Thread

Loading the complete thread in the background. This saved snapshot is available now. Refresh

1. n4pw01f · 1790284774 · focus · HN ↗

   Nice work! You gave me something to fix!!

   1. tumdum_ · 1790285795 · focus · HN ↗

      Sadly non of it was written by a human being.

      1. rackcrunch · 1790287832 · focus · HN ↗

         Fair. The study is backed by a human being who stands behind every number. And absolutely, use whatever tool you like.
   2. rackcrunch · 1790287098 · focus · HN ↗

      Thanks, glad it helped!
2. aetherspawn · 1790285795 · focus · HN ↗

   It’s ridiculous that the answer to a secure web is for everyone to sprinkle the magic salt and not something on the browser side

   1. alserio · 1790286591 · focus · HN ↗

      we'd need an epoch like reset to good defaults

      1. aetherspawn · 1790287254 · focus · HN ↗

         For important issues like security - just break the web, it will adjust.

         1. sublinear · 1790292870 · focus · HN ↗

            PoC? HN would be a great place to show one.
   2. rackcrunch · 1790287107 · focus · HN ↗

      Referrer-Policy shows it can work. When the header is missing, browsers fall back to strict-origin-when-cross-origin. 86.6% of the sites we scanned don't send it, and we didn't count that as a failure for that reason. The other headers don't have a safe default like that yet.

      1. axospaxos · 1790287727 · focus · HN ↗

         That sounds more like it is a condemnation of all these other headers that can't work for 86.6% of sites by requiring nothing.

         1. rackcrunch · 1790288262 · focus · HN ↗

            [dead]

3. GaProgMan · 1790286162 · focus · HN ↗

   And if any of the websites use .NET, they can get almost all of the recommended security headers in one line by using a NuGet package I created: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gaprogman.github.io&#x2F;OwaspHeaders.Core&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gaprogman.github.io&#x2F;OwaspHeaders.Core&#x2F;
4. stargrazer · 1790286919 · focus · HN ↗

   So.. you&#x27;ve written up what you checked, and what didn&#x27;t match what ever criteria you had.

   But.. what does it mean? Why enforce certain headers? Why enforce certain options? There is a section which kinda looks at this, but not really.

   You have a bunch of links at the end for resources, but why not just provide the rationale for each rule or option inclusion in the article as well? What does each prevent or allow and why?

   1. rackcrunch · 1790288189 · focus · HN ↗

      [dead]

5. fitsumbelay · 1790287025 · focus · HN ↗

   for static sites on a VPS it&#x27;s fair to expect the host to provision these, yes?

   1. rackcrunch · 1790288225 · focus · HN ↗

      [dead]

   2. aetherspawn · 1790294915 · focus · HN ↗

      No, not for a VPS.
   3. wink · 1790341096 · focus · HN ↗

      for static sites... it&#x27;s not that I would call them useless, but most are just not very critical. Clickjacking and any cookie attacks on a site without cookies is pretty useless most of the time.
6. tinkeraudit · 1790367999 · focus · HN ↗

   [dead]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.