You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Knowing that subresource integrity is a security feature, I would expect that when the value of the attribute "integrity" is malformed, the script/stylesheet supposed to be loaded would be blocked. But if I forget to specify the algorithm (shaXXX) and write anything for the hash value(correct or false one) then the integrity attribute is ignored and the ressource is loaded. Why did you choose this implementation ?
As an example : in this program, the ressource won't be blocked :
Perhaps it would have been worth it to consider the case of it not containing any supported hash algorithms in a special manner, but that might also make agility more cumbersome in practice.
Knowing that subresource integrity is a security feature, I would expect that when the value of the attribute "integrity" is malformed, the script/stylesheet supposed to be loaded would be blocked. But if I forget to specify the algorithm (shaXXX) and write anything for the hash value(correct or false one) then the integrity attribute is ignored and the ressource is loaded. Why did you choose this implementation ?
As an example : in this program, the ressource won't be blocked :
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: