idnits 2.17.1
draft-ietf-websec-x-frame-options-00.txt:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
match the current year
-- The document date (July 3, 2012) is 4314 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Informational
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== Missing Reference: 'TBD' is mentioned on line 167, but not defined
== Unused Reference: 'CLICK-DEFENSE-BLOG' is defined on line 279, but no
explicit reference was found in the text
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 822
(Obsoleted by RFC 2822)
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2616
(Obsoleted by RFC 7230, RFC 7231, RFC 7232, RFC 7233, RFC 7234, RFC 7235)
Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
the items above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 WEBSEC D. Ross
3 Internet-Draft Microsoft
4 Intended status: Informational T. Gondrom
5 Expires: January 4, 2013 July 3, 2012
7 HTTP Header X-Frame-Options
8 draft-ietf-websec-x-frame-options-00
10 Abstract
12 To improve the protection of web applications against Clickjacking
13 this standards defines a http response header that declares a policy
14 communicated from a host to the client browser whether the
15 transmitted content MUST NOT be displayed in frames of other pages
16 from different origins which are allowed to frame the content. This
17 drafts serves to document the existing use and specification of
18 X-Frame-Options.
20 Status of this Memo
22 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
23 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
25 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
26 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
27 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
28 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
30 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
31 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
32 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
33 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
35 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4, 2013.
37 Copyright Notice
39 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
40 document authors. All rights reserved.
42 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
43 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
44 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
45 publication of this document. Please review these documents
46 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
47 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
48 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
49 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
50 described in the Simplified BSD License.
52 Table of Contents
54 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
55 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
56 2. X-Frame-Options Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
57 2.1. Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
58 2.2. Backus-Naur Form (BNF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
59 2.3. Design Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
60 2.3.1. Enable HTML content from other domains . . . . . . . . 5
61 2.3.2. Browser Behaviour and Processing . . . . . . . . . . . 5
62 2.4. Examples of X-Frame-Options Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
63 2.4.1. Example scenario for the ALLOW-FROM parameter . . . . . 6
64 3. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
65 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
66 4.1. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
67 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
68 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
69 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
70 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
71 Appendix A. Description of a Clickjacking attack . . . . . . . . . 8
72 A.1. Shop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
73 A.2. Confirm Purchase Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
74 A.3. Flash Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
75 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
77 1. Introduction
79 In 2009 and 2010 many browser vendors introduced the use of a non-
80 standard http header RFC 2616 [RFC2616] "X-Frame-Options" to protect
81 against Clickjacking [Clickjacking]. This draft is to document the
82 current use of X-Frame-Options header and shall in the future be
83 replaced by the Frame-Options (CSRF) [FRAME-OPTIONS] standard.
85 Existing anti-ClickJacking measures, e.g. Frame-breaking Javascript,
86 have weaknesses so that their protection can be circumvented as a
87 study [FRAME-BUSTING] demonstrated.
89 Short of configuring the browser to disable frames and script
90 entirely, which massively impairs browser utility, browser users are
91 vulnerable to this type of attack.
93 The "X-Frame-Options" allows a secure web page from host B to declare
94 that its content (for example a button, links, text, etc.) must not
95 be displayed in a frame of another page (e.g. from host A). In
96 principle this is done by a policy declared in the HTTP header and
97 obeyed by conform browser implementations.
99 1.1. Requirements Language
101 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
102 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
103 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
105 2. X-Frame-Options Header
107 The X-Frame-Options HTTP response header indicates a policy whether a
108 browser MUST NOT allow to render a page in a or