> Supply chain - a third-party script file that a site loads is infected with malware, and is then loaded on to the site, exposing all visitors.
I already know many will disagree, but this is far too vague for your answer to make much sense. The list of 15k websites isn't given.
Most websites have at least one analytics script. Some of the biggest vendor names in that space have known XSS issues via nonce reuse that they aren't going to fix because it threatens their entire business model.
You usually get the whole clown car as soon as you allow one 3rd-party script for relatively innocent use cases like wanting a heatmap of user interaction.
You should fully expect that such a blacklist would take out most, if not all, of the websites you use every day. The security model for 3rd party scripts tends to be "trust me bro, we're $bigname"
[–] telebub 1 day ago
[–] Catloafdev 1 day ago
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
[–] treadmill 1 day ago
I would agree with that.
[–] jeremyjh 5 hours ago
[–] sublinear 3 hours ago
This is not necessarily malicious behavior nor incompetence, unless you consider putting ads on a website incompetence. This problem has been festering for well over a decade.
[–] phyzome 1 day ago
[–] sublinear 1 day ago
The blame game isn't going to solve this. Blaming it entirely on the website owners/maintainers is only treating the symptoms instead of the disease.
[–] phyzome 1 day ago
[–] sublinear 1 day ago
[–] jeremyjh 5 hours ago
[–] sublinear 4 hours ago
Hardly anyone ever thinks about this despite it being a gaping hole. For all the whining I've ever heard about package managers like npm, this one is even uglier and likely being exploited right now. Its dynamic behavior is by design making it very hard to reliably demonstrate when it's being exploited, but it's a hole nonetheless.
It's perfectly actionable to stop using 3rd party scripts the way I outlined in a reply to a sibling comment. I'm not sure what else you need me to say.
It's very simple. Don't open up your web server's content security policy to domains that you "trust" just because a big name company tells you to. The only rub is that it directly contradicts all the instructions every analytics/ad provider gives for their scripts. Is that the real reason why you're saying it's "not actionable"?
[–] renehsz 1 day ago
[–] sublinear 1 day ago
The scripts should be 100% static files hosted by the same origin and not be obfuscated. These scripts should not make additional requests to inject even more scripts that cannot be known until run time and are specific to that targeted visitor. These scripts should be released in the usual semver tradition with matching hashes that never change without the explicit action by the same domain that the user actually visited (making the nonce obsolete).
Like I said, this is a very old debate with a very simple solution whose only problem is that it breaks the business model of a multi-billion dollar idea. Not only would this tighten up security, but your favorite websites wouldn't lag so hard anymore either. The vast majority of complaints about the web being slow are from the dozens of HTTP requests constantly being made behind your back. This is exactly why so many users feel forced to use an adblocker even though that doesn't always work.
[–] phyzome 13 hours ago
Maybe if the site owners experience their sites going down due to this they'll look for some alternatives.