today at 9:55 PM
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?
today at 10:16 PM
[flagged]
today at 9:36 PM
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
today at 9:58 PM
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.
today at 10:08 PM
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.
today at 10:17 PM
[dead]
today at 9:49 PM
we'd need an epoch like reset to good defaults
today at 10:00 PM
For important issues like security - just break the web, it will adjust.
today at 9:42 PM
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/
today at 9:19 PM
Nice work! You gave me something to fix!!
today at 9:36 PM
Sadly non of it was written by a human being.
today at 10:10 PM
Fair. The study is backed by a human being who stands behind every number. And absolutely, use whatever tool you like.
today at 9:58 PM
Thanks, glad it helped!
today at 9:57 PM
for static sites on a VPS it's fair to expect the host to provision these, yes?
today at 10:17 PM
[dead]