You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 6, 2023. It is now read-only.
Repository navigation
This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 6, 2023. It is now read-only.
@Hainish, but ultimately, those lists are pulled from hstspreload.org, right ? There is simply a delay before domains are included in the lists you mention.
This form is used to submit domains for inclusion in Chrome's HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) preload list. This is a list of sites that are hardcoded into Chrome as being HTTPS only.
Most major browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari, IE 11 and Edge) also have HSTS preload lists based on the Chrome list. (See the HSTS compatibility matrix.)
That's how I understand this at least. Please tell me if I am mistaken.
The browsers are based on the Chrome list, yes. But it may take a while before they are included in the browsers, so we don't want to remove the rules that are preloaded from the canonical source prematurely and leave them actually unprotected in the browsers.
Also Mozilla has its own logic for removing preloaded domains, and it's often changing and not documented very well. So we can't count on the Mozilla implementation mirroring the Chrome list very closely.
I've just found out that Yahoo.xml was whitelisted in the ruleset-coverage-whitelist.txt. The file contain 2.4k+ lines and involves dozens of complicated rules, I don't think that anyone can re-activate it before the next release without paying significant effort ...
I've just found out that Yahoo.xml was whitelisted in the ruleset-coverage-whitelist.txt. The file contain 2k+ lines and involves dozens of complicated rules, I don't think that anyone can re-activate it before the next release without significant effort ...
Agreed. This is why we should keep different domains in separate rulesets. Updating behemoths such as Yahoo.xml is no fun and this leaves all domains unprotected.
If nobody can re-activate Yahoo.xml before the next release, I suggest to revert the changes from 9bf49cb on Yahoo.xml and whitelist it again. This gives us the time to rewrite the ruleset while keeping the domain protected.
Remark: original file prior to the comprehensive-fetch Yahoo.xml
It seems like at the very least we should remove the problematic domains flagged by the fetch test, even if we don't have time to go through the entire rule and simplify it.
Activity
Bisaloo commentedon Jun 21, 2017
facebook.comis preloaded. Proofs:Bisaloo commentedon Jun 21, 2017
paypal.comis preloaded as well but is missing thepreloadheader.Hainish commentedon Jun 21, 2017
Note: the relevant HSTS files to be checked for inclusion are those in the browsers we support:
Firefox Dev: https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-release/raw-file/FIREFOX_54_0_RELEASE/security/manager/ssl/nsSTSPreloadList.inc
Firefox Stable: https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/raw-file/tip/security/manager/ssl/nsSTSPreloadList.inc
Firefox ESR: https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-esr52/raw-file/FIREFOX_52_2_0esr_RELEASE/security/manager/ssl/nsSTSPreloadList.inc
Chromium Stable: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/59.0.3071.109/net/http/transport_security_state_static.json?format=TEXT
Bisaloo commentedon Jun 21, 2017
@Hainish, but ultimately, those lists are pulled from hstspreload.org, right ? There is simply a delay before domains are included in the lists you mention.
That's how I understand this at least. Please tell me if I am mistaken.
Hainish commentedon Jun 21, 2017
The browsers are based on the Chrome list, yes. But it may take a while before they are included in the browsers, so we don't want to remove the rules that are preloaded from the canonical source prematurely and leave them actually unprotected in the browsers.
Hainish commentedon Jun 21, 2017
Also Mozilla has its own logic for removing preloaded domains, and it's often changing and not documented very well. So we can't count on the Mozilla implementation mirroring the Chrome list very closely.
cschanaj commentedon Jun 22, 2017
I've just found out that
Yahoo.xmlwas whitelisted in theruleset-coverage-whitelist.txt. The file contain 2.4k+ lines and involves dozens of complicated rules, I don't think that anyone can re-activate it before the next release without paying significant effort ...Bisaloo commentedon Jun 22, 2017
Agreed. This is why we should keep different domains in separate rulesets. Updating behemoths such as
Yahoo.xmlis no fun and this leaves all domains unprotected.cschanaj commentedon Jun 22, 2017
If nobody can re-activate
Yahoo.xmlbefore the next release, I suggest to revert the changes from 9bf49cb onYahoo.xmland whitelist it again. This gives us the time to rewrite the ruleset while keeping the domain protected.Remark: original file prior to the comprehensive-fetch
Yahoo.xmlHainish commentedon Jun 22, 2017
It seems like at the very least we should remove the problematic domains flagged by the fetch test, even if we don't have time to go through the entire rule and simplify it.
Hainish commentedon Jul 5, 2017
Closing, since this seems to be done now.
J0WI commentedon Jul 6, 2017
Thanks!