• stargrazer 16 minutes ago

So.. you've written up what you checked, and what didn't match what ever criteria you had.

But.. what does it mean? Why enforce certain headers? Why enforce certain options? There is a section which kinda looks at this, but not really.

You have a bunch of links at the end for resources, but why not just provide the rationale for each rule or option inclusion in the article as well? What does each prevent or allow and why?

• aetherspawn 35 minutes ago

It’s ridiculous that the answer to a secure web is for everyone to sprinkle the magic salt and not something on the browser side

• rackcrunch 13 minutes ago

Referrer-Policy shows it can work. When the header is missing, browsers fall back to strict-origin-when-cross-origin. 86.6% of the sites we scanned don't send it, and we didn't count that as a failure for that reason. The other headers don't have a safe default like that yet.

• axospaxos 2 minutes ago

That sounds more like it is a condemnation of all these other headers that can't work for 86.6% of sites by requiring nothing.

• alserio 21 minutes ago

we'd need an epoch like reset to good defaults

• aetherspawn 10 minutes ago

For important issues like security - just break the web, it will adjust.

• GaProgMan 28 minutes ago

And if any of the websites use .NET, they can get almost all of the recommended security headers in one line by using a NuGet package I created: https://gaprogman.github.io/OwaspHeaders.Core/

• fitsumbelay 14 minutes ago

for static sites on a VPS it's fair to expect the host to provision these, yes?

• n4pw01f an hour ago

Nice work! You gave me something to fix!!

• tumdum_ 35 minutes ago

Sadly non of it was written by a human being.

• rackcrunch a few seconds ago

Fair. The study is backed by a human being who stands behind every number. And absolutely, use whatever tool you like.

• rackcrunch 13 minutes ago

Thanks, glad it helped!