Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
The popular content blocking extension uBlock Origin blocks CSP reporting on websites that make use of it if it injects neutered scripts.
CSP, Content Security Policy, can be used by web developers to whitelist code that is allowed to run on web properties. The idea behind the feature is to prevent attackers from injecting JavaScript on websites protected by CSP.
CSP reports any attempt of interfering with the site's policies in regards to scripts to the webmaster. This happens when users connect to the site, and is used by webmasters to analyze and resolve the detected issues.
[...] Raymond Hill, the developer of uBlock Origin, replied stating that this was not a bug but by design. The extension blocks the sending of CSP reports if it injects a neutered Google Analytics script.
Source: https://www.ghacks.net/2017/10/19/ublock-criticized-for-blocking-csp/
(Score: 3, Informative) by FakeBeldin on Monday October 23 2017, @12:31PM (3 children)
Case in point:
The security feature enabled by CSP reporting (i.e.: fixing the site) isn't dependent on one user. It's dependent on at least one of the users doing it, not on all.
On the other hand, the security feature of uBlock origin is to block. So whenever uBlock fails to block, it fails.
Given that uBlock's market penetration is ridiculously low, the chance that the only visitors to your site who would trigger CSP reporting are uBlock users is infinitesimal. I.e., this is an absolute non-issue.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Monday October 23 2017, @03:05PM (2 children)
Testing using the CSPRO header depends on at least one user viewing each individual document. But a lot of sites are so big that one user rarely if ever sees the whole thing, resulting in incomplete test coverage. So yes, you may need multiple users to hit different subsets of the documents on a site.
If the majority of your users end up using other ad or script blockers that have the same bug as UBO, that could cause poor coverage as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @05:49PM
Multiple!= all. All non-UBO users should be sufficient.
It's not a bug. It's a properly implemented security and privacy feature.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 23 2017, @06:25PM
Only a few hackers in the world are interested in pwning that just one person who happens to be viewing a particular document on a website that nobody else in the world is interested in.
And if that person is running ublock I think he would want everything blocked, including reports.
If that person isn't running ublock and got pwned I don't think he cares that the website got a CSP violation report or not.
If that person wasn't pwned but his browser noticed the attempted CSP violation, I think that person would want the browser to notify him and stop running anything else from that site. His browser sending reports and more data to that site is not what he would want. If he wishes he can go tell the site himself, but given that he's the only one in the world being targeted I think he has more important things to do (like maybe leave the country ;) ).
If that person was a security researcher testing the site, he should be getting the report from the browser side (e.g. click on "violation details"). Not from the browser telling the server side "guess what my user nearly got pwned". That's how it would work if the browser makers and standards bodies were actually interested in security and not more insidious ways for tracking people.