Security Interest Group - Activity in 2020
No matches.
GitHub
w3c/security-questionnaire
-
3 issues opened.
-
Supply chains can be trusted – with evidence w3c/security-questionnaire#113, by @jwrosewell.
-
Supply chains can be trusted – with evidence w3c/security-questionnaire#112, by @jwrosewell.
-
W3C antitrust policy prohibits this document in its current form w3c/security-questionnaire#111, by @jwrosewell.
-
-
3 issues closed.
-
W3C antitrust policy prohibits this document in its current form w3c/security-questionnaire#111.
-
Supply chains can be trusted – with evidence w3c/security-questionnaire#112.
-
Supply chains can be trusted – with evidence w3c/security-questionnaire#113.
-
-
3 issues received 22 new comments.
-
Supply chains can be trusted - expand document to consider this possibility w3c/security-questionnaire#83 (18 comments by @darobin, @joshuakoran, @jwrosewell, @plinss, @wseltzer)
-
W3C antitrust policy prohibits this document in its current form w3c/security-questionnaire#111 (3 comments by @lknik, @plinss, @wseltzer)
-
-
1 pull request received 2 new comments.
-
User from user's agent, and expanding third parties w3c/security-questionnaire#94 (2 comments by @jwrosewell)
-
GitHub
w3c/security-questionnaire
-
1 issue closed.
-
"feature" or "specification"? w3c/security-questionnaire#105.
-
-
1 issue received 2 new comments.
-
1 pull request opened.
-
point to a specific section of rfc3552 w3c/security-questionnaire#110, by @samuelweiler.
-
-
2 pull requests merged.
-
make use of spec and feature more consistant, fixes #105 w3c/security-questionnaire#109.
-
point to a specific section of rfc3552 w3c/security-questionnaire#110.
-
-
2 pull requests received 5 new comments.
-
make use of spec and feature more consistant, fixes #105 w3c/security-questionnaire#109 (3 comments by @hadleybeeman, @pes10k)
-
User from user's agent, and expanding third parties w3c/security-questionnaire#94 (2 comments by @hadleybeeman, @jwrosewell)
-
GitHub
w3c/security-questionnaire
-
2 pull requests opened.
-
make use of spec and feature more consistant, fixes #105 w3c/security-questionnaire#109, by @pes10k.
-
fix build w3c/security-questionnaire#108, by @samuelweiler.
-
-
1 pull request merged.
-
fix build w3c/security-questionnaire#108.
-
-
1 pull request received 18 new comments.
-
make use of spec and feature more consistant, fixes #105 w3c/security-questionnaire#109 (18 comments by @hober, @pes10k)
-
w3c/security-disclosure
-
1 issue closed.
-
SSRF to Internal Port scanning in w3.org ! w3c/security-disclosure#8.
-
-
1 issue received 1 new comment.
GitHub
w3c/security-questionnaire
-
6 issues opened.
-
do a toe to tip read and make a high level suggestion for what can be cut w3c/security-questionnaire#107, by @pes10k.
-
Add a section for preventing behaviours that are abusive toward users w3c/security-questionnaire#106, by @hadleybeeman.
-
"feature" or "specification"? w3c/security-questionnaire#105, by @samuelweiler.
-
2.9 (script loading) needs wrapper text w3c/security-questionnaire#104, by @samuelweiler.
-
2.16 (relaxed-sop) what are the bullet items? w3c/security-questionnaire#102, by @samuelweiler.
-
use automatic publishing w3c/security-questionnaire#101, by @samuelweiler.
-
-
3 issues received 8 new comments.
-
use automatic publishing w3c/security-questionnaire#101 (5 comments by @hober, @samuelweiler, @torgo, @ylafon)
-
do a toe to tip read and make a high level suggestion for what can be cut w3c/security-questionnaire#107 (2 comments by @pes10k, @samuelweiler)
-
Consider merging or retitling questions 2.1 and 2.8 w3c/security-questionnaire#97 (1 comment by @pes10k)
-
-
2 pull requests opened.
-
editorial + sec/priv sections rewrite + howto rewrite w3c/security-questionnaire#103, by @samuelweiler.
-
merge questions 2.1 and 2.8 w3c/security-questionnaire#100, by @pes10k.
-
-
2 pull requests merged.
-
editorial + sec/priv sections rewrite + howto rewrite w3c/security-questionnaire#103.
-
Revise 2.6 for clarity. w3c/security-questionnaire#98.
-
-
4 pull requests received 18 new comments.
-
User from user's agent, and expanding third parties w3c/security-questionnaire#94 (11 comments by @hober, @jwrosewell, @torgo)
-
New question: Does this specification allow an origin to send data to the underlying platform? Fixes #96. w3c/security-questionnaire#99 (3 comments by @marcoscaceres, @martinthomson)
-
editorial + sec/priv sections rewrite + howto rewrite w3c/security-questionnaire#103 (2 comments by @hober, @samuelweiler)
-
w3c/security-disclosure
-
1 issue opened.
-
SSRF to Internal Port scanning in w3.org ! w3c/security-disclosure#8, by @febinrev.
-
-
1 issue received 1 new comment.
GitHub
w3c/security-questionnaire
-
4 issues opened.
-
Consider merging or retitling questions 2.1 and 2.8 w3c/security-questionnaire#97, by @hober.
-
Lessons from sharing URLs w3c/security-questionnaire#96, by @marcoscaceres.
-
Rename master branch to main w3c/security-questionnaire#93, by @hober.
-
Incompatible with guidance on other concerns w3c/security-questionnaire#92, by @jwrosewell.
-
-
3 issues closed.
-
Bad (or good) behaviour by first parties w3c/security-questionnaire#84.
-
Incompatible with guidance on other concerns w3c/security-questionnaire#92.
-
Supply chains can be trusted - expand document to consider this possibility w3c/security-questionnaire#83.
-
-
1 issue reopened.
-
Bad (or good) behaviour by first parties w3c/security-questionnaire#84, by @hober.
-
-
7 issues received 22 new comments.
-
Supply chains can be trusted - expand document to consider this possibility w3c/security-questionnaire#83 (10 comments by @darobin, @joshuakoran, @jwrosewell, @pes10k, @torgo)
-
Bad (or good) behaviour by first parties w3c/security-questionnaire#84 (3 comments by @hober, @jwrosewell, @lknik)
-
Incompatible with guidance on other concerns w3c/security-questionnaire#92 (3 comments by @hober, @jwrosewell, @lknik)
-
Consider merging or retitling questions 2.1 and 2.8 w3c/security-questionnaire#97 (2 comments by @hober, @pes10k)
-
Explain how groups should address issues raised by the questionnaire in their specs w3c/security-questionnaire#88 (1 comment by @torgo)
-
-
4 pull requests opened.
-
New question: Does this specification allow an origin to send data to the underlying platform? Fixes #96. w3c/security-questionnaire#99, by @hober.
-
Revise 2.6 for clarity. w3c/security-questionnaire#98, by @hober.
-
Fix the build. w3c/security-questionnaire#95, by @hober.
-
User from user's agent, and expanding third parties w3c/security-questionnaire#94, by @jwrosewell.
-
-
3 pull requests merged.
-
Fix the build. w3c/security-questionnaire#95.
-
Revise questions 2.4 and 2.5 for clarity. w3c/security-questionnaire#91.
-
Revise questions 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 for ease of understanding. w3c/security-questionnaire#90.
-
-
4 pull requests received 22 new comments.
-
User from user's agent, and expanding third parties w3c/security-questionnaire#94 (15 comments by @brodrigu, @hober, @joshuakoran, @jwrosewell, @jyasskin, @torgo)
-
Revise questions 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 for ease of understanding. w3c/security-questionnaire#90 (2 comments by @hober, @torgo)
-
New question: Does this specification allow an origin to send data to the underlying platform? Fixes #96. w3c/security-questionnaire#99 (1 comment by @hober)
-
GitHub
w3c/security-questionnaire
-
1 issue received 5 new comments.
-
Supply chains can be trusted - expand document to consider this possibility w3c/security-questionnaire#83 (5 comments by @annevk, @jwrosewell, @pes10k, @torgo)
-
-
2 pull requests received 4 new comments.
-
Revise questions 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 for ease of understanding. w3c/security-questionnaire#90 (1 comment by @torgo)
GitHub
w3c/security-questionnaire
-
5 issues opened.
-
Explain how groups should address issues raised by the questionnaire in their specs w3c/security-questionnaire#88, by @pes10k.
-
Bias – needs to encompass a fuller set of considerations w3c/security-questionnaire#85, by @jwrosewell.
-
Bad (or good) behaviour by first parties w3c/security-questionnaire#84, by @jwrosewell.
-
Supply chains can be trusted - expand document to consider this possibility w3c/security-questionnaire#83, by @jwrosewell.
-
Revise Abstract, Introduction, and How To Use The Questionnaire sections w3c/security-questionnaire#82, by @torgo.
-
-
2 issues closed.
-
Bias – needs to encompass a fuller set of considerations w3c/security-questionnaire#85.
-
Revise Abstract, Introduction, and How To Use The Questionnaire sections w3c/security-questionnaire#82.
-
-
3 issues received 11 new comments.
-
Bad (or good) behaviour by first parties w3c/security-questionnaire#84 (6 comments by @dbaron, @jdwieland8282, @jwrosewell, @lknik)
-
Bias – needs to encompass a fuller set of considerations w3c/security-questionnaire#85 (4 comments by @lknik, @pbannist, @torgo)
-
Explain how groups should address issues raised by the questionnaire in their specs w3c/security-questionnaire#88 (1 comment by @annevk)
-
-
6 pull requests opened.
-
Revise questions 2.4 and 2.5 for clarity. w3c/security-questionnaire#91, by @hober.
-
Revise questions 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 for ease of understanding. w3c/security-questionnaire#90, by @hober.
-
Strip leading whitespace, and make other small tweaks w3c/security-questionnaire#89, by @hober.
-
Rewrite the Abstract and Introduction. w3c/security-questionnaire#87, by @hober.
-
Provide custom Bikeshed boilerplate since this is a joint TAG/PING publication. w3c/security-questionnaire#86, by @hober.
-
Use GitHub Actions instead of Travis-CI for publishing to gh-pages. w3c/security-questionnaire#81, by @hober.
-
-
4 pull requests merged.
-
Strip leading whitespace, and make other small tweaks w3c/security-questionnaire#89.
-
Rewrite the Abstract and Introduction. w3c/security-questionnaire#87.
-
Provide custom Bikeshed boilerplate since this is a joint TAG/PING publication. w3c/security-questionnaire#86.
-
Use GitHub Actions instead of Travis-CI for publishing to gh-pages. w3c/security-questionnaire#81.
-
-
4 pull requests received 44 new comments.
-
Rewrite the Abstract and Introduction. w3c/security-questionnaire#87 (22 comments by @alice, @hober, @lknik, @pes10k)
-
Revise questions 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 for ease of understanding. w3c/security-questionnaire#90 (14 comments by @alice, @hober)
-
Revise questions 2.4 and 2.5 for clarity. w3c/security-questionnaire#91 (5 comments by @hober, @pes10k)
-
Use GitHub Actions instead of Travis-CI for publishing to gh-pages. w3c/security-questionnaire#81 (3 comments by @dbaron, @hober)
-
GitHub
w3c/security-questionnaire
-
2 issues opened.
-
Privacy mitigations for identifiers w3c/security-questionnaire#79, by @wseltzer.
-
This repository should have the standard set of TAG milestones w3c/security-questionnaire#77, by @hober.
-
-
3 issues closed.
-
Geofencing link is not helpful w3c/security-questionnaire#61.
-
Should "drop the feature" be one of our recommended mitigation strategies w3c/security-questionnaire#48.
-
Cite the source of the "concrete privacy concerns" w3c/security-questionnaire#71.
-
-
3 issues received 6 new comments.
-
Cite the source of the "concrete privacy concerns" w3c/security-questionnaire#71 (1 comment by @hober)
-
6 pull requests opened.
-
Change status of this document to Editor's Draft. w3c/security-questionnaire#78, by @hober.
-
Clean up bikeshed source w3c/security-questionnaire#76, by @hober.
-
redoing this merge; nothing to see here w3c/security-questionnaire#75, by @hober.
-
Create .pr-preview.json w3c/security-questionnaire#74, by @jyasskin.
-
Cite RFC6973. w3c/security-questionnaire#73, by @hober.
-
Add some nuance to 'drop the feature' w3c/security-questionnaire#72, by @hober.
-
-
6 pull requests merged.
-
Change status of this document to Editor's Draft. w3c/security-questionnaire#78.
-
Clean up bikeshed source w3c/security-questionnaire#76.
-
Add some nuance to 'drop the feature' w3c/security-questionnaire#72.
-
Create .pr-preview.json w3c/security-questionnaire#74.
-
redoing this merge; nothing to see here w3c/security-questionnaire#75.
-
Cite RFC6973. w3c/security-questionnaire#73.
-
-
5 pull requests received 13 new comments.
-
Change status of this document to Editor's Draft. w3c/security-questionnaire#78 (2 comments by @cynthia, @pes10k)
GitHub
w3c/security-questionnaire
-
1 issue received 1 new comment.
-
Should "drop the feature" be one of our recommended mitigation strategies w3c/security-questionnaire#48 (1 comment by @floort)
-