Request.destination for <link rel=prefetch>

[yoavweiss]

As mentioned in w3c/resource-hints#66, there's no current Request.destination defined for prefetched resources. We should probably define such a destination, to be able to:

• Expose that destination to SW in a well-defined way.
• Potentially define a prefetch-specific CSP directive, e.g. prefetch-src as suggested in Specify behavior of prefetch requests w3c/webappsec-csp#107

[annevk]

Why does it need to be different from fetch() et al?

[annevk]

Maybe using initiator would be better if the purpose is just a unique CSP directive?

[mikewest]

It seems reasonable to me that we'd continue using destination in cases where we know how the data will be used: as provides this information, so when it's present, we should use it.

If we don't have that information, I'd be fine either doing the same thing we do for preload without as (which I think defaults to fetch, and therefore sits under connect-src), or defining a new initiator and directive to match (prefetch-src). I don't have a strong opinion about that, so I'm happy to defer to you folks who own that feature (though, if we do the latter, perhaps it should control preload without as as well?).

[yoavweiss]

Why does it need to be different from fetch() et al?

Presumably, a separate destination would enable SW code to know this fetch is speculative and destined for the next navigation. At the same time, I'm not aware of a concrete use-case for that.

Maybe using initiator would be better if the purpose is just a unique CSP directive?

For CSP that would work as well.

[yoavweiss]

The as attribute for prefetch is not implemented anywhere, and we're not likely to introduce it without breaking existing preloads, so I suspect it will go away :/

preload without as is no longer a thing - as is now mandatory for preload (too many people getting it wrong and double downloading). We create the "potential destination" concept that converts the "fetch" as value into the empty string destination.

I'm fine with folding prefetch onto the empty string destination and doing CSP using a separate initiator, at least until a strong use-case for a separate destination emerges.

[annevk]

prefetch is such a confusing name for "next navigation response", it gets me every time.

Will as ever be used for that? It seems like the destination would always be "document"?

[yoavweiss]

prefetch is not necessarily the next nav response, but is a resource destined for the next navigation (could also be its CSS, JS, etc)

[annevk]

I see, in that case we should leave the (destination) default as the empty string. I think initiator is the way to go to distinguish it as prefetch. (We could also add a separator initiator for preload if desired.)

If service workers want to know this information at some point we could expose initiator to script, though we should not do so until we've carefully scrutinized it as the existing values are limited to what we needed for specifications only.

[mikewest]

I continue not to understand why we have both preload and prefetch, and not to understand why they behave differently. But, assuming that we have them and there are good reasons, and they're not going away, it would be really excellent if y'all could take some time to explain their functionality in terms of Fetch so that the CSP integration just clearly falls out of that. :)

@yoavweiss: Can I ask you and @igrigorik to define some initiator values that make sense for the kinds of pre-whatever things we have lying around that go through Fetch? I don't have strong opinions about what they should be or how they should interact with each other, I just want something CSP can point to. :)

[yoavweiss]

@mikewest sure! I believe preload is well defined, and I don't think we need a specific initiator value for it.

prefetch is indeed not-well-defined atm, which is why I opened this issue :) I can PR Fetch to add a new initiator for it (that CSP can hang off of), and add the definition to Resource Hints to use that initiator, as well as the empty string destination.

OTOH, if we would eventually need to expose it to users, a new destination might be cleaner than exposing initiator IMO.

[mikewest]

@yoavweiss: Great! Some of these might be less Fetchy than others, but what about dns-prefetch, preconnect, prerender, modulepreload, and any of the other pieces of LinkRelAttribute::LinkRelAttribute() that route through Fetch? Are they defined in reasonable ways?

[annevk]

preload is not well-defined when it comes to Fetch integration... In particular the cache situation is rather unclear.

[yoavweiss]

what about dns-prefetch, preconnect, prerender, modulepreload

dns-prefetch and preconnect - do we want to block them using CSP or other means? Do they need to be integrated to Fetch?

prerender and next - I'm under the impression that they were unshipped in Blink and not necessarily implemented anywhere else. If that's the case, we can probably remove them from the spec.

modulepreload - tbh, I haven't followed that up too closely, but I believe @domenic was leading the charge on that definition, as part of HTML.

preload is not well-defined when it comes to Fetch integration... In particular the cache situation is rather unclear.

Yes, the caching situation is not well defined, similarly to the rest of the platform's caching. I agree that Someone™ should define that. I also think that properly defining it (while accounting for the current implementation differences) is a fairly large project. Personally, I'm afraid I won't be able to tackle in the near future.

[mikewest]

dns-prefetch and preconnect - do we want to block them using CSP or other means? Do they need to be integrated to Fetch?

Fetch defines various connection concepts: https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#connections, so preconnect probably falls in here somewhere (though not as a request, but as part of the "obtain a connection" algorithm.

It's not clear to me whether Fetch wants to talk about DNS. If not, dns-prefetch falls somewhere else.

It seems likely that folks who care about exfiltration would be interested in restricting both, as they clearly communicate to third-parties. I'd be fine with treating both as connect-src, though, so I don't think we need significant new conceptual definitions.

prerender and next

I've lost track of both of these, honestly. If we've unshipped them, would you mind removing the code? :)

modulepreload

If it's in HTML, I think I can safely assume that it's setting properties correctly.

[tomayac]

I think the use cases I have listed in #634 might equally qualify for the prefetch case. I’m not sure if prefetches while offline (that by default would fail, but could be handled from within a Service Worker) are an actual thing.

[yoavweiss]

@tomayac They could be, but how would you treat prefetches in this case differently than say, regular fetches?

[tomayac]

@yoavweiss One idea for a news publisher site might be to dynamically soft-fail most-viewed-article-type prefetches with a generic offline page.

[yoavweiss]

@tomayac I'm not sure I get the use case, and why would prefetched resources treated different than regular fetches in this case. If the prefetched resource is in Cache, is there a reason not to serve it? And if it's not in Cache, is there something different to be done between prefetched and non-prefetched resources?

[domenic]

modulepreload is exquisitely well-defined, if I may say so myself ;). It just reuses the script type=module fetching machinery.

[samuelhorwitz]

dns-prefetch definitely should be blockable by CSP rules, if CSP is going to expand into prefetch data exfiltration prevention, see here for a proof of concept: https://blog.compass-security.com/2016/10/bypassing-content-security-policy-with-dns-prefetching/

The attack is simply http://leakeddata.evildomain.com leaking secret data to the DNS server logs.

There already appears to be a non-standard header X-DNS-Prefetch-Control (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-DNS-Prefetch-Control). This however is a boolean which doesn't allow CSP-style fine tuning and I'm not really sure where it's even actually supported.

Edit: It appears that at least Chrome (http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/dns-prefetching) and Firefox (http://bitsup.blogspot.com/2008/11/dns-prefetching-for-firefox.html) support the X-DNS-Prefetch-Control header. However the blog post about Firefox claims the value can be switched on and off by introducing new <meta> tags however it's from 2008 and not and official FF resource. The Chromium blog explicitly says this behavior is not allowed and once turned off, it cannot be turned back on on that page.

[tomayac]

@yoavweiss Sorry, I was over-complicating things. You're right, you could still deal with the current network situation once the actual fetch happens, ignoring what may have happened during the prefetch.

[annevk]

For clarity, dns-prefetch and preconnect concerns are tracked by w3c/webappsec-csp#282 and #683.

I filed w3c/resource-hints#75 on X-DNS-Prefetch-Control.

This issue will be resolved once #659 lands. Additional review of that appreciated.

If there's anything else remaining here I strongly encourage you to file a new issue. It's rather crowded already.