[chickopozo]

I commented on the page why the author should not give security advice.

You should use a different domain as there are tricks to leverage arbitrary js on a subdomain.

Sandboxing is to help protect the client from arbitrary crap. It was never intended to protect the server.

And as for UI Redressing (aka ClickJacking) browsers that support the sandbox attribute must support X-Frame-Options.

[sitharus]

I left the page more confused than when I started. The argument seems to string together a bunch of things that don't seem quite related.

Sure, a one new thing without the other new things it expects is bad, but older browsers won't support any of them and the old thing will still work.

[tptacek]

The problem is that some sites, either because they were designed before XFO or because they made the mistake of assuming they had to do either JS or XFO but not both, rely entirely on JS to prevent reframing.

So there is a scenario in which browser support for sandboxed frames could cause problems for preexisting websites.

[homakov]

exactly, and vk.com (biggest social network in europe) is a showcase. They use such framebreaker:

   if (parent && parent != window && (browser.msie || browser.opera || browser.mozilla || browser.chrome || browser.safari || browser.iphone)) {
      document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0].innerHTML = '';
    }

It cannot be bypassed with NoContent trick by the way. Because it removes body, not navigates the parent

[tptacek]

Isn't that exactly the kind of framebuster Boneh says doesn't work?

[homakov]

I don't think so, what bypasses this one? (besides sandbox and XSS Auditor trick)

[tptacek]

Read the paper I posted up thread.

[esailija]

What are the browser checks for?

[chickopozo]

TL;DR Author is wrong about clickjacking and sandboxing is a good thing.

[kevingadd]

You failed to address his realistic criticism that many websites are not yet using X-Frame-Options. Browsers that introduce the sandbox feature have now broken those sites' security.

[shardling]

I'm not sure what you mean -- how can the browser possibly break the sites security?

I understand that English is not everyone's first language, but I honestly had a hard time parsing the linked post.

[moonboots]

Sandbox iframes allow disabling javascript in a frame, which disables framebusting protection [1] used by sites like vk.com. The better way to framebust is to add the header 'x-frame-options: deny', which isn't broken by html5 sandboxes.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framekiller

[homakov]

Obviously he meant turning of JS made clickjacking feasible again for many websites. Why u pretend to not understand that? Are u kind of html5 moralist?

[homakov]

how can i be wrong about clickjacking? I use XFO. I pointed out obvious thing - not everyone uses XFO.

Sandbox COULD be a good thing. Eventually it's evil