|
|
|
|
|
by infinity0
3923 days ago
|
|
This is more convenient but less secure than a straight-up hash. If an attacker compromises the JQuery signing key, they could still serve malicious files. With a hash, the authenticity is ONLY dependant on the TLS connection to the main website, e.g. github. TL;DR: * hash: need to compromise the main website, that supplies (and authenticates) the hash * signature by CDN: attacker can either compromise the main website OR <del>the third party CDN</del> <ins>author/signer of the third-party resource</ins> (edit: correction as pointed out by response) |
|
Of course it's a trade off. For stuff like Google Fonts, the Facebook like button etc I'd expect that hashes won't become common, because the effort of publishing changed hashes and embedding them into sites is to big.