Index: chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/contentSecurityPolicy.html |
diff --git a/chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/contentSecurityPolicy.html b/chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/contentSecurityPolicy.html |
index e8849dca0fa0bd4d62944e72ad8adb028dce93b6..6432e8df50cd1cecd35c2e8bb94603c481bd35b4 100644 |
--- a/chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/contentSecurityPolicy.html |
+++ b/chrome/common/extensions/docs/static/contentSecurityPolicy.html |
@@ -225,14 +225,16 @@ popup.html: |
<p> |
If, on the other hand, you have a need for some external JavaScript or object |
resources, you can relax the policy to a limited extent by whitelisting |
- specific HTTPS origins from which scripts should be accepted. Whitelisting |
- insecure HTTP resources will have no effect. This is intentional, because |
- we want to ensure that executable resources loaded with an extension's |
- elevated permissions is exactly the resource you expect, and hasn't been |
- replaced by an active network attacker. As <a |
+ secure origins from which scripts should be accepted. We want to ensure that |
+ executable resources loaded with an extension's elevated permissions are |
+ exactly the resources you expect, and haven't been replaced by an active |
+ network attacker. As <a |
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack">man-in-the-middle |
- attacks</a> are both trivial and undetectable over HTTP, only HTTPS origins |
- will be accepted. |
+ attacks</a> are both trivial and undetectable over HTTP, those origins will |
+ not be accepted. <code>HTTPS</code>, on the other hand, secures the resources' |
Aaron Boodman
2012/07/30 08:45:11
I think it would be better to replace the last sen
|
+ transport over the network, so we allow those origins in a relaxed policy. |
+ <code>chrome-extension</code> and <code>chrome-extension-resource</code> |
+ resources never touch the network, so they're allowed as well. |
</p> |
<p> |