<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://wiki.whatwg.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Roberthahn</id>
	<title>WHATWG Wiki - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://wiki.whatwg.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Roberthahn"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Roberthahn"/>
	<updated>2026-04-30T08:04:22Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.39.3</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://wiki.whatwg.org/index.php?title=Talk:Sanitization_rules&amp;diff=2405</id>
		<title>Talk:Sanitization rules</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://wiki.whatwg.org/index.php?title=Talk:Sanitization_rules&amp;diff=2405"/>
		<updated>2007-08-10T12:55:23Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Roberthahn: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Is the data URI scheme safe? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Rob Sayre says no and refers to a wikipedia article; however, I cannot see anything in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data:_URI_scheme article] that indicates the scheme is not safe.&lt;br /&gt;
** Looking at that wikipedia page, &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;data&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt; could only be added if it were followed by an asterisk, kinda like the 756* that I see popping up all over the place these days.  In particular, I don&#039;t see the use case which would justify the investment in sanitizing &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;text/html&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt; encoded as a data URI.  Not that it would be difficult, just hard to justify.  Perhaps a section could be added which lists safe content types when included in data URIs. -- [[User:Rubys|Rubys]] 03:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
* Data URIs should be santizable on a per-MIME type basis.  Until a vulnerability is found for text/plain mime types data URIs should be allowed, but other MIME types should be not allowed by default.  Other, safer types could then be allowed via white list. -- [[User:Enricopulatzo|Enricopulatzo]] 16:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
** The word &amp;quot;default&amp;quot; puzzles me here.  The common use case here is small GIFs, JPEGs, and PNGs to be directly embedded in places like CSS and &amp;lt;img&amp;gt; tags.  If the associated MIME-types were to be white listed, under what condition would they &#039;&#039;&#039;not&#039;&#039;&#039; be allowed through? -- [[User:Rubys|Rubys]] 10:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Regarding the CSS &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;url()&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I understand the proposal, all &amp;lt;code&amp;gt;url()&amp;lt;/code&amp;gt; properties are stripped or ignored.  Why is this important?  If it&#039;s to keep people from linking to malicious scripts only, then you&#039;ve made it difficult for designers to link in background images.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could we not dereference the URI to determine if it&#039;s safe (ie: a valid image, not a script).  &amp;quot;Safe&amp;quot; files are then stored on the server doing the sanitization, preventing users from swapping the innocent resource for a malicious one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Roberthahn|Roberthahn]] 12:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Roberthahn</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>