Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
34 lines (26 loc) · 5.04 KB

other_security_headers.md

File metadata and controls

34 lines (26 loc) · 5.04 KB

Other Security Headers

This page documents potential security vulnerabilities related to various other security headers in Chromium, including:

  • Strict-Transport-Security (HSTS): Ensures HTTPS. Bypasses or incorrect handling of HSTS preload lists are potential vulnerabilities. The HSTS implementation should be reviewed for proper handling of the max-age directive, includeSubDomains directive, and preload list updates. The interaction with certificate errors and HTTPS redirects needs careful analysis.
  • X-Content-Type-Options (X-CTO): Prevents MIME-sniffing. Bypasses or incorrect handling of nosniff are potential vulnerabilities. The X-CTO implementation should be reviewed for proper handling of the nosniff directive and its interaction with different MIME types. Edge cases and error handling need careful analysis.
  • X-Frame-Options (XFO): Protects against clickjacking. Bypasses or incorrect handling of DENY and SAMEORIGIN are potential vulnerabilities. The XFO implementation should be reviewed for proper handling of the DENY, SAMEORIGIN, and ALLOW-FROM directives. The interaction with framing and embedding needs careful analysis.
  • Access-Control-Allow-Origin (ACAO): Controls cross-origin access. Improper configuration or CORS bypasses are potential vulnerabilities. The ACAO implementation should be reviewed for proper handling of wildcard origins, origin lists, and credentials. The interaction with CORS preflight requests and other CORS headers needs careful analysis.
  • Referrer-Policy: Controls referrer information. Information leakage or referrer restriction bypasses are potential vulnerabilities. The Referrer-Policy implementation should be reviewed for proper handling of different policy values (e.g., no-referrer, strict-origin, unsafe-url). The interaction with redirects and different request contexts needs careful analysis.
  • Permissions-Policy: Enables/disables features. See the dedicated page.
  • Public-Key-Pins (HPKP): Deprecated. Was intended for certificate pinning. Potential vulnerabilities included bypasses or incorrect handling of pinned keys.
  • Expect-CT: Reports Certificate Transparency (CT) compliance issues. Potential vulnerabilities include bypasses or incorrect handling of report-uri directives.
  • Network Error Logging (NEL): Reports network errors. Potential vulnerabilities include bypasses or incorrect handling of report-to directives.
  • Cross-Origin-Embedder-Policy (COEP): Requires resources to have a valid Cross-Origin-Resource-Policy header. Potential vulnerabilities include bypasses or incorrect interaction with CORP.
  • Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only (CSP-RO): Allows reporting CSP violations without enforcing them. See the dedicated CSP page for more details.

Further Analysis and Potential Issues:

The implementation and enforcement of each security header should be thoroughly reviewed, including the parsing of header values, the interaction with other browser components, and the handling of edge cases and error conditions. The VRP data suggests that vulnerabilities related to these headers have been reported, highlighting the need for ongoing security analysis and testing.

Areas Requiring Further Investigation:

  • Header Interactions: The interaction between different security headers needs further analysis to prevent conflicts or bypasses. Test various combinations of headers to ensure they work together correctly and securely.
  • Browser Compatibility: The compatibility of security headers across different browsers should be considered and tested to ensure consistent and predictable behavior.
  • Real-World Attack Scenarios: Consider real-world attack scenarios and test the effectiveness of security headers in mitigating these attacks. This could involve penetration testing or other forms of security assessment.
  • Performance Impact: The performance impact of security headers should be evaluated and optimized to minimize overhead.
  • Header Parsing and Validation: The parsing and validation of security headers should be thoroughly reviewed to prevent vulnerabilities related to malformed or unexpected header values. Use fuzzing or other techniques to test the robustness of the parsing logic.
  • Error Handling and Reporting: The error handling and reporting mechanisms for security header violations should be reviewed to ensure that errors are handled gracefully and that violations are reported correctly.
  • Interaction with Browser Features: The interaction between security headers and various browser features, such as extensions, iframes, and service workers, needs further analysis to prevent bypasses or unexpected behavior.
  • Default Settings and Configurations: The default settings and configurations related to security headers should be reviewed to ensure they provide a reasonable level of security without compromising compatibility or functionality.

Files Reviewed:

  • (Files related to each specific header should be added here after analysis)