermore, how can the HTML5 sandbox attribute on the frame alleviate these concerns? Whether it’s dropping a widget onto your web page or including custom content from a client in your cloud application, it’s something that many developers have encountered in their career. Twitter may also need to make requests to resources, and these would be treated as cross-origin requests if you didn't set allow-same-origin, so those requests would probably be blocked by the browser - unless the resources had headers which allowed cross origin requests.Understanding iFrame Sandboxes and iFrame SecurityĮmbedding third-party JavaScript in web applications is a tale as old as time. So by setting allow-same-origin, we give the iframe permission to use the data from. Twitter apparently needs to know whether the user is logged in (maybe so they can show your avatar next to the tweet button, for example), so the iframe needs to be able to access cookies and other data associated with (local storage, etc.). ![]() We could just do this: īut we're probably giving twitter more permissions than they need. Let's say we want to add a tweet button to our website. ![]() I was still a bit confused after reading LFC's answer, but the link they provided had a good explanation. a YouTube video believes - and can communicate as if - it is still apart of YouTube? Or, does the document have access to the parent browser context? My question is specifically about what MDN refers to as the "normal origin" in light of W3C's specification: when refering to the "normal origin" is MDN stating that the content of document contained within the tag is treated as if it shares the origin of the page from which the document originates, e.g. Originating site, using the database APIs to store data, etc. Without preventing the embedded page from communicating back to its Sandboxed to prevent that site from opening pop-up windows, etc, t can be used to embed content from a third-party site, Not hugely, helpful, I think, after having read W3C's specification: This keyword is not used, the embedded content is treated as being I have read MDN's description of the allow-same-origin flag:Īllows the content to be treated as being from its normal origin. One of the additions is the inclusion of sandboxing flags that allow the document loaded into the iframe to interact with its parent browser context.Īfter reading some of the documentation, I am looking for a bit of clarity. I have been reading about the HTML5 additions to the tag. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |