From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from srv1.stroeder.com (srv1.stroeder.com [213.240.180.113]) by mail.toke.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B64E7D4B9C for ; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 22:09:51 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: mail.toke.dk; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=stroeder.com header.i=@stroeder.com header.b=U2jpq8Gh DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=stroeder.com; s=stroeder-com-20201114; t=1611781790; bh=ohwHuFeaczSKaLQeR2VgCxCLvJjFLwaoqDev+CgCpc4=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=U2jpq8GhCTlvnCEfJp04jYx9C+dWYWFIF97Bhk+COEOJvmtWv/tnaQKQlVcLqjeqy cUWs9vwxO5MomhATkR0l2oXvLujL98F+m0+JQeaQ1m/JD15pHdSZxbXHVY8MnTgKlx c/VyCuK1wnGbQ7RlVuRZ7hh+lq8DlPPONrnBM/q2lArWq1sG/vGTs9s7uRIZnpQe7u gwfUkEH4gP29ydv9WaxUv2cJkQ6mCxf1Z+wKrLyF/MTuj7xr71pL2QBd0qs To: galene@lists.galene.org References: <2fdb1db7-27f7-c23d-f2ca-11b9c59db125@stroeder.com> <87pn1q9mc9.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87o8ha9m7g.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87k0ry9l86.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_Str=c3=b6der?= Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 22:09:49 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87k0ry9l86.wl-jch@irif.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID-Hash: ZPELLPKEIBCBO5ATVNSSKLDMPGS2G5KY X-Message-ID-Hash: ZPELLPKEIBCBO5ATVNSSKLDMPGS2G5KY X-MailFrom: michael@stroeder.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.2 Precedence: list Subject: [Galene] Re: "This operation is insecure" List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Gal=C3=A8ne_videoconferencing_server_discussion_list?= Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 1/27/21 9:30 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >>>> It looks like some versions of Mobile Safari don't like our >>>> Content-Security-Policy header. >>> >>> Did the user try to enable a filter? > >> Probably not. > > Hmm... are you running behind a reverse proxy? Is the reverse proxy > modifying our CSP header? Yes. But even unsetting this did not help in a individual test with one user with Safari running on an older laptop. Well, this particular user is a non-technical person and I'm not 100% sure whether page was really reloaded or whether it was read from browser cache. Ciao, Michael.