5 comments

  • stargrazer 22 minutes ago
    So.. you've written up what you checked, and what didn'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?

  • aetherspawn 40 minutes ago
    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
    • rackcrunch 19 minutes ago
      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.
      • axospaxos 8 minutes ago
        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.
    • alserio 27 minutes ago
      we'd need an epoch like reset to good defaults
      • aetherspawn 16 minutes ago
        For important issues like security - just break the web, it will adjust.
  • GaProgMan 34 minutes ago
    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: https://gaprogman.github.io/OwaspHeaders.Core/
  • fitsumbelay 20 minutes ago
    for static sites on a VPS it's fair to expect the host to provision these, yes?
  • n4pw01f 57 minutes ago
    Nice work! You gave me something to fix!!
    • tumdum_ 40 minutes ago
      Sadly non of it was written by a human being.
      • rackcrunch 7 minutes ago
        Fair. The study is backed by a human being who stands behind every number. And absolutely, use whatever tool you like.
    • rackcrunch 19 minutes ago
      Thanks, glad it helped!