Webcontentsecuritypolicy

Content Security Policy

CSP limits which code a browser may execute, buying a second boundary after an output-encoding defect.

Follow the failure

Frame the problem

Security starts with a concrete asset, attacker capability and trust crossing.

Asset
The browser execution environment.
Attacker & capability
An attacker who found an HTML injection or unsafe DOM sink.
Trust boundary
Rendered document → executable resource
AssetThreatAttack SurfaceTrust BoundaryVulnerabilityExploit PathImpactMitigationDefense in DepthResidual Risk

Why the system fails

The policy allows broad sources, unsafe inline execution, or is treated as the primary XSS fix instead of a backstop.

The important question is not “what is Content Security Policy?” but “which assumption let untrusted data or an over-scoped identity cross rendered document → executable resource?” Trace the decision at the boundary, then constrain what can happen after the first control fails.

Design the control in layers

Start with the control closest to the interpretation or privilege boundary: Start with report-only, then enforce a nonce/hash policy Then add a control that reduces blast radius and telemetry that proves the decision was enforced.

The resulting design is not labelled secure. Record the identified controls, the known failure paths, the remaining exposure, and the evidence you would need during an incident.

PreventDetectRecover
Start with report-only, then enforce a nonce/hash policy · Remove unsafe inline and broad wildcard sources · Keep output encoding as the primary controlCollect and triage CSP violation reportsContain the affected identity or component, scope impact from audit evidence, and preserve a regression test.

Key points

  • Asset: The browser execution environment.
  • Boundary: Rendered document → executable resource
  • Primary control: Start with report-only, then enforce a nonce/hash policy
  • Detection signal: Collect and triage CSP violation reports
  • Always ask what limits damage when the primary control fails.

Follow the attack

Safe conceptual simulation: capability → missing control → crossed boundary → asset impact.

  1. 1
    Attacker starts with: An attacker who found an HTML injection or unsafe DOM sink.
  2. 2
    The policy allows broad sources, unsafe inline execution, or is treated as the primary XSS fix instead of a backstop.
  3. 3
    The weak or missing boundary control is crossed: Rendered document → executable resource
  4. 4
    Impact: A surviving injection can execute with the application origin.
Blast radius
  • A surviving injection can execute with the application origin.

Defend, detect, recover

One prevention is a single point of security failure. Layer it and make failure observable.

Prevent
  • • Start with report-only, then enforce a nonce/hash policy
  • • Remove unsafe inline and broad wildcard sources
  • • Keep output encoding as the primary control
Detect
  • • Collect and triage CSP violation reports
Respond & recover
  • • Contain the affected identity or component.
  • • Scope access from audit evidence.
  • • Fix the boundary and add a regression test.
Residual risk
  • • Misconfiguration and new access paths can bypass the intended control.
  • • A privileged insider or compromised control plane may still reach the asset.

Misconceptions

Claim
“A single start with report-only, then enforce a nonce/hash policy control makes this safe.”
Reality
One control changes risk; it does not erase it. Design prevention, detection, recovery, and blast-radius limits together.