Hacker News Reader

Comment by joecot | Hacker News Reader

I'm a little confused by the examples for Access-Control-Allow-Origin:

> Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://www.one.site.com

> Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://www.two.site.com

And in the examples setting both. Because in my experience you cannot set multiple [1]. Lots of people instead set it to * which is both bad and restricts use of other request options (such as withCredentials). It looks like the current working solution is to use regexes to return the right domain [2], but I'm currently having trouble getting that to work, so if there's some better solution that works for people I'd love to hear it.

1. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CORS/Error... 2. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1653308/access-control-a...

View on HN

I think the problem that people are running into with CORS is that their webserver was created before CORS was a thing, so it's tough to configure it correctly. What you want to do is if you allow the provided Origin, echo it back in Access-Control-Allow-Origin.

Envoy has a plugin to do this (envoy.cors), allowing you to configure allowed origins the way people want (["*.example.com", "foo.com"]) and then emitting the right headers when a request comes in. It also emits statistics on how many requests were allowed or denied, so you can monitor that your rules are working correctly. If you are using something else, I recommend just having your web application do the logic and supply the right headers. (You should also be prepared to handle an OPTIONS request for CORS preflight.)

Sure, I wish web servers had better options for this. If you're trying to do it on the web server level it seems like the current solution is a regex with your list of approved origins vs the origin header, and then setting Access-Control-Allow-Origin to the matching one. But the current examples, showing just setting the header multiple times, will lead devs down the garden path. Unless I'm missing something, which I very much hope I am.

You are right that this article isn't going to enable someone to setup CORS correctly.

It is actually kind of weird that it's in here, because the other things they talk about add more security, but if you don't need CORS and you decide to just add it to your configuration for no reason, you actually now have less security. Especially if you return * for the allowed origin.

You are right on this - I thought you could set multiple sites by setting multiple headers, but it doesn't work that way, which I should have known because headers don't work that way in general...

The recommended way to do multiple sites seems to be to have the server read the request header, check it against a whitelist, then dynamically respond with it, which seems terrible.

Thanks for catching this - I updated the post to reflect this and make it more clear.

Actually, headers _do_ often work that way. HTTP says:

Multiple message-header fields with the same field-name MAY be present in a message if and only if the entire field-value for that header field is defined as a comma-separated list

Which applies to HTTP headers such as Cache-Control:, and probably goes back to the email RFCs allowing multiple To: headers.

It's just that Access-Control-Allow-Origin isn't defined to accept a comma list, just like Content-Security-Policy doesn't (which is another header breaking things if it appears more than once)

Headers usually work exactly that way. Cookies and cors are oddball exceptions

Reply on news.ycombinator.com